Page Comparison

...

1. Exclude “Manuscript Unit” Special Collections & Archives materials from Analytics-based annual statistic reports. Instead, Special Collections on each campus will report their own counts of materials for risk-management and other purposes. Special Collections experts on each campus are responsible for defining how to exclude records that would duplicate their non-Alma counts.

2. Re-label “Manuscript” resource-type items using clearer terms, to distinguish them from Special Collections materials. Examples include “Manuscripts, non-SCA” or “Non-MU Unpublished Manuscript” or “Non-MU Unpublished (formerly Manuscript - Physical).” More descriptive language for relevant MARC codes is at: loc.gov > MARC 21 Format for Bibliographic Data and oclc.org > Bibliographic Formats and Standards

...

1. “Manuscript” as value for Resource Type means something different from “Manuscript” in the Special Collections context.

   1. “Manuscript Units” are categories of Special Collections and Archives materials. For UCOP statistics in the past, they have included three subcategories:

      1. Personal manuscripts

      2. UC archival manuscripts

      3. Other archival materials

   2. In contrast, the “Manuscript” value is derived from values in the MARC Leader and 008. (See Alma User Interface - General Information > Searching in Alma). Correctly catalogued items with this Resource Type include unpublished dissertations and other materials that frequently do not correspond to the kinds of materials that are counted as “Manuscript Units” by Special Collections and Archives experts.

2. “Manuscript Unit” materials do not have corresponding item records in Alma. Subcategories from previous UCOP submissions, like “Personal manuscript units”, generally do not have item-level records in Alma that can be neatly counted by filtering by location, MARC field, or other values in existing physical item records. In addition, most MUs have no corresponding record in Alma at all.

...

Of 4,060 Manuscript Units reported, most do not have corresponding Alma records. Based on a query that looks for finding aid URLs, there are only ~700 MUs reported that do have corresponding Alma item records that correspond to reported MUs. Example:

• Title (Filing): Larry Engelmann papers, circa 1940-2011

• MMS ID: 991035418158504701

• Resource Type: Undefined (i.e., not “Manuscript”)

• Location Name: Gateway Study Center Southeast Asian Archive

• Call Number Suffix: Archival Collections

• https://uci.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01CDL_IRV_INST/17uq3m8/alma991035418158504701 

...

• Manuscript Units reported to UCOP in 2021-2022: ~4,000

• Item count for Resource Type “Manuscript”: >12,500.

• Item count for Resource Type “Manuscript” in Special Collections and Archives locations: ~1,300.

2021-2022 UCOP Table 3 Other Library Materials

...

Resource Type = “Manuscript” Example: Irvine

...

Alma Resource Type

...

Location

...

Total Active Items

...

Manuscript

...

Special Collections (e.g., Langson Library Special Collections and Archives)

...

1,285

...

Manuscript

...

Other locations (e.g., Science Library)

...

11,472

Overall concerns identified by Special Collections & Archives experts

There are two additional ways that a count of items based on bibliographic resource type with current Alma data fail to provide useful information about Special Collections materials.

1. Overall measurement issues. Counts of item records in Special Collections locations across the system are wholly inadequate.

   • Item records do not exist at all for some materials This is true at Bancroft Library and other Special Collections units in the UC Libraries.

   • Online Archive of California records are not accurately represented in Alma. At UC Irvine, for example, Alma does not have item records that correspond to representations there.

   • Item records do not correspond to meaningful, standard archival measurements that are in use nationally and internationally. ARL, for example, asks for Manuscript Units.

   • Item records for containers are flawed measurements, because they canrepresent vastly different quantities and types of materials - from a single piece of paper to a large container with thousands of documents.

   • Inaccurately coded records are an issue. For example, Berkeley Bancroft Technical Services notes that many Alma items for Special Collection manuscripts are currently miscoded coded as type “book.”

   • Resource type at the bibliographic level does not provide meaningful information. Manuscripts and archival materials are sometimes coded as “collections,” and sometimes as “manuscripts.” Still images can be both “pictures” and “other,” due to coding as projected vs. non-projected graphics. On many campuses, counts of items with resource type “Manuscript” mostly show individually-catalogued theses and dissertations.

2. Risk management issues. Counts of items cannot provide an accurate or useful picture of the value of materials for insurance purposes.

   • For UCOP stats, HOSC has provided MU measurements because the insurance unit values table describes manuscripts as "Personal Manuscripts," "UC Archival Manuscripts," and "Other Manuscripts" -- all this translates, to HOSC since at least the last decade+, as archival/manuscript collections, not individual manuscripts. https://libraries.universityofcalifornia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Unit_value_2021.pdf.

   • For some materials, there is an existing distinction between UC archival collections and personal papers or other collected manuscripts that is recorded at the item level—not at the bibliographic level. Valuations have in the past been tied to this information, so any changes to tracking it should be in coordination with UCOP Risk Management.

...