Metadata, Operations, Technology

The Ebook MARC Record Working Group

Introduction

The Ebook MARC Record Working Group has been an enjoyable, interesting, and especially productive Collections Services collaboration with the numbers to prove it. The working group formed in early 2023 to plan and prioritize a series of projects to improve DUL’s ebook MARC record policies, workflows, lifecycle management, and documentation.

The Duke libraries jointly hold over 3.29 million ebooks in their collections, and managing ebook records is a workflow that depends on multiple departments within Collections Services. This includes ebooks acquired monographically (via GOBI, international publishers, and other suppliers) by Monograph Acquisitions, ebook packages acquired by E-Resources & Serials Acquisitions, the oversight of bibliographic record quality and several specific local record projects by Resource Description, and the batch loading and systematic processing of ebook records by Metadata & Discovery Strategy. Because ebook workflows are so collaborative by nature, bringing colleagues from each of these departments together into regular meetings made communicating and creating a shared understanding of workflows, handover, and issues much more manageable and successful.

Ebook Working Group Members

  • Leeda Adkins (Metadata & Discovery Strategy)
  • Heather Baker (Metadata & Discovery Strategy)
  • Stephen Conrad (Monograph Acquisitions)
  • Alaina Deane (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions)
  • Jessica Janecki (Resource Description) – Co-convener
  • Xiaoyan Song (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions)
  • Abby Wickes (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions) – Co-convener

Ebook Working Group Advisors

  • Virginia Martin (Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions)
  • Jacquie Samples (Metadata & Discovery Strategy)
  • Natalie Sommerville (Resource Description)

Setting the stage

When the working group formed in early 2023, DUL was several months away from the exciting announcement that we would implement Alma in summer 2024. We were still using Aleph and the Ex Libris 360 knowledgebase with 360 MARC services for ebook access management, with the expectation of one day implementing FOLIO. The working group was charged with mediating a number of ongoing issues among these systems and the vendors and publishers supplying ebook records with various contexts and caveats. The library relied on the 360 knowledgebase and 360 MARC as often as possible, but this was not always a viable approach. Some vendors would not partner with Ex Libris, or the metadata was unacceptably slow to be added to the 360 services (especially for current content.)

Because of these limitations, some ebook records were managed locally in Aleph by intention or necessity. Additionally, Aleph contained many legacy ebook records that were redundant or inaccurate. There was very little institutional knowledge or documentation of these local records, or whether the ebooks had eventually become available in the 360 systems. Since Aleph is a legacy system that was not designed for e-resources, it could be difficult to uncover these ebook records proactively without knowing what to look for. This led to problems with duplication or stale, outdated, and inaccurate information in older local records. The working group would often only become aware of a batch of local ebook records if a patron found an ebook catalog result with a broken link or other incorrect information that was a barrier to access.

Getting to work

Charged to investigate an array of known issues from the group’s advisors, the working group began assessing where to start:

  • Document, at a comprehensive level, Duke University Libraries Collections Services workflows, for eBook MARC record workflows that intersect with all aspects of the lifecycle (transforming, loading, auditing) of all eBook records from any source. Documentation should be accessible to all library staff.
  • Codify policy of acceptability for eBook records supplied by Ex Libris and other vendors, articulating clearly what is an acceptable level of completeness, what local changes to records are in scope, and circumstances under which DULCS will not load title-level records.
  • Assess and investigate feasibility of migrating legacy and on-going loads of vendor-supplied records to 360 MARC.
  • Determine timeline for making eBooks available through local loads, including developing a policy regarding acceptable lag time for availability of 360 MARC records.
  • Identify issues that are tangential but outside the scope of the Team and make brief recommendations as to who/how they might be addressed.

After reviewing this list and some of the ongoing problems known to each department, the group prioritized documenting workflows, codifying a policy for managing local ebook record access when 360 MARC was not an available option, and systematically identifying and cleaning up local ebook records in Aleph with the goal of transitioning as many as possible to 360 MARC and clearly documenting ebook records that could only be managed locally.

