Editions, Printings, Duplicates

Owned by Heather Baker
Last updated: Oct 04, 2022
8 min read

Scope:

Contact:

Unit: Resource Description

Date last reviewed:

Date of next review:


Created & maintained by Amy Turner. First ed. [1987?]. Rev. on Intranet: Apr. 2006; (Duplicate bibs) Mar. 2006; (Belatedly changing references from DRA to Aleph) Sept. 2006; to the web with minor revisions, Aug. 2012

EDITIONS AND PRINTINGS

 
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
 
Here are some definitions of' terms used in this document (all but the last from the glossary of AACR2):

 Edition  In the case of books and booklike materials, all those copies of an item produced from substantially the same type image, whether by direct contact or by photographic methods. 

 Printing  see Facsimile reproduction, Impression, Issue, Reprint

 Facsimile reproduction  A reproduction that has as its chief purpose to simulate the physical appearance of the original work as well as to provide an exact replica of the text.

 Impression  All those copies of an edition printed at one time.

 Issue In the case of books and booklike materials, those copies of an edition forming a distinct group that is distinguished from other copies of the edition by more or less slight but well-defined variations; most commonly a new impression for which corrections or revisions have been incorporated into the original type image.

 Reprint 1. A new printing of an item made from the original type image. commonly by photographic methods. The printing may reproduce the original exactly (an impression (q.v.)) or it may contain more or less slight but well-defined variations (an issue (q.v.)). 2. A new edition with substantially unchanged text. See also facsimile reproduction.

 Publication date The date an edition is first issued to the public. Dates printed without qualification on books can generally be assumed to be publication dates unless there is evidence to the contrary. In the absence of a publication date, statements such as "first printing, 1999" can be used to infer a publication date (260 $c [1999]) or copyright dates can be used (260 $c c1999).

 
One of the primary goals of cataloging is to describe books in such a way that it is clear which edition(s) the library owns. It is very important to use copy for the correct edition of the book in hand. If no copy exists for that edition, the cataloger must create a new record. This is because each OCLC record  creates only one bibliographic record in Aleph. Subsequent exports of the same OCLC record overlay the existing Aleph record.  It is also important that Duke's holdings are attached to the appropriate OCLC records, so the Interlibrary Loan customers can be clear about what edition they are requesting.
 
In Aleph, a single bibliographic record is used for multiple copies, locations and volumes of an edition. Additional holdings information can be added to the appropriate record after initial cataloging is complete. If added copies differ in some way from the 1st copy (described in the bibliographic record) this can be recorded in the holdings record in a piece specific note. In addition to variants between printings, piece specific notes can include information (such as imperfections) which pertains only to one physical copy.  In this second case, a piece specific note can be used for the initial copy. See Section P of the Holdings Manual for more information.
 
For LC's interpretation of the distinction between a copy and an edition, see RI 1.0
 
OCLC goes into more detail about what "legitimately represents a distinctive bibliographic item" in Chapter 4 of Bibliographic Formats and Standards, When to Input a New Record.  These guidelines have evolved with time. There has been increasing emphasis on the principal "If in doubt, use an existing record. " Section 4.2, the field-by-field guidelines, used to contain many specific instances which call for a new records, but now consists largely of lists of discrepancies which do not merit a new record. In general, catalogers are to use judgment, rather than a strict matching of elements against the list. The shorter LC document cited above may be more useful as a quick reference.
 
Differences in content (e.g. different number of pages) and in responsibility (e.g. different publishers) and in form (e.g. microform vs. hard copy) require different records. A book that is accessed electronically is considered a different edition than the same text in print, and requires a different record.
 
Differences in form and responsibility are clear cut, but it is impossible to be absolutely certain when content has changed. A difference in paging may be a typographical error. The publisher can change the content between impressions without leaving any clues. The cataloger's job is to use knowledge of the principles of AACR2, OCLC's guidelines, and common sense to use records which can reasonably be assumed to represent the item in hand, and create new records in other cases.
 
SPECIFIC SITUATIONS
  
A. Publishers' use of the words Printing and 'reprint'
  
Both of these words are often used to mean impression. If a publisher reproduces exactly a text that it has already published, this does not constitute a "distinctive bibliographic work." The book may contain information such as: "First published 1979, reprinted 1986" and "lst printing, April 1981, 2nd printing December 1981, 3rd printing March 1982." In general, the same cataloging copy is used for all impressions of an edition, and printing dates are NOT included.
 
However, in the absence of a publication date, printing dates can be important. See AACR2 1.4F6 and its RI for more information.
 
Statements such as "reprinted with corrections" and "2nd corrected printing" indicate that the text has changed. They are treated as edition statements and require different copy than that used for the original edition.
 
