Cataloging in Publication Program Update

1. Cataloging in Publication Program Update ALA Summer Conference Chicago, Illinois June 24th, 2017 Caroline Saccucci

2. Agenda • CIP FY16 Final Statistics and CIP FY17 Statistics through May 31st • CIP E-books • ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program • 2017 CIP Data Block Survey • Collaboration with Harvard for OAQ • Replacement for the ECIP Traffic Manager • ECIP Cataloging Contract • ECIP Backlog Working Group • Requirement for Summaries • Questions and Answers

3. CIP FY16 Final Statistics • ECIP bibliographic records created: 55,807 • ECIP participating publishers: 5,423 • ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program: 7,685 ECIPs • EPCNs processed: 54,090 • EPCN participating publishers: 72,760 • Total monographs received (ECIP and EPCN): 93,642 • Total value of monographs received: Approx. $9.3 million

4. CIP FY17 Statistics through May 31st • ECIP bibliographic records created • 36,116 Total • On track to process approx. 54,000 ECIPs in FY17 • ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program • 4,913 Total • On track for partners to process approx. 7,700 ECIPs in FY17

5. CIP E-books • As of May 31, 2017 (totals since July 2014) • 28,730 metadata records created for CIP e-books that LC can request for the collections • 825 publishers have joined the CIP e-book program • 49 publishers currently sending LC their e-books • 7,804 e-books have been ingested • FY16 target was to create bib records for 5,000 e-books • Actual created in FY16 was 12,062 e-book bib records • No FY17 metadata target, but already at 9,978 • FY17 target to ingest 4,000 e-books • 1,220 e-books ingested as of May 31, 2017 • FY17 internal goal to establish 70 e-book publishers accounts • June 2017 “SWAT” effort to reach out to 200 publishers • CIP e-books currently suppressed within LC catalog • LC’s Office of the Chief Information Officer looking at access broadly to develop technology • CIP e-book records are disseminated to OCLC and other providers through LC channels • Valued by OCLC and vendors for their high quality

6. ECIP Cataloging Partnership Program • 34 current partners • NACO membership only requirement • Met the FY16 target for 5 new partners and 5 new subject areas/publishers • PARTNERS • Abilene Christian University • Mississippi State University • Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary • University of Iowa • University of Maryland • SUBJECTS/PUBLISHERS • University of Chicago—Egyptology and Medieval Philosophy • Georgetown University—Middle Eastern Studies • UNC, Chapel Hill—History of the South • Harvard—Harvard-Harvard Education Press and Harvard Business Review Press

7. 2017 CIP Data Block Survey • Survey released in January 2017 via several email lists to learn if users prefer the new CIP data block layout • 260 responses received, primarily from academic, school, and public libraries • Survey results were overall positive • 85% of respondents and 100% of school libraries found the new layout “useful”, “rather useful”, or “very useful,” especially: • Labeled layout • Additional subject terms and classifications • Inclusion of both print and electronic data elements

8. Collaboration with Harvard for OAQ • The CIP Program is collaborating with Harvard University Library to implement Harvard’s Online Author Questionnaire (OAQ). • OAQ is a web application that automates the way publishers gather author data prior to publication of a title and then enables libraries to use that information to create and update name authority metadata. • CIP is working with Harvard during the pilot phase. • CIP and Harvard will collaboratively promote OAQ to publishers.

9. Replacement for the ECIP Traffic Manager • Consolidated Traffic Manager contract terminated for government convenience in December 2016 • Plans to work with OCIO for a replacement to Traffic Manager • $500,000 allocated for this project • Work to be done by CIP staff, OCIO staff, and on-site contractors • In the solicitation process • CIP and PCN Programs only • ISSN not part of this development

10. ECIP Cataloging Contract • Created to assist with growing backlogs • $100,000 allocated for this one-year project with 4 option years • Expectation is 4,380 ECIP bib records created by contractor in the 1st year • Requirements: • Work as a virtual team in the ECIP Traffic Manager • Work off-site if the contractor can access OCLC Connexion, so we can FTP the records into LC’s Voyager database, or work on site in Voyager • Create full-level RDA records for English-language materials • Create and update name authority records in the LC/NACO Name Authority File • Assign LSCH and LCC • Assign Sears subject headings • Currently in solicitation phase

11. ECIP Backlog Working Group • Established in May 2016 to review and discuss the reasons for the growing ECIP work on hand and propose recommendations • Plan to work through the end of September 2017 and prepare a report for the Director of Acquisitions and Bibliographic Access • Focus on these areas: • Internal controls at the section level • Workflow • Automation • Adjustments to CIP Program requirements such as scope • Publisher requirements • Staffing/Staff Sharing • Meanwhile, extra telework day reinstated until September 2017

12. Requirement for Summaries • As part of brainstorming about how to handle backlogs…. • Should the CIP Program require ALL publishers to include a summary of the book on the CIP applications for assistance with subject cataloging? • Already have policies and guidelines for the voluntary publisher-provided summaries for inclusion in bib records. • The summary should be brief. A length of no more than fifty (50) words is recommended; often one sentence or phrase is sufficient. • The summary should present an unbiased point-of-view and not represent the opinion of the publisher or author. Do not use subjective words or phrases that may be promotional or judgmental – e.g., "best", "most creative", "remarkable". • Specific terms, names of people, geographical areas, and time periods should be used in summaries as appropriate. • Avoid using words and phrases that indicate the currency of a work, e.g., latest, state-of-the-art, newest, most recent, because summaries will be used for years. • Use Standard English and correct English grammar. • Do not use profane or obscene language. • Do we require ALL publishers to comply?

13. Questions and Answers

14. Thank You!