Accomplishments

To make progress on these three goals, the working group met approximately every other week to identify records for cleanup, identify workflows for documentation, and consider nuances for a local load policy. These regular meetings had the additional benefit of leading to a broader shared understanding of each department’s role in the ebook workflow, including the opportunity to learn about minor problems in one department that could surface for other departments, such as unexpected delays with 360 MARC loading that might lead to patron confusion on AskTech. Routine communication also made highly complex, interdependent problems much easier to tackle. The working group’s policy is available for review in Box, the documentation progress is available in the Collections Services wiki, and the group’s ebook record cleanup project work resulted in the removal of almost 250,000 duplicate or error-ridden local records, as well as the addition of over 33,000 records that were never available in the catalog. (Please note, this includes ebooks as well as primary source material from several Gale databases the working group was also asked to review.)

Alma and future projects

The ebook record cleanup was a major benefit when implementing Alma in July 2024, since so many older local records were removed from Aleph and did not migrate old problems into the new system. The established communication and broader understanding of issues was also an asset during the early months of Alma when the library experienced some growing pains with e-resource linking in the Books & Media catalog and while setting up and establishing new workflows, such as GOBI import profiles. Although the working group will revisit the local record policy in light of inevitable workflow changes in a new system, we are optimistic that much of the core philosophy of managing local records will still be applicable. Now that the library has been working with Alma for a few months, the working group is taking advantage of enhanced functionality for some additional project work. Creating sets and running jobs is an extremely helpful and powerful tool that the group is already considering for a project to identify and review certain sets of local records that migrated from Aleph, and creating local collections will be a much more robust way to manage local records than tracking them in a spreadsheet. Alma will present innumerable learning opportunities for everyone at the library, but the Ebook Working Group is here for it.

Community, Operations

Collections Services Staff Recognition Awards and Lunch

Last month, Collections Services celebrated our second ever mystery-themed Annual Staff Recognition Awards, complete with a taco bar and cupcakes. There were five categories of awards, highlighting everything from collaboration to coaching, and two winners in each category. Our winners took home literary mugs and gift cards.

Taco barSmallcakes cupcakes in box

The awards were as follows:

Nancy DrewNancy Drew Newcomers/New Skills Award

For the colleague who has demonstrated excellence and adaptivity this year in learning a NEW skillset (ahem, Alma)? Or for the NEW(ish)-to-DUL colleague who brings energy, curiosity, humility and a sense of adventure to their work. Who enhances the working lives of those around them through their fearless determination to learn the mysteries of Collections Services and get the job done no matter the stakes. Who perhaps is one of the few who can really pull off a neckerchief!

Nominees: Henry Hebert, Fouzia El Gargouri, Zhaneille Green, Zhuo Pan, Yaoli Shi, and Emily Sutton

Winners: Zhaneille Green and Yaoli Shi

 

Dr. WatsonDr. Watson Collaboration & Outreach Award

For the colleague whose advice is sought out before any major undertaking. Whose quiet confidence means they never seek the spotlight, but you know, deep down, they deserve top billing. They’re a success in their own right, but their presence on a team virtually guarantees a break in the case. But, please, no pipe smoking in the library!

Nominees: Nancy Bachelder, Sara Biondi, Jessica Janecki, Yan Song, and Emily Sutton

Winners: Emily Sutton and Jessica Janecki

 

Miss MarpleMiss Marple Creativity & Innovation Award

For the colleague who cannot let sleeping dogs lie. Who finds solutions before others even realize there are problems. They use their shrewd intelligence and capacious memory to divine out-of-the-box remedies for any genre of CS conundrum. The real culprits—likely the shadowy villains Mr. Inefficiency and Dr. Poor Communication—cannot rest with them on the case: no workflow is safe from their keen eye.

