We’re finding that the Merck Manual is in our results as an e-resource but we only have it in print. Why does this happen?
OneSearch interprets cataloging quite literally.
In this case, the MARC record contains this 856 field (full record):
The second indicator has a mission-critical role (MARC 856 field @ LOC)
- # – No information provided
- 0 – Resource
- 1 – Version of resource
- 2 – Related resource
- 8 – No display constant generated
OneSearch interprets all 2nd indicator values EXCEPT 2 as a version of the e-resource. Since, in the case above, the 2nd indicator = 1, OneSearch reports that the e-resource is available.
If a link is NOT to an actual e-resource, but links to related content, the 2nd indicator should be a 2.
There is one exception. Sometimes tables of contents and other materials are classified with 2nd indicator = 1, that is, a version of the resource. In that case, in order to avoid OneSearch reporting that the e-resource is owned, both of the following must be true:
- at least one of these note subfields must appear: $3, $y, or $z
- one of these note subfields must contain one of the following texts:
- Table of contents (or Inhaltsverzeichnis or Table des matières or Indholdsfortegnelse)
- Sample text
- Publisher description (or Klappentext)
- Book review
- Contributor biographical information
The most common cataloging for these at CUNY
- 85641$3 for “Table of contents” and “Sample text” notes
- 85642$3 for “Publisher description” and “Book review” notes
Before reporting this type of issue to OLS, please check the record metadata with your cataloger.
If the reason for the problem is not obvious from the cataloging and a work order is opened, please copy the 856 field into the work order.
This post was originally published on 29 April 2015. We updated it on 18 August 2015 to reflect the latest information regarding the texts which do not indicate an e-book (for example, klappentext).