Determining Duplicate Records

Libraries Australia Duplicates

Guidelines for Monographs

Contents


Introduction

Duplicate removal entails thetransfer of holdings from one record to another and then deletion of the non-preferred record. The immutable number of the deleted record is manually transferred to the preferred record so that local systems can recognise that a replacement has occurred.

When In Doubt, Leave It Out

If there is any doubt about whether a record is a duplicate or not, do not regard it as a duplicate. Remember that the duplicate removal process also transfers Libraries Australia users' contributed holdings. If a record that is not a duplicate is accidentally replaced it is very difficult to recreate the original record and practically impossible to transfer back its holdings. If you suspect a particular record is a duplicate, report it to the National Bibliographic Database staff for review and resolution via e-mail or on the Duplicate Records Submission Form as appropriate.

Duplicate Records Reports

With the introduction of the Duplicate Records Submission Form , this has become the default standard.

There are two categories of duplicate reports:
[a] monographs
[b] serials

These guidelines describe the identification of duplicate monographs only. If you discover that the suspected duplicates you have found are serials, mark them clearly as serials in the box marked "Comments and other information" on the Duplicate Records Submission Form.

Guidelines To Identify Duplicate Monographs

Please bear in mind the following guidelines when you come across suspected duplicates during the course of your work:

Further Guidelines To Establish A Match Or Mismatch

The following are further guidelines to assist you in deciding whether or not a match exists. In all cases the assumption is that the records match in all other respects.

Additional publisher and place in one record. For example:
260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan,$c1980.
260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan;$aNew York :$bRandom,$c1980.

Consider that a match exists.

Different place, same publisher and date. For example:
260 $aIlfracombe :$bWhite Systems,$c1980.
260 $aDevon :$bWhite Systems,$c1980.
Ilfracombe is in Devon.

Consider that a match exists.

The 260 fields are the same, except that one has a 'g' subfield (printing date). For example:
260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan,$c1976.
260 $aLondon :$bMcMillan,$c1976$g(1980 printing)

Consider that a match exists.

Note: For National Bibliography records only, consider that a match does not exist.

300 fields may have different videorecording formats as, for example, 'Beta', 'VHS' etc.

Consider that a match does not exist.

One is a large print edition.

Consider that a match does not exist.

Monograph and/or serial treatment by preference.
Participants may elect to treat titles in the yearbook/directory category as either monographs or serials according to their acquisition policies. Therefore both monograph and serial records for such titles will be found on Libraries Australia and should be allowed to co-exist.

Consider that a match does not exist.

Different 020 field
When records are identical except for ISBN regard them as separate records not duplicates unless you can determine one is for the paperback and the other for the hardback

Parliamentary paper series
A duplicate does not exist if one record has a series statement for 'parliamentary paper' and the other does not.

Presence of a 533 field
The 533 field identifies the record as a microform. As many LC records do not include a GMD, it is important to look for indications of material type and format.

Do not confuse this record with the hard copy record.

Format of catalogue records.
When deciding if duplicates exist, please keep in mind that items belonging to two or more distinct classes of material may be catalogued in the format which brings out aspects of the material to be emphasised. For example, a map serial may be catalogued as a map with serial qualities, or as a printed serial with map qualities.

Do not treat these records as duplicates.

Deciding Which Is The Preferred Record

Once you have decided that the records are indeed duplicates, it would be most helpful were you to indicate which record is the preferred one.


Take the following guidelines into consideration when making your decision:

In general, follow the bumping hierarchy for bibliographic records on Libraries Australia; the record higher in the priority would be chosen in most cases. See the bumping hierarchy table at the end of these guidelines. The bumping hierarchy codes will be present in the 040 tag.
When comparing full records, generally select the fuller record.
Prefer the record with the correct record type.
If everything else is equal, choose to keep, in this order:
the record with the higher verification level;
the record with the higher encoding level;
the record which came onto the database first, namely, the record with the lower AN number.
Note:To check a record's verification level, you will need to go through the Libraries Australia Client, using the ABS MARC Display.

Virtual Bumping Hierarchy For Bibliographic Records On Libraries Australia

The following is an order of precedence for retention of records in Libraries Australia.

Participant Original Cataloguing (Completed High-Level)

ANB
NZNB
Blackwells (OrLoB)
LC or DLC (except encoding level 5 & 7)
NLC

Participant Original Cataloguing (Non-High Level)

NZOC
QMS (Queenslandiana)
SNB
RLIN (CStRLIN)
OCLC (OCoLC)
Libraries Australia retrospective records
BNB (BDS)
LC or DLC encoding level 5 & 7
ZVUC (Vietnamese Union Catalogue)
ABN interim migrated records