Nominees: Leeda Adkins, Dennis Christman, Alaina Deane, Fouzia El Gargouri, Jessica Janecki, Amelia Rodarte, and Yan Song

Winners: Alaina Deane and Dennis Christman

 

Benoit BlancBenoit Blanc Leadership & Coaching Award

For the colleague whose guidance gets you through every riddle and puzzle you face at DUL. Despite the challenges of wacky vendors suspects, they never fail to empower less seasoned sleuths along the way to ingenious conclusions. With the patience of a saint and charm of a southern gentleman, they inspire us through their mentorship to tackle even the most impossible cases.

Nominees: Bethany Blankemeyer, Bronwyn Cox, Rachel Penniman, and Abby Wickes

Winners: Rachel Penniman and Bronwyn Cox

 

Jessica FletcherJessica Fletcher Slow Librarianship Award

For the colleague who approaches every new task with the intellectual curiosity of a mystery writer. Through twists and turns, they barely break a sweat, as though they’re taking a relaxing bicycle ride along a picturesque coastline. It’s almost as though they’ve embraced the pace of a sleepy New England town, despite it looking like a literal crime scene around them. #cottagecore aesthetic encouraged but not required.

Nominees: Leeda Adkins, Bethany Blankemeyer, Jessica Janecki, and Jianying Shou

Winners: Leeda Adkins and Bethany Blankemeyer

 

Blue gift bags with prizes for winners

Winners

Congratulations to all of our nominees and winners!

Operations, Spotlight, Technology

Alma in Practice: Teams Leads of Collections Services

In the Collections Services division, there is a small, but mighty group of staff members who lead and encourage other staff, are an important part of planning and operationalizing workflows, and who do all this while also doing front-line work.  This group is composed of six team leads whose responsibilities span acquisition of print and online resources, managing discovery of and access to that large constellation of resources, and preparation of materials for library shelves.   What better way to end the three-part Alma series than by sharing team leads’ reflections on implementation and go-live.  Two common threads throughout the reflections team leads shared for this post were gratitude for the deepening of relationships within and across teams, as well as the importance of maintaining an iterative mindset as we all try out new workflows and functionality in Alma.

 

Challenges and opportunities are two sides of one coin.  Implementing a new system came with a lot of opportunities, but was not without challenges. Let’s focus on challenges first, and then we will talk about the opportunities that team leads leveraged before and after going live in Alma.  To facilitate going live, the previous system, Aleph, had to sunset on June 10 as described in a previous blog post.  Focusing on what could be done during the space between two systems was a significant pivot from the normal production-oriented approach to work, especially during the month of June when Collections Services is normally sprinting toward the end of Duke’s fiscal year.  Staff with acquisitions responsibilities had to end the financial year much earlier than usual in order to sunset Aleph.  Staff in other departments were also busy trying to wrap up data migration and cleanup projects before Aleph sunsetted.  Focusing on what staff could do, rather than what they could not do was a challenge facing team leads during this pivot point.  Other challenges were present, too, and required team leads to lead through uncertainty.  Notable among these was an  electronic resource migration issue caused by corrupted data.  At one point, it was not clear whether the issue could be addressed systematically (thankfully, it could be), or whether frontline staff were facing an extensive project post go-live.  Alma’s multiple functional options coupled with limits on what could be tested pre-go live also caused uncertainty.  Some decisions on workflows and practices were made immediately before going live in Alma and could really only be tested after the new system came up.  After go-live, it took time to develop clarity on the relationship between downstream and upstream work in the Collections Services lifecycle and to understand more fully how Alma handles certain data types like data about item records for physical resources.  Work, in general, took a little more time to do as team leads and a small group of Alma early users worked to get other staff, including student assistants, up to speed.

