Michigan State University

Monographs: Same or New Manifestation? (Edition or Copy of Book)

General Guidance

With monographs, in the case of similar editions or printings, catalogers must consider whether or not the item in hand is a new manifestation. That is, does the book in hand need a separate record or can it be cataloged on existing bibliographic copy?

Note the AACR2 definition of “edition” for books which is still relevant, and helpful:

Edition: Books, pamphlets, fascicles, single sheets, etc.  All copies produced from essentially the same type image (whether by direct contact or by photographic or other methods) and issued by the same entity.

One can read this as a definition of which print monographs belong to the same manifestation.

Considerations according to the LC-PCC PS to RDA 2.1 are as follows, presented here in adapted language:

Consider that a new manifestation is involved (or, that a new record is required) whenever

  1. There is an explicit indication of changes (including corrections) of content; or,
  2. Anything in the MARC 245 field, 250 field, 300 subfield $a, or 4XX field differs from one bibliographic record to another. (For an exception relating to CIP items, see below.); or,
  3. A genuine publisher name change (not simply a name variation of the same publisher) has occurred.

Consider that the book is the same manifestation (does not need new record) if the only variation is one or more of the following:

  1. A difference in the printing or copyright date when there is also a publication date;
  2. A minor variation in an entity's name when a publisher uses multiple forms concurrently (e.g., "Duckworth" and "G. Duckworth" and "St. Martin's" and "St. Martin's Press" have been used at the same time by these publishers). A genuine name change, even if minor, should be considered a new manifestation (see above);
  3. The addition, deletion, or change of an ISBN;
  4. A difference in binding; or,
  5. A difference in the edition statement or the series whenever the item is a CIP book issued by the publisher in both a hardbound and a softbound version.

Differences in Dates

Differences in date are challenging to assess. Differences in explicit dates of publication are certainly major and require a new record. However, in the absence of an explicit date of publication, catalogers may infer publication dates from other sources (according to LC-PCC PS to RDA 2.8.6.6): copyright date, date of manufacture, date of distribution. This is where things can get messy. Bring questions to your supervisor if you are unsure.

However, differences in copyright, manufacture or distribution dates alone may not be major differences.

Chapter 4 of OCLC’s Bib Formats provides helpful criteria regarding dates of production, publication, distribution, manufacture and copyright:

The following differences do not justify a new record:

  • Absence or presence of a publication or copyright date
  • Variation in printing, manufacture or distribution date alone
  • Variation in copyright dates if the publication dates are the same

Borrowing here from this AACR2-era documentation from Tulane. Other factors being equal, the record with the earliest acceptable date(s) is preferred. 

However, a date in the 260 or 264_1 $c subfield cannot be later than the respective date in the piece; in other words, you can move backward in time from a date in the piece that is not considered significant (such as a printing date), but you cannot move forward.  For example, if your piece has a U.S. copyright date of 1935 and a later printing date of 1942, you may use a record with a copyright date of 1935.  On the other hand, you could not use a record with a copyright date of 1946. But be careful to distinguish between publication and copyright dates when looking at the 260 field.

Relationships from New Manifestations

If a piece is deemed a new manifestation according to the considerations above, you will often be able to begin cataloging by deriving a record from the original manifestation. Some adaptation will certainly be necessary; RDA and LC-PCC PSs should be followed.

According to LC-PCC PS to RDA 27.1.1.3, relationships between manifestations can be recorded as structured (7XX linking fields) or unstructured (5XX notes). Structured notes between related manifestations of the same format (ex: two print monographs) can be recorded in MARC field 775. In general, record the relationship in the record for the new manifestation pointing back to the original, but not the reciprocal relationship from the original forward to the new manifestation (generally, a reproduction).

When recording the relationship in a 775, elements of the related manifestation will be sourced from that manifestation’s description. In other words, take what you see in the bib record of the related manifestation.

Structured notes of this kind should consist of at least:

  • Relationship Designator
  • Authorized Access Point for the Work
  • Identifier of Related Manifestation (ex: an OCLC, LCCN,  or SkyRiver number), if available. These numbers are preceded by an agency code which always appears in parentheses. LCCNs are preceded by (DLC), OCLC numbers by (OCoLC), and Skyriver numbers by (CaEvSKY). Leave no space between (OCoLC) or (CaEvSKY) and its number. For LCCNs, record the number *exactly* as you see it in the 010 field. This means that you may be leaving 0, 2, or 3 spaces between the (DLC) and the number. See OCLC Bib Formats for more detail on the history of these input conventions.

Catalogers may optionally include these very helpful elements:

  • Publication Statement of the Related Manifestation
  • Physical Description of the Related Manifestation

For the use of these and other specific subfields, refer to MARC documentation for field 775. For examples of structured 775s, see below. Examples at RDA 27.1.1.3 and the associated LC-PCC PS are also helpful.

Use the appropriate relationship designator from RDA Appendix J.4, generally: $i Reproduction of (manifestation):

Examples:

775 08     $i Reproduction of (manifestation): $t Gold, gals, guns, guts $d [Deadwood, S.D.] : Deadwood-Lead ’76 Centennial Inc., c1975 $h 254 p. : ill. ; 26 cm. $w (DLC) 76005217

775 08     $i Reproduction of (manifestation): $t Out of order. $d Montreal, Quebec : Sarah Tea-Rex, 2009. $w (OCoLC)828235439 $w (CaEvSKY)sky255003152

775 08     $i Reproduction of (manifestation): $a Tagonist, Anne. $t Unapologetic. Issue number almost three. $d [Chicago] : Anne Tagonist, 2002