Cataloging practice
Copy Cataloging Checklist: Verify Before Reusing
Copy cataloging reuses a suitable description while preserving responsibility for the local result. The most important decision is whether the candidate record describes the resource you actually hold. Start with that match before editing fields or printing labels.
Establish the match
- Compare title and statement of responsibility with the resource.
- Check edition and publication details, including differences that may signal another manifestation.
- Confirm format, extent, and accompanying material.
- Compare identifiers as evidence alongside the descriptive details.
- Review any notes that explain discrepancies.
A fictional record for a 180-page print workbook should not automatically receive an item for a revised 240-page edition. Investigate whether you have the wrong record or a documented variation before deciding how to proceed. Do not change a shared description merely to make it resemble a different item.
Review the data you will rely on
Inspect names, subjects, classification, and important descriptive fields under your library’s adopted rules. A source record may contain a different classification scheme, an outdated access point, or a local practice that you do not follow. Copying makes those values available; it does not make them locally appropriate.
For a training review, mark each relevant value as accepted, changed with reason, or requiring investigation. This makes the decision visible to a second cataloger. It is more useful than an undifferentiated “checked” note when a record later raises questions.
Add local holdings and item information
Keep location, barcode, accession information, copy number, and circulation status in the places defined by your system. An additional copy generally requires its own item tracking even when it shares the bibliographic description. Avoid importing another library’s local location or copy data as though it describes your holdings.
Check how your import profile treats local fields before running a large batch. Test one record with multiple items and one multi-volume title. Examine the resulting public display as well as the staff record, because import mapping problems can appear in either place.
Approve the call number before label generation
Review the source class and filing mark against your collection. If you retain the assigned number, keep it intact through the label workflow. LibCatalogTools regenerates an author mark from name inputs, so compare its result with the retained mark instead of assuming they will match.
For LC numbers or locally adjusted Cutters that the generator does not reproduce, use an approved method that accepts the verified number. After printing, pair each label with its item and confirm the public location and call number. Save the source and any local decision notes according to your cataloging procedure.
Frequently asked questions
Is a matching ISBN sufficient?
It is helpful evidence, but verify the edition, format, and description against the resource too.
Should I replace a verified Cutter with a new generated one?
Only if your cataloging review and local policy justify the change. Automatic regeneration is not itself a reason.