Now, on to the rewards side of the coin.  Team leads cited a variety of rewarding experiences pre- and post-go live, many of them closely tied to the challenges that were discussed above.  Staff working on describing resources that are new and unique or distinctive to Duke University Libraries collections were able to leverage the larger ecosystem in which they work.  Because a substantial portion of this work occurs in the OCLC WorldCat system, these staff members were able to continue creating catalog records during the period between Aleph and Alma. Though there were limitations on Alma testing and decision-making prior to going live, a certain amount of training and practice was still possible, and teams made headway on developing workflows, decisions, and documentation.   Team leads noted how nice it was to reap the benefits of training and practice once Alma went live and it was possible to perform daily tasks.  Team leads and other Alma early users were also ready onboard other staff.  It was evident from the ebb and flow of physical materials through Collection Services spaces that operations had successfully resumed– from receiving a recently-ordered resource into our workflows to describing it, to printing the all-important spine label that allows library users to find books on the library shelves.  Check out a recent video from Duke University Libraries that shows how the Littlest Blue Devil finds a book in the stacks.  Teams working with electronic resources were also able to resume daily tasks and work to provide the best user discovery experience for the Libraries’ millions of electronic resources while staff in other library units worked to sync the Books & Media Catalog with Alma.  The biggest reward during this period of planning for go-live, getting up to speed in Alma after going live, and resuming operations was the colleagues we work with every day.  Team leads cited gratitude for their teams, for the generosity of colleagues in answering questions, and for the opportunity to learn more about how different workflows in Collections Services overlap.

Against the backdrop of generally increasing proficiency in navigating Alma’s interface and options, team leads have many aspirations for the first six months in our new system.  A number of these cluster around best uses of Alma.  Team leads are eager to make the most effective use of  Alma functionality as possible.  They want to maintain an open mind about changing workflows and processes in a way that uses Alma’s built-in functionality to its best advantage.  One team lead described go-live workflows as “Plan A” workflows that will evolve as we use and familiarize ourselves with the system every day.  Alma presents new opportunities for tracking movement of physical items across library locations effectively, using batch processing to update call numbers, leaning further into functionality for reporting and updating sets of data.  It also presents a new opportunity for a truly integrated system that can manage both print and electronic resources. This integrated functionality and how best to leverage the new possibilities for electronic resources management is top of mind.

Threaded throughout all team leads’ challenges, rewarding experiences, and aspirations is the desire to continue building on the communication and teamwork that has marked Alma implementation in Collections Services.

Collections, Projects, Technology

Introducing the E-Resources Access & Troubleshooting FAQs

Earlier this year, Amelia Rodarte and Zhaneille Green began a project to create an E-Resources Troubleshooting FAQ knowledge bank. They decided to make a resource for Duke University Libraries (DUL) front-facing library staff who troubleshoot e-resource access issues of varying complexities.

E-Resources Access and Troubleshooting FAQ Homepage

 

How did we start?

We conducted research to see what DUL troubleshooting resources existed, what type of tools other academic institutions used, what existing literature stated, and what the previous findings of DUL access and discovery working groups were. We also wanted to hear from our colleagues, so we sent out surveys and conducted interviews, which helped us decide on the type of questions and issues that affected our patrons and library staff. After synthesizing our research, qualitative, and quantitative results, we selected the best available tool for our project.

Our tool of choice was the previously untouched Springshare LibAnswers FAQ tool. It allowed us to create an internal staff knowledge bank  of questions and answers to solve common and uncommon e-resource questions and issues. We’ve also assigned topics and keywords to each FAQ so users can search for what they need.

IR Troubleshooting Meme

Why make it?

In the world of e-resources, our access can be affected by who owns what, how long we’ve licensed a resource, whether we keep any access to a resource if we stop renewing the license, etc. We created this resource because while Duke University is affected by the usual suspects, it also has its own e-resource access nuances.

 

Currently, the FAQs with the most views are:

You will notice that all four cover general access information and specific access nuances. Our entire list of FAQs is a mix of e-resource information and Duke-specific access issues. We wanted to demystify some aspects of e-resources for our colleagues. For example, some librarians might not be aware that DKU patrons lost access to specific resources after licensing negotiations.

Use Cases

Here are some different ways DUL library staff can use our FAQ resource for:

  • Troubleshooting e-resource access issues
  • Adding it to new staff orientation packets
  • Referring to it for current information on access changes

Where do we go from here?