"Reprint" is also used by publishers to mean "republication," defined in the RI to 2.7B7 as "a reissue of a previously published edition by another publisher (italics added) without a change in text." In this case, different copy is required though the content may remain unchanged. (The wording of the definition implies that the content is ALWAYS the same, but further along, you see that new introductions may be added.) The relationship between the republication and the original is shown in a note. See the RI for information about this note. In previous versions of the RI, the note began with the word "reprint," but apparently LC wanted terminology that more clearly distinguishes republications from impressions.
 
See also Bibliographic Formats and Standards, Fixed Field Elements, Dtst for information about dtst "r". This code is used in conjunction with the reprint note discussed above, and with older style and/or less structured notes that indicate that the item is a republication.
 
Note that a distinction is made between republications and microform reproductions of items published in print. In the case of reproductions, the ORIGINAL is described in the body of the record, and the REPRODUCTION is described in a 533 field. The 539 field provides fixed field information about the reproduction. The fixed field generally describes the original with the exception of "form", which is the same as $g in the 539. This pattern is also used for on-demand photocopies (e.g. UMI photocopies of dissertations) and one-of-a-kind photocopies (e.g. those produced at Duke for preservation purposes). For more information, see Bibliographic Formats and Standards, Sections 3.1 Theses and Dissertations and 3.2 Reproductions and Original Microform Publications.
 
B. Editing which involves areas potentially indicating a different edition
 
While information that clearly indicates a different printing is ignored, in other cases, the record is edited to something which might seem to be a different edition, without creating a new record. For example, a difference in paging might be judged to be a typo rather than an indication of change in content. The only date in the book may be a copyright date a year later than the one on the copy, but there is no evidence of change in the item.
 
A common case is foreign imprints. In Romance languages and German, the same word can mean mean both "edition" and "impression." (In addition to the ambiguous "Aufl." German has another word for edition, Ausgabe, which is less ambiguous.) Different editions require different copy, different impressions do not. The cataloger must search for clues to determine the meaning of "Aufl.," "edicion" etc. Change in number of pages from one "ed." or "Aufl." to another, and the presence in the book of terms such as "revisada" or "verandert" definitely warrant a different bibliographic record.
 
Chapter 4 of Bibliographic Formats and Standards offers the following guidance for the opposite situation: "If the edition statement appears in conjunction with the printer's name or the number of copies printed, generally consider the edition statement to reflect printing information. Use the existing record."
 
Often there is no clear evidence one way or the other. OCLC and Duke practices have changed over the years. At one time, OCLC required new records for each "Aufl.," regardless of evidence of revision. Later, they tended to discourage new records. Their latest advice is non-commital: "In all other cases, use judgment." Meanwhile, Duke policy changed from following the OCLC rule of always making a new record, to treating "Aufl.", which could not be proven to be true editions as printings, to editing the copy as if for an edition, but without creating a new record. When we get added copies with different "Aufl." statements, this was recorded in copy specific notes.
 
Current policy for ambiguous printing/editions is to use matching copy if it exists (even if you it seems out-of-step with OCLC policy).  However, in cases where OCLC policy indicates that existing copy should be used DO NOT edit to match the book as regards the ambiguous printing/edition information.  Do not add item notes if an added copy or location differs from the bibliographic record in this way.  This policy will facilitate the connections made between the wider web (Google Scholar, WorldCat) and our catalog, and looks forward to a possible cooperative catalog on the WorldCat Local model.

C. Copy which, according to the most current rules, should not exist.
 
There are many records both in Aleph and in OCLC which actually represent impressions, not editions. Some are errors, but probably the vast majority were created under earlier guidelines. For example, the idea that the publication date is "the year of publication of the first impression of the edition" was first expressed in the 1974 revision of AACR1 Chapter 6. Prior to that time, the date on the title page was always recorded, even when the title page verso made it clear that it was a printing date. A more recent change is that OCLC used to require a new record for "1st paperback ed." Now, if everything else matches, you should use the copy for the hardback, adding an ISBN for the paperback edition.
 
An earlier version of this document required the cataloger to search for earlier copy in certain instances. In light of continuing evolution of the standards, this is now more open to judgement. On the one hand, the earlier copy may be better, and it does allow for neater and more economical collecting of copies on one record. Certainly, when the cataloger discovers earlier copy which matches, it should be used. This is particularly true when the earlier printing is already held--Collection Development may decide not to keep the copy in hand. On the other hand, we can't hope to consistently and retroactively apply the latest rule of what constitutes an edition. As long as the copy that we use does accurately reflect the books we own, we'll have to live with a less than perfect situation regarding records which may or may not be duplicates.
 

                                                                       DUPLICATE BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORDS IN ALEPH
 
As in DRA (and theoretically OCLC), there should be only one bibliographic record for each work or edition of a work. Multiple holdings and items records can be attached to one bibliographic record for additional copies, volumes and locations. Duplicate records may be added in error and should be deleted.  
Â