An Examination of the Quality of Catalogue Records of Management Institutes in India

Authors

  • Department of Studies in Library and Information Science, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysuru - 570 006
  • Department of Studies in Library and Information Science, University of Mysore, Manasagangotri, Mysuru - 570 006

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2018/v55i2/119051

Keywords:

Catalogue Evaluation, Cataloguing Quality, Library of Congress, Management Libraries, Metadata, Online Public Access Catalogues (OPAC) Quality

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the quality of catalogue records in the top five management institutes in India. The present study attempts to investigate the error rate found in the catalogue records of five management institutes by comparing with bibliographic records of Library of Congress (LoC). The study analysed the accuracy of 293 catalogue records. The errors in the data were listed and categorised as major and minor errors. The finding shows that while LoC records are absolutely error free, the quality of catalogue records of management institutes, on the other hand, was far from acceptable level. 1093 errors from 251 records were found amounting to 4.35 errors per record. These results show that there is a need for libraries in India to take up the bibliographic data entry more seriously than ever before.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Abd Manaf Z and Abdul Rahman R. (2006). Examining the quality of national library of Malaysia (NLM) cataloguing in publication (CIP) records, Library Review. 55(6):363-73. Crossref.

Avdoyan L. (1995). Cataloging quality: A Library of Congress symposium. Washington D. C.: Library of Congress; 31p.

Ballard T. (2008). Systematic identification of typographical errors in library catalogs, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly. 46(1):27–33. Crossref.

Beall, J., & Kafadar, K. (2004). The effectiveness of copy cataloging at eliminating typographical errors in shared bibliographic records. Library Resources & Technical Services, 48(2), 92–101.

Bruce T and Hillman D. (2004). The continuum of metadata quality: Defining, expressing, exploiting, American Library Association. 238–56. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/7895.

Chapman A and Massey O. (2002). A catalog quality audit tool, Library and Information Research News. 23(82):2637.

Dwyer J. (1992). The cataloger’s invisible College at work: The case of the dirty database test, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly. 14(1):75-82. Crossref.

Graham PS. (1990). Quality in cataloguing: Making distinctions, The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 16(4):213-18.

Hernon P. (1994). Determination of sample size and selection of the sample: Concepts, general sources, and software, College and Research Libraries. 55:171-71. Crossref.

Intner SS. (1989). Much ado about nothing: OCLC and RLIN cataloguing quality, Library Journal. 114(2):38-40.

Kiger JE and Wise K. (1996). Auditing an academic library book collection, The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 22(4):267–72. Crossref.

Mansor Y. (1999). Issues in developing a cooperative cataloguing program in Malaysia: An analysis of MARC records in three university libraries OPAC databases, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Mansor Y. (2003). Bibliographic exchange in Malaysia: Variations in name headings, Library Review. 52(1):38–42. Crossref.

Massey O and O’Brien A. (2000). Auditing catalogue quality by random sampling. UK: UKOLN. Retrieved from: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~bodl0842/dissertation/.

Morris S. (1995). Cataloging quality: A Library of Congress symposium. Washington D. C.: Library of Congress; 31p.

Paiste MS. (2003). Defining and achieving quality in cataloguing in academic libraries: A literature review, Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services. 27:32738. Crossref.

Shin H. (2003). Quality of Korean cataloguing records in shared databases, Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly. 36(1):55-90. Crossref.

Suarez JG. (1992). Three Experts on Quality Management: Philip B. Crosby, W. Edwards Deming, Joseph M. Juran. DTIC Document. Total quality leadership office arlington va. Retrieved from: http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord& metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA256399.

Taylor AG. (1992). Variations in personal name access points in OCLC bibliographic records, Library Resources and Technical Services. 36(2):224-41.

Zeng L. (1992). An evaluation of the quality o f Chineselanguage records in the OCLC OLUC database and a study of a rule-based data validation system for online Chinese cataloging. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

Zeng L. (1993). Quality control of Chinese-language records using a rule-based data validation system-part 1: An evaluation of the quality of Chinese-language records in the OCLC OLUC database, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly. 16(4):25-66. Crossref.

Zeng L. (1994). Methodologies for measuring and enhancing the quality of bilingual bibliographic records. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, Allen Kent ed., s.v. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 53, p. 237-57.

Zeng L. (1994). Quality control of Chinese-language records using a rule-based data validation system-part 2: A study of a rule-based data validation system for online Chinese cataloging, Cataloging and Classification Quarterly. 18(1):3-26. Crossref.

Published

2018-04-02

How to Cite

Chandrappa, & Harinarayana, N. S. (2018). An Examination of the Quality of Catalogue Records of Management Institutes in India. Journal of Information and Knowledge, 55(2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2018/v55i2/119051

Issue

Section

Articles
Received 2017-10-19
Accepted 2018-04-16
Published 2018-04-02

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>