We have a maintenance plan to update our FAQs. Amelia and I plan to review our FAQ list every six months. We will also keep adding new FAQs and updating the current ones when needed throughout the year.

Where can you find it?

You can find the E-Resource Access FAQs at Electronic Resources & Serials Acquisitions – Collections Services.

Metadata, Operations, Technology

Alma July Update

Remember the late-May post about sunsetting the system that runs the back end of the catalog and multiple discovery portals at Duke? That post concluded with a promise to provide late-July reflections from members of the  Collections Services division on work that led up to sunsetting our previous system, Aleph, and launching our new system, Alma.

Screenshot of the Alma ILS with an arrow pointing to the total number of bibliographic records.

Well, July passed in a flurry of go-live activity. This activity happened on the heels of much work  leading up to flipping the “on” switch for Alma on the morning of July 10, 2024. By noon that day, Duke University Libraries was once again open for business with a new system. Collection Services staff were already busy at work in Alma by that time and have been busy this month ensuring that access to electronic resources continues to work reliably, advising on data syncing between Alma and the Books & Media catalog, populating the system with budgets for ordering library materials, updating catalog records singly and in batch, and scanning items into system process types that allow for granular tracking and routing— among many other things! The unifying feature of all this work is that it took and will continue to take teamwork across the whole Collections Services division. Stay tuned for the next Alma post that will close the loop on the late-May post and present staff reflections on work time during the period between Aleph and Alma, what was most rewarding (and most) challenging immediately before and right after go-live, and what we hope we learn about Alma during the first six months with the system.

Activism, Music

INSIST! Juneteenth edition, 2024

Recently, while reading the fascinating oral history of ‘60s girl groups, ‘But Will You Love Me Tomorrow?’, I was quite taken by a brief chapter on The Shirelles concerning a monumental concert fundraiser in Alabama that has largely been forgotten. As the Summer heat bears down this Juneteenth, let’s take a look back at Salute to Freedom ’63 for this installment of Insist!Black and white advertisement for the Salute to Freedom event

Birmingham, Alabama, August 5th, 1963. In a city and time rife with tension and conflict, only two weeks from city segregation ordinances being repealed, and only months since the Birmingham Campaign for civil rights, the Salute to Freedom event was a major happening and endeavor. One of many events put on by national civil rights organizations as fundraisers for the upcoming March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the Birmingham event was absurdly laden with talent and prominence. Martin Luther King, Jr (then head of SCLC) and James Baldwin were there, along with Joe Louis and Dick Gregory. And included on the musical slate, none other than Ray Charles, Nina Simone, Johnny Mathis, Clyde McPhatter, the Shirelles and Ella Fitzgerald (though it isn’t clear if she actually performed).

With an event of this stature, and with divisions in the area so stark, attendance and interest and scrutiny were sure to be high. Local press and authorities effectively ignored and stonewalled the event, while volunteers drummed up promotion and ticket sales. Initially planned for the large auditorium downtown, permission was denied at the last minute, forcing the event to be held five miles out of town on the football field at Miles College, on a makeshift stage. Only one major hotel would allow attendees as guests. Cab drivers refused service. Birmingham police wouldn’t work the show. Even still, the event was able to occur, on a 98 degree day, with upwards of 16,000 attending, many even walking miles with their own chairs.

Image from "March on Washington: Rare Photos of a Star-Studded Fundraiser, 1963" from life.comMartin Luther King Jr. (seated, at right) watched the Shirelles perform during the Salute to Freedom benefit concert in Birmingham, Ala., August 5, 1963. Credit: Grey Villet/Life Pictures/Shutterstock
Image from “March on Washington: Rare Photos of a Star-Studded Fundraiser, 1963” from life.com

Salute to Freedom ‘63 ran late into the evening, and at one point during Johnny Mathis’s performance, the rickety stage partially gave way, injuring several people onstage. The show carried on but the difficulties were far from over. The performers, who were traveling together on a chartered plan from New York, were delayed several hours returning due to a bomb threat at the airport. National press barely covered the event, with the old gray lady only running four lines about it, primarily concerning the stage collapse. Though never published, there are thankfully a few terrific photos courtesy of LIFE magazine: March on Washington: Rare Photos of a Star-Studded Fundraiser, 1963.

