Campus Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD) Metadata Practices

There are a wide range of options for handling current ETDs at a given campus. Each of them has their merits and their complications. RM-CMOS does not see an impending need to standardize campus processes at this time and so this page is meant to provide campuses with some understanding of how others handle these types of records. If a need to standardize does arise, RM will revisit the decision. (In Phase 4, RMFG developed a proposed standard ETD record mapping.)

There are two ways that all campuses have access to ETD metadata:

1. eScholarship Repository in CDI (activated in NZ: Collection ID: 61485430720006531)

   1. Pros: no metadata maintenance, updates happen automatically, open access icon

   2. Cons: does not include degree-granting campus, no ability to make changes, can cause duplicates with other NZ records; no portfolios for dissertations

   3. Example record (UCLA) 

2. CZ collections (Dissertations & Theses @ University of California (Collection ID: 61511852850006531) ; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (Collection ID: 61511852860006531) (activated in NZ)

   1. Pros: no maintenance for bib data or URLs required

   2. Cons: does not include degree-granting campus; generally not Open Access, can cause duplicates with other NZ records

   3. Example record of Dissertations & Theses @ University of California (UCD)

Some campuses have implemented additional processes to offer enhanced ETD metadata:

3. Activate CZ collection locally (ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: CID 613170000000000058)

   1. Campuses: UCB, UCLA, UCR

   2. Pros: no maintenance for bib data or URLs required

   3. Cons: does not include degree-granting campus, no portfolios available for the collection, not open access, extra licensing cost

   4. Example record (UCR)

4. Local electronic collection with enhanced CDL-provided MARC records (including contributing to OCLC and importing to Alma)

   1. Campuses: UCLA, UCD, UCI, UCSD, UCM, UCSF

   2. Pros: campus-specific metadata, more control over updates

   3. Cons: requires setup with CDL and an ongoing workload, can duplicate results from CDI

   4. Example record (UCLA)

   5. Example record (UCM)

5. Local electronic collection with metadata harvested from campus repository into Primo

   1. Campuses: UCB (master’s theses only)

   2. Pros: metadata is only maintained in one system, do not need to generate and load MARC records

   3. Cons: MARC records are not in Alma and are not contributed to OCLC, additional work required to setup the mapping and metadata harvesting

   4. Example record (UCB): [to be added once process is implemented]

Example of duplication caused by (1), (3), and (4) (link)

Open