Consistency, Extent, and Validation of the Utilization of the MARC 21 Bibliographic Standard in the College Libraries of Assam in India

AbstractThis paper brings light to the existing practice of cataloging in the college libraries of Assam in terms of utilizing the MARC 21 standard and its structure, i.e., the tags, subfield codes, and indicators. Catalog records from six college libraries are collected and a survey is conducted to understand the local users’ information requirements for the catalog. Places, where libraries have scope to improve and which divisions of tags could be more helpful for them in information retrieval, are identified and suggested. This study fulfilled the need for local-level assessment of the catalogs.Keywords: Catalogingquality assessmentcollege librarieslibrary catalogsMARC 21MARC tagscatalogs of Assam AcknowledgmentThe authors acknowledge the respondents in the survey for their consent, time, and valuable input during the survey.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Statement of declarationIt is to certify that the authors have no affiliations with, or involvement in, any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The article is the authors’ original work and hasn’t received prior publication.Notes1 K. M. Chollom and Daniel Abubakar, “Importance of Cataloguing and Classification in Libraries,” International Journal of Research Multi-Disciplinary Studies 1, no. 1 (2013): 108.2 Understanding MARC: Bibliographic Machine-Readable Cataloging. Part VII: A Summary of Commonly Used MARC 21 Fields, 8th ed. (Washington, DC: Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress, 2009), accessed June 8, 2022, https://www.loc.gov/marc/umb/um07to10.html.3 Michael Gorman, “Cataloguing in an Electronic Age,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 36, no. 3–4 (2003): 5–17, https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v36n03_02.4 Daniel Draper and Naomi Lederer, “Analysis of Readex’s Serial Set MARC Records: Improving the Data for the Library Catalog,” Government Information Quarterly 30, no. 1 (2013): 87–98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.010.5 Chandrappa, Narayanaswamy Vasantha Raju, and N. S. Harinarayana, “Use of MARC21 Control Field Data in University Library OPACs in Karnataka: A Study,” Annals of Library and Information Studies 68 (2021): 21–7.6 Anita Chandwani, “Role of Libraries and Librarians in NAAC Assessment,” Challenges and Future Prospects in Online Submission of SSR 108 (2022), http://eprints.rclis.org/44074/1/DAYANAND%20ARTICLE.pdf.7 Nicholas Samuel, “10 Reasons How Duplicate Data Harms Your Business,” HEVO (April 5, 2022), https://hevodata.com/learn/duplicate-data.8 E. T. O’Neill, S. A. Rogers, and W. M. Oskins, “Characteristics of Duplicate Records in OCLC’s Online Union Catalog,” Library Resources & Technical Services 37, no. 3 (1993): 59–71.9 D. Das, “MARC 21: The Standard Exchange Format for the 21st Century,” 2nd Convention PLANNER – 2004 (Ahmedabad: INFLIBNET Center, 2004), 154–63.10 Ann Chapman and Owen Massey, “A Catalogue Quality Audit Tool,” Library and Information Research News 26, no. 82 (2002): 26–37.11 Kanta Kapoor and O. P. Goyal, “Web-Based OPACs in Indian Academic Libraries: A Functional Comparison,” Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems 41, no. 3 (2007): 291–309, http://doi: 10.1108/00330330710774165.12 Jange Suresh, “NAAC Accreditation and Academic Libraries: Librarians’ Role Beyond Librarianship,” Journal of Indian Library Association 57, no. 4 (2021): 12.