Record quality is a frequent topic in the literature on e-books and the batchloading of e-book record sets. Wu and Mitchell provided a detailed overview of issues surrounding mass management of e-book records.1 One major quality issue they discussed at length is the inconsistent use of identifiers, particularly in the context of the provider-neutral record. Wu and Mitchell also noted that cataloging standards varied widely between record providers and that the adoption of the provider-neutral record standard by record providers had been slow.

Luther’s overview of the universe of book metadata (including e-books) discussed the myriad purposes served by book metadata and serves as a useful reminder that library standards do not meet the needs of all communities.² This is important context for her discussion of metadata quality, which alluded to how varying purposes can explain differing quality standards on the parts of publishers, vendors, and libraries. Luther emphasized the difficulty of measuring metadata quality: “In the current discovery environment, it is difficult to measure what is not found and extremely difficult to quantify the impact and cost of poor, incomplete, or missing metadata on business and collection analysis decisions that ultimately affect consumers.”³

Minĉić-Obradović summarized the state of bibliographic control for e-books.⁴ Her chapter in a 2011 monograph includes a brief discussion of two frequently observed quality issues in vendor-provided records: misleading identifiers and invalid MARC coding. Offering an example of quality improvements in records from a specific publisher, Minĉić-Obradović discussed the positive effects on the quality of Springer’s MARC records after they contracted with OCLC to replace the records.

In a 2007 article reporting the results of a survey of how academic libraries provided web access to e-book collections, Dinkelman and Stacy-Bates discussed the importance of providing catalog access to e-books, emphasizing the importance of making a simple, format-based search limit available for e-books.⁵ Although the authors found that 94 percent of libraries surveyed provided this type of limit, they cited record quality issues as a barrier to creating consistent, reliable format limits in catalogs.

Rossman, Foster, and Babbitt offered a broad overview of MARC record and catalog access issues for e-books.⁶ In their list of questions librarians should routinely ask vendors about MARC records, the authors identified many quality concerns: use of authority control, presence of Library of Congress Subject Headings and call numbers, specificity of subject terms, presence of table of contents notes, and availability of corrected and updated records.

In a pair of papers on the topic of batchloading issues and practices in academic libraries, Mugridge and Edmunds addressed record quality from two slightly different angles. In their 2009 overview of batchloading advantages, challenges, and workflows, the authors noted the difficulties inherent in balancing record quality and timely improvement to access.⁷ They observed that few record sets are perfect and that some errors are difficult or impossible to correct during preload editing. In their 2012 survey of batchloading practices in large research libraries, Mugridge and Edmunds reported on the effects of batchloading work on staffing, workflows, and quality.⁸ They found that 76.5 percent of survey respondents had rejected record sets because of quality issues. Some of the reasons respondents gave for rejecting record sets included lack of authority control or subject access, bad data that would have been difficult or impossible to resolve through automation, incomplete title fields, character encoding errors, right-to-left text orientation errors, records lacking unique identifiers, nonstandard cataloging practices, and invalid URLs.

Two of the themes of Mugridge and Edmunds’ work recur in several case studies that discuss specific record quality issues libraries found in preparing and loading records from a particular provider or collection: serious concerns about poor or nonexistent authority control in vendor-provided records and the sentiment that minimal-level access is preferable to having no access at all. Martin and Mundle described the process of editing and loading e-book records for a collection of Springer e-book titles at the University of Illinois at Chicago.⁹ They outlined strategies for record review and the types of problems they found, noting that many record-quality issues were “enduring and difficult to solve.”¹⁰ In addition to the presence of name and subject headings in unauthorized forms, major quality issues they found included bad and nonfunctional URLs and the presence of print version identifiers.

Beall described a similar project in which 100,000 low-quality records for freely available e-books were loaded into the University of Colorado Denver’s local catalog.¹¹ He noted several issues with the initial quality of the records, particularly in the realm of authority control, many of which arose because the records had been derived from non-MARC metadata: qualifiers and dates were missing from name headings and all subfields other than subfield $a were missing from subject headings. Beall discussed the effect of missing or bad data on the catalog, including split heading files and problems with diacritics, but concluded that some catalog access was better than no access.

Sanchez, Fatout, and Howser described the analysis and cleanup of NetLibrary records in preparation for loading into the catalog at Texas State University-San Marcos.¹² The authors observed numerous quality issues based on deviation from established in-house cataloging standards. Although the authors were able to resolve many problems before loading, they noted some ongoing authority control issues.

Authority control in batchloaded records is the central concern of Finn’s article, in which she described how the Newman Library at Virginia Tech conducts authority control processing before batchloads are completed.¹³ Finn noted that the quality of record sets varies widely and that authority control problems are very common.

