Fredericksen R B, Michael H N
Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1976 Oct;64(4):356-66.
A survey of North American medical school libraries was made to determine current trends in subject cataloging practices. First, responses from 114 of these libraries are recorded and analyzed in the following areas: subject heading authority lists employed; use of the divided versus the dictionary catalog; and the form in which local subject authority files are kept. Then, focusing on 78 libraries that use MeSH in combination with a divided catalog, a further analysis of responses is made concerning issues relating to subject cataloging practices: updating the subject catalog to conform to annual MeSH changes; use of guide cards in the catalog; use of MeSH subheadings; filing conventions; and related issues. An attempt is made to analyze the extent to which these libraries vary from NLM practices. Suggestions are offered for formulating subject cataloging practices for an individual library. Finally, while it is concluded that MeSH and the Current Catalog are useful tools, a more detailed explication of the use of MeSH and NLM cataloging practices would be beneficial.
对北美医学院校图书馆进行了一项调查,以确定主题编目实践的当前趋势。首先,记录并分析了其中114家图书馆在以下方面的回复:所采用的主题词权威列表;分面目录与字典式目录的使用情况;以及本地主题权威文件的保存形式。然后,聚焦于78家将医学主题词表(MeSH)与分面目录结合使用的图书馆,进一步分析了与主题编目实践相关问题的回复:更新主题目录以符合MeSH的年度变化;目录中导卡的使用;MeSH副标题的使用;归档惯例;以及相关问题。试图分析这些图书馆与美国国立医学图书馆(NLM)实践的差异程度。为单个图书馆制定主题编目实践提供了建议。最后,虽然得出结论认为MeSH和《现刊目录》是有用的工具,但对MeSH的使用和NLM编目实践进行更详细的阐释将是有益的。