Just over three weeks later, on August 28th, was the March on Washington. Then only a couple of weeks later, on September 15th, Ku Klux Klan members bombed the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, killing four young girls. John Coltrane composed his stunning ‘Alabama’ in response to the bombing. We’ll conclude this Insist post with a live clip of the tune:

Metadata, Operations

Aleph Sunsets

Screenshot of the catalog record for "Blue Window"

The library catalog, article finders, online journal and database tools, bento search results, library accounts—these tools all provide a way for library users to discover and obtain the constellation of resources available to them at Duke and beyond. But did you know that these tools also provide a window into a complex system that underpins selection, purchase, description, maintenance, and circulation of library resources?

Screenshots of the record for "Blue Window" in Aleph and AlmaFor twenty years, the libraries at Duke University have used Ex Libris’s Aleph integrated library system to manage library resources in a variety of formats and languages across the acquisitions, description, inventory, and delivery lifecycles. This requires the system to store, interpret, correlate, ingest, and output a variety of data types. Aleph has helped the libraries at Duke successfully steward existing resources and acquire upwards of 1 million new resources since 2004, including a proliferation of eBooks, eJournals, databases and streaming media. On July 10th, we will be sunsetting Aleph and implementing Ex Libris’s Alma system. Alma builds on the functionality and data models of an integrated library system and incorporates these into a library services platform that streamlines and aligns processes for selecting, acquiring, describing and delivering print and electronic resources. Much planning, careful data mapping and cleanup, and lots of collaboration among subject matter experts from across the libraries at Duke has brought us to the cusp of going live with Alma. Stay tuned for a follow-up post in the later part of July in which members of the Duke University Libraries Collections Services division will reflect on the work that led up to go-live and talk about the early days of working in Alma.

Metadata, Projects, Technology

The MADS and LSC Workflow Partnership

What is the MADS partnership and how did it start?

Kristina Thomas

MADS, which stands for Metadata and Discovery Strategy, is a department that works in Collection Services in Smith, Bay 10. I work in the LSC  (Library Service Center) as a Senior Library Assistant, where I’ve been for a little over a year. In the LSC, which is off campus, it can be a bit difficult to work with librarians a lot. We’re an offsite storage facility and we don’t see many of them. Dracine Hodges, who is the Associate University Librarian for Collections Services, and Jacquie Samples, who is the MADS department head, developed the idea of the workflow partnership. They worked with the LSC manager, Marvin Tillman, and the Associate University Librarian and Director of Financial and Facility Services, Jameca Dupree, to begin a workflow partnership that would help both the LSC and the MADS department.

As an employee at the LSC, I go over to Smith once a week. I work closely with the MADS team, particularly Jacquie Samples and Heather Baker, on record cleanup, checking records in CaiaSoft and Alma research/implementation. It’s good for our departments to work together because, over at the LSC, we do have a lot of experience in CaiaSoft. It’s also helpful for me because I’ve learned a lot about Aleph and Alma, the new software that DUL is migrating to. A full migration occurs in the summer of 2024. I have also been Alma certified and take notes/knowledge learned about Alma to my LSC coworkers. It’s been a mutually beneficial partnership as we continue to do record cleanup and transition to Alma.

How has MADS helped you become better in your position?