Preston wrote about the OhioLINK Database Management & Standards Committee’s (DMSC) cooperative e-book cataloging projects.¹⁴ While this was a case study of a manual e-book cataloging project rather than a batchloading project, Preston noted that “concerns about bibliographic record accuracy, retrievability, and adherence to cataloging standards”¹⁵ were among the reasons that DMSC opted not to use vendor-supplied records. These concerns included a lack of Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), name headings not in authorized forms, the presence of print version ISBNs, serials cataloged as monographs, and the cataloging of reproductions (before 2009) as if they were born-digital.

Record quality is a concern for libraries well beyond the realm of e-books and batch processing. Several papers that discussed quality standards for catalog records and metadata more generally are helpful in providing a broader context for the present study. Studies of quality in traditional cataloging offer an interesting point of comparison. In a 2005 survey of academic libraries, Lam found that the vast majority of respondents viewed the quality of outsourced cataloging as generally good in terms of accuracy, consistency, adequacy of access points, and timeliness.¹⁶

El-Sherbini evaluated the quality of Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) BIBCO records in the Ohio State University (OSU) catalog. Like many libraries, OSU uses the services of an authority control vendor (in this case, Backstage Library Works) to verify and correct headings. El-Sherbini analyzed the changes made by the authority control vendor during post–cataloging authority processing.¹⁷ She found that the majority of corrections could be viewed as minor and did not affect catalog retrieval, including changes to punctuation, diacritics, and spaces. El-Sherbini also identified corrections that might affect access, including indicators, subfields and delimiters, tags, spelling errors, and forms of subject headings. She found that a very small number of records were affected by these issues and concluded that the overall quality of PCC records was high.

Discussions of metadata quality outside the realm of traditional cataloging also have some relevance for quality evaluations of MARC metadata. Bruce and Hillman proposed a set of broadly relevant metadata quality measurements and metrics: these are completeness, accuracy, provenance, conformance to expectations, logical consistency and coherence, timeliness, and accessibility.¹⁸

In a 2008 paper, Hillman compared quality evaluation for non-MARC metadata to that for MARC metadata.¹⁹ She noted that most problems identified in quality studies of MARC records were either typographical errors or outdated headings. Hillman argued that non-MARC metadata quality should not be assumed to be the same as in MARC metadata but should “instead be based on criteria more closely tied to the functionality sought for applications using metadata,” meaning that there is “no one answer to the quality question.”²⁰

Finally, some recent literature inquires more broadly into the concepts of record quality and quality measurement. In a 2008 article, Bade discussed the concept of a “perfect bibliographic record,” observing that it is hard to define record quality in any absolute sense.²¹ The author suggested that libraries should consider the following in developing quality criteria: “1. What data elements are useful for the kind of library research performed here in this particular institution? 2. How much, and which elements of that necessary information can this institution afford to support?”²²

Hider and Tan examined how catalog record quality might be assessed through research into catalog use.²³ The authors proposed that quality can be assessed either “impressionistically” or “systematically,” or through a combination of both approaches.²⁴ Impressionistic assessment relies on catalog users’ self-reported behaviors and preferences while systematic assessment relies on algorithmic or expert evaluation of user behavior and errors in bibliographic records. The authors noted that standardization is a key element in catalog effectiveness. Through survey results, Hider and Tan found that both libraries and library patrons believed that most elements of catalog records were useful for identification and selection. They concluded with a call for “evidence-based cataloging,” in which localized and detailed evidence provide the means to measure the effectiveness of cataloging practices.²⁵

The project group devised evaluation rubrics based on two widely adopted current standards for e-book records: the Program for Cooperative Cataloging’s (PCC) MARC Record Guide for Monograph Aggregator Vendors,²⁶ and the PCC’s Provider-Neutral E-Monograph MARC Record Guide.²⁷ Based on these documents, two checklists were created: one that included specific fields with PCC and local expectations for content in each field (appendix A), and one that listed generic issues in conflict with PCC and local standards that staff had identified while working with record sets before the formal beginning of the study (appendix B). During the analysis, catalogers also maintained a list of specific problems found in individual records. Finally, original, unedited files for each record set were archived for later reference.

Catalogers evaluated record sets using MarcEdit and Excel as part of normal preload editing processes. They identified some problems whenever they were present, such as problems that affected all records in a particular set, or certain critical errors affecting a subset of records, such as missing URLs; the fields and values that received this level of analysis are indicated in the specific field checklist with a mark in the “Full check” column. Catalogers identified some problems that typically did not affect all records in a set, such as errors in authorized forms of name and subject headings, or simple typographical errors, through selective spot checks of individual records within a set; those fields and values are indicated with a mark in the “Spot check” column. “Full check” fields and values were those that could be checked programmatically by machine with relative ease, while “spot check” fields and values required the cataloger to review individual records. Between July 2011 and August 2012, catalogers analyzed eighty-nine record sets from nineteen different providers, with the number of records per set varying between a handful and several thousand. Most sets had between 100 and 1,000 records. Most record sets were for e-books, but some sets for monographic electronic items in other formats were included, such as scores, sound recordings, and video recordings.

