Consistent use of first ISBN in MARC field 020 for electronic resources in Alma
Right now which ISBN is displayed/taken for export relating to e-resources is rather inconsistent in Alma:
.) In the results list of an All Titles search the first ISBN of MARC field 020 is displayed and subsequently used for Excel export.
.) In the results list of an Electronic Portfolio search the second ISBN of MARC field 020 is displayed (if there is one) and subsequently used for Excel export.
.) In the portfolio list of an electronic collection the second ISBN of MARC field 020 is displayed (if there is one).
.) On the portfolio tab of the Electronic Service Editor the print ISBN of MARC field 776 08 is displayed.
.) When creating an extended export of an electronic collection the ISBNs are primarily taken from 776 08 MARC field and secondarily from MARC field 020. Three ISBNs are exported at most. Depending on how many ISBNs the record contains it could be 3 print ISBNs of MARC field 776 08, 2 print ISBNs of MARC field 776 08 and the last ISBN of MARC field 020, 1 print ISBN of MARC field 776 08 and the 2 last ISBNs of MARC field 020, 3 ISBNs of MARC field 020 ...
Referring to the knowledge article on display priority (https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Knowledge_Articles/ISBN_(ISSN)_Display_Priority) we would like to note that priority of print ISBN over eISBN seems wrong. Instead we suggest to consistently take the first ISBN of MARC field 020 for display and export of e-resources.
Petra Gratzl
shared this idea
-
Petra Gratzl
commented
Dear Stacey, we also thought that this inconsistency is a defect and opened a case for that (07163092: 'All Titles/Electronic Portfolios: Different display of ISBN in results list depending on type of search [ubwpeg]' ). Unfortunately we were told to create an idea as it is an enhancement... Another idea on that (with only 3 votes) was closed by EL in April this year :-( https://ideas.exlibrisgroup.com/forums/308173-alma?query=request%20for%20uniform
-
Stacey van Groll
commented
This seems like it might be a defect rather than an enhancement. Can it be advised what Ex Libris determination of this is? Did they state it was an enhancement in a support case response?