I’ve certainly become more knowledgeable during my time in MADS. I’m not accustomed to working in Aleph Cataloging and I had no knowledge concerning Alma. It was good to be on this team that directly works in Alma. It has helped to keep me on track as we continue the transition. I’ve also learned about several jobs that are completed by the MADS team in software that I didn’t have much experience in, so I’m getting to learn something else that is newer territory. I’ve also worked on record cleanup, assigned remote storage IDs and looked at collection codes, all in Aleph Cataloging. During my time here, I’ve also become more comfortable working with people outside of the LSC in CaiaSoft and I’ve really accepted my role and become more confident in explaining the software and being able to confidently answer questions. Being offsite in the LSC made me feel a bit distant from the other libraries, so constantly corresponding with these librarians has been extremely beneficial for me. I’ve also learned a lot about Alma. I feel more prepared for the migration than I would’ve had this workflow partnership never happened.

What were your challenges and what did you feel most confident about going into this workflow partnership?

I would say that I felt confident about everything that I have worked on in the LSC. This includes all our CaiaSoft functions. I had already met Jacquie and we had an informative conversation, so I felt comfortable because I use CaiaSoft every day. I felt comfortable being able to answer CaiaSoft questions or check items in CaiaSoft and look for item reports. I also felt comfortable in Aleph Circulation as these are both software that are used daily in the LSC.

My biggest challenge was that I don’t work on the same jobs that the MADS team works on. I also didn’t have the same knowledge. They work with Metadata. MARC fields and the terminology are different, so I felt a bit out of the loop. They are, of course, also very knowledgeable in Alma and I was really starting out so I didn’t feel as if I could contribute very much. I now believe that it has become mutually beneficial because I’m learning that our workflow connects both of our software and examines the relationship between them. We can both answer each other’s questions. They were also extremely nice when it came to pacing and stopping to explain things or answer any questions that I may have.

What have you enjoyed the most about this workflow partnership?

For me, it’s a great learning experience. I’ve learned a lot about other software that I’ve become more accustomed to using. I’ve been able to learn a lot about what they do in Metadata. I’ve gotten to work on the other side of Aleph that I never worked in before. As a librarian, it’s good to have knowledge of software, even if you don’t constantly use it. I’m confident that this knowledge will be beneficial as I move forward in my career. I also believe that it has helped me with professional communication skills. As for the LSC, it can be a challenge to uphold communication with other librarians at Duke. We don’t come into contact with them that often so coming to Smith has strengthened that communication and it broadens my interests as well.

What do you hope to achieve going forward?

I hope to learn as much as I possibly can. I’d like to be a well-rounded librarian. It’s important to take the time to work with other groups of people and learn their perspectives. I hope to continue working with the MADS group as well as other groups and librarians around Duke, and even outside of Duke. It’s been a great learning and networking experience. It will help me continue to grow and learn as a librarian. I also hope that my interest and knowledge continue to broaden, and more workflow opportunities are available for me in the future.

As for this MADS group, I hope to continue working with them, even after the implementation of Alma. I hope to be able to continue communicating with them and that this partnership opens up more opportunities here at Duke where I get to work with more people.

Technology

Our New Collections Services Documentation Portal

Depending on how much you use the DUL Collections Services Documentation Portal (CSDP), you may or may not have been surprised to see this alarmingly yellow banner at the top of the page when recently visiting the space:

Yellow banner text from the header of the Duke Wiki that says: "DukeWiki spaces have migrated to https://duke.atlassian.net/wiki Please login with your netid@duke.edu"

Our old space migrated to a cloud environment in a (mostly) seamless transition to a space that looks and feels very much like the old pages. The layouts of both the “Open to All” and “Staff Only” pages should be familiar to users of the previous documentation portal, and hopefully users find the new spaces easy to navigate. The new public page can be found here, and the staff-only page is here. While the old wiki has a link directing visitors to the new space, it is a good idea to update any bookmarks as soon as possible in case the re-directing link disappears at some point.

The CSDP continues to be a valuable resource for Collections Services staff as well as external users, housing over 300 pages of documentation. The pages are regularly reviewed and updated, which means fewer errors due to outdated information, faster updates on improved processes, and easier training for new employees. Upkeep of the CSDP will be critical in the coming months as we transition from Aleph to Alma and update our documentation accordingly.