Catalogers divided the problems they discovered into three categories: errors or omissions that could affect access (e.g., missing or incorrect access points, identifiers, or linking entry fields); errors that were unlikely to affect access (e.g., erroneous physical description, misleading 5XX notes); and critical errors, those errors which required resolution before records could be loaded (e.g., MARC encoding problems, missing or bad URLs/URIs). Catalogers also noted usage of obsolete coding and field tags. Table 1 shows how librarians categorized the various types of errors.

Some error types within each category are more serious than other types. The seriousness of the error does not necessarily correlate with the level of effort necessary to correct it, as the discussion of findings will demonstrate.

Catalogers made a number of general observations about their findings as they conducted analysis and editing of record sets. Over the course of the study, it became clear that e-book vendors were slowly adopting the provider-neutral record. With some exceptions, record sets evaluated later in the study were more likely to make at least some attempt to adhere to the standard. Although many types of errors appeared whether records were provider-neutral or not, gradually expanding use of the standard meant that the variety of errors narrowed and became more predictable, enabling more efficient preload editing. It is clear that the effect of the provider-neutral standard has been a positive on the quality of vendor-created records as well as those created by library catalogers.

Catalogers were surprised by the relatively small number of truly critical errors they found. Based on prior experience and informal conversations with colleagues at other institutions, there was a perception that many more record sets were critically flawed than turned out to be the case. Even for sets with critical errors, catalogers found that most could be fixed without excessive effort. Only four of the sets evaluated during the study were rejected entirely for loading. In these four cases, other means were explored to provide title-level access for the record sets in question.

If the rarity of critical errors was a pleasant surprise, both the variety and frequency of access errors was an unpleasant one. In particular, access errors that were usually identifiable only through spot checks, such as unauthorized forms of names and subject headings, and typographical errors in titles and names, were troubling, since these errors were typically both the most difficult to find and to correct. Catalogers had little confidence that spot-checking found all or even most of these errors, especially in larger record sets. Moreover, although the prevalence of identifier errors had been anticipated, the difficulty in accurately identifying and re-coding print version identifiers in batch was a particularly vexing problem. Since accurate identifiers are critical for long-term catalog and collection management, this problem demands a substantial amount of cataloger time and attention. However, on the positive side, the variety of access errors encountered in fixed field coding helped to refine and expand local checklists and editing procedures, increasing catalogers’ confidence that coding errors for various formats would always be discovered and corrected before loading.

Inconsistencies in record sets from the same providers, though they are not errors in and of themselves, represent another significant problem. Catalogers confirmed what they had casually observed before the study, which is that successive record sets from the same vendor, even for the same collection, do not exhibit consistent errors. Consistency is very helpful for the most efficient and accurate processing and flexibility in workload distribution. When records from the same provider do not display the same problems from set to set, libraries are forced to reevaluate each new set. It should be noted that some inconsistencies are the result of the gradual adoption of the provider-neutral standard, an unquestionably positive development, but others are not related to provider-neutral changes. The unpredictable nature of problems found even in record sets from the same vendor supported catalogers’ assertion that new sets always needed their evaluation before loading.

Ultimately, catalogers concluded that there is no meaningful way to generalize about the most common errors across the full range of record sets. The wide variety of errors and inconsistencies of practice, though somewhat improved by wider adoption of the provider-neutral standard, mean that it is very hard to predict what errors one will find in any given record set. This is not to say that the records of many individual providers do not exhibit identifiable characteristics and typical errors, but there is very little that applies across the board. Despite these challenges, catalogers at UML were still able to improve and refine local processes for record set editing based on the results of the study. Although catalogers and systems librarians had long worked from a pre–load set editing checklist, the results of this study provided ample data to inform a thorough revision and expansion of that checklist (appendix C). The data also supported continuing the time-consuming practice of spot-checking some records in each set. Having an inventory of previously observed issues allowed catalogers to document strategies for identifying and fixing the most egregious problems. Additionally, catalogers have documented errors common to particular vendors, which helps to focus analysis and editing efforts for new sets from the same vendor on the most likely problems. Finally, less critical problems affecting access that catalogers could not easily fix before loading are now routinely documented for potential retrospective correction or record upgrades, if and when they are possible.

This study offers a “worm’s-eye view” of the quality issues in e-book record sets, focusing on detailed evaluation of discrete elements in individual records. Viewing the results from a broader vantage point suggests a number of strategies that libraries might pursue to address these issues. One lesson learned is that more and better-coordinated communication with record providers could help improve their offerings. Unfortunately, experience has shown that not all vendors and providers are interested in making the kinds of improvements to their record sets that libraries want, nor do all libraries convey a consistent set of needs to record providers. The typical current flow of communication, where vendors create and distribute records, libraries locally edit and upload those records, and then sometimes give the vendor feedback about problems in the records, has not proven especially effective in actuating large-scale improvements to record quality. Martin and Mundle observed that “vendors are attempting to automate record creation as much as possible, and changes at the title-level are improbable. The key for efficiency for both libraries and vendors will be to create a high-quality description of each e-book that can be reused and repurposed by any number of libraries to create quality catalog records.”³² The kind of collaborative effort Martin and Mundle hint at is a promising way forward that libraries and vendors should pursue. Libraries understand their specific needs better than vendors, and perhaps it is not realistic to expect vendors to meet exacting library standards when they are generally offering record sets for no additional charge beyond the price of the content. This is not to say that vendors should not meet a minimum standard. The PCC’s “MARC Record Guide for Monograph Aggregator Vendors” provides an excellent starting point, yet the standard could prove too difficult for some vendors to meet. When vendors are unable or unwilling to meet a minimum standard for their records, libraries should consider organizing a formalized, wide-scale repository or clearinghouse for the sharing of record sets that have been edited to meet a baseline standard. As a starting point, record sets could be shared within cons78041ortial or regional groups of libraries. Eventually, a national effort along the lines of the Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC) could manage such a clearinghouse. Another possible path for OCLC subscribers is the WorldShare Metadata service, a relatively new service that automatically provides locally tailored sets of records and a shared environment for their maintenance for the collections a library has activated in the WorldShare knowledge base. Although records are not yet available for all collections, and the service is too new for its long-term effectiveness to be known, it has the potential to help individual libraries maintain the desired level of quality in their e-book records.

The growing level of adoption by vendors of the provider-neutral standard is encouraging. However, major changes in cataloging standards are coming soon. The implementation of Resource Description and Access (RDA) is already a reality for many libraries, and will be so in many more within the next year. But, because RDA training and implementation is a resource-intensive activity, and because OCLC will not require libraries to contribute RDA records, it is possible that some libraries will choose to continue cataloging under AACR2 rules. It is not obvious how the provider-neutral model will align with RDA, whose basic principles seem to disallow provider-neutral cataloging. Fortunately, the PCC has already done much work toward reconciling the provider-neutral standard with RDA.³³ Nevertheless, as libraries saw with the original provider-neutral standard, widespread implementation is likely to take years. In the meantime, catalogers are likely to see a mix of AACR2 and RDA practices in vendor-provided e-book records. An issue not directly related to RDA, but to standards in general, is the proliferation of identifier systems, many of which libraries, publishers, vendors, and retailers may come to rely on as they move toward an environment in which linked data plays a central role. Luther addressed this in her overview of the book metadata landscape, proposing exploration of expanded use for the International Standard Text Code (ISTC) and International Standard Name Identifier (ISNI) standards.³⁴ If these standards come into common usage, libraries must strongly consider including them in bibliographic and authority records.

Other nascent trends indicate that batchloading may become a less important activity for libraries soon; it already has for some. These are the generation and extraction of bibliographic records from ERM knowledge bases, and the presence of title-level metadata for e-monograph collections in web-scale discovery systems such as Serials Solutions’ Summon Service and Ex Libris’s Primo Central, which offer unified indexing across metadata for many types of library resources from a variety of repositories and sources. Wu and Mitchell noted that the use of records derived from their library’s ERM knowledge base had streamlined the University of Houston’s batchloading workflows, but they also noted that many of those records contained very minimal bibliographic information.³⁵ Preexisting records in web-scale discovery systems might also contain minimal information, though in some cases, these systems may have better, more complete, metadata than that available in the MARC records provided by some vendors. The balancing act between providing minimal access and full cataloging is one with which libraries are very familiar. The questions that librarians must answer when implementing these solutions are the same for batchloading as they have always been for traditional cataloging: what is gained in terms of efficiency and cataloger time? What is lost in terms of access and standardization? How important for user discovery needs is the additional access provided by full-level cataloging?

It is hard to overstate the value of the library community’s hard work on standards for e-monograph records. But the growing complexity and variety of locally implemented systems, from back-end ILSs, ERMs, and link resolvers to front-end OPACs and discovery systems, means that those standards can serve only as a starting point. Each library must determine what it needs for its own discovery tools. The plethora of options in catalog and discovery systems means that functionality and dependencies even for something as simple as a format limit can vary widely. General studies on metadata and record quality point to the importance of contextual and local applications in any evaluation of quality. Although standards are an excellent and necessary starting point, there is no one-size-fits-all definition of record quality. Libraries must consider widely accepted standards in tandem with the needs of their own users and discovery systems as they make choices for evaluation of record sets and local record enhancement.