If you have not yet visited the new documentation portal, we encourage you to browse the pages. If you are Collections Services staff and encounter any issues, please use the online ticketing system to let us know. For users in CS logging into the DUL staff-only site, you will need to use the netID version of your email address to trigger the Shibboleth log in, not the alias version. It should be formatted as netid@duke.edu.

Overall, the transition has been successful, and we appreciate the contributions of CS staff as we look forward to this year of big changes in Collections Services.

Collections, Metadata, Spotlight

A Day in the Life: Mandy Hurt

Four serial items in various languages, including serials, periodicals and microfilm reels.

I’m the Serials Description Librarian and Coordinator in the Resource Description department of Collection Services. As one of only two serials catalogers working in the Duke University Libraries, and the only one as of now qualified to make CONSER level original cataloging records, I catalog serials across formats (print, electronic and microform) in English and a number of other languages of which I have at least a bibliographer’s knowledge. I volunteer with CONSER to catalog electronic serial titles for the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and spend a quarter of my time cataloging rare print serials for the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. For the Rubenstein Library, I’ve worked on such diverse materials as the Lisa Unger Baskin Collection, the Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Project collection and even cataloged Civil War General Orders, containing very important information like where new latrines were to be dug the next day.

What this all actually means is that I don’t have a typical working day. While all of my work relates to serials cataloging in some way, the content of the serials I work on spans a wide spectrum of subjects created throughout written history. As I don’t want to bore you with the minutiae of my work, and there is a lot of minutiae I could bore you with, I thought today I’d focus on my work with a particularly interesting collection, the Edwin & Terry Murray Comic Book Collection, part of the Rubenstein library’s holdings, which I’ve been working on for over six years now.

While the collection is primarily comprised of Marvel and DC comics you’re almost certainly familiar with, it also includes titles from the companies that predate Marvel and DC. (Their origin stories? Sorry, comic book joke.) There are also plenty of titles from smaller independent publishing houses and comics for much younger readers like those published for Walt Disney. Cataloging these materials takes quite a bit of online research involving not only official websites like Marvel and DC’s but also sites like Comic Vine, a labor of love undertaken by comic book fans and collectors.

Why does this work require so much research? Because comic books were originally ephemera, never intended to be collected and preserved. In the past, in part because they were discredited as acceptable reading material for young people by psychiatrist and anti-violent imagery zealot Fredric Wertham and his ilk, the comic books that were catalogued had brief records at best, listing little more than the title, publisher, place of publication and, if very lucky, the dates of publication. Volume numbering was often omitted or merely noted to exist (‘also has volume numbering’, etc.) and the records often had no acknowledgement of preceding or succeeding titles.

Three colorful issues of the "Captain Marvel" comic serialsComic book publishing has always been a commercial venture, so if a title fails to sell well, it’s cancelled posthaste. But fear not, intrepid comic book readers! The cancelled character may well be revived even decades later with different writers and artists and, perhaps, a different publisher. In the case of the early Captain Marvel titles pictured, the earliest dates from 1968 and the latest from 1975. These titles were published as separate runs with only the titular character and publishing house, in this case, in common. While it might seem unimportant to omit the volume numbering when you have a title that has 55 numbers published over 12 years, with all issues having the same volume number, that volume number serves as a clue to researchers that perhaps an earlier or later related title exists.

In addition to fleshing out the cataloging records for this collection by adding subject headings for the fictitious characters as well the genre (Arthurian romances, anyone?), we’ve made a conscious effort to credit the writers and artists who produced them, often creating Name Authority records for them for the very first time.

So, you can see why all of the research associated with my role is important and why I see myself as a sort of literary Indiana Jones some days. (Thankfully my fear of snakes is less of an issue than it is for Indy!) Of course, these adventures take place alongside my more general workflow, though calling even that work general isn’t exactly accurate since I’m never certain what language, subject and/or format I will see next. The life of a serialist is never boring, at least to a serialist!

[Blog note: check out this post from 2020 on the Edwin and Terry Murray Collection for even more comic goodness!]