Survey of Cataloging & Metadata Librarians: Metadata Remediation Efforts
Description
This comprehensive study provides critical insights into how metadata librarians—primarily from U.S. research universities—are planning and executing metadata remediation initiatives to improve discoverability, consistency, and accessibility in library catalogs and digital repositories.
The report is based on detailed survey responses from 47 metadata librarians, offering a rich dataset that reflects current practices, challenges, and future plans in the field. The findings are broken out by key variables such as type of institution, college size and tuition level, and other variables allowing readers to benchmark their own practices against peer institutions.
Key Findings from the Report Include:
High Priority on Metadata Remediation
Over 63% of respondents indicated that metadata remediation is a high or very high priority in their library’s strategic planning.
Staffing Constraints Are a Major Barrier
Nearly 58% cited insufficient staffing as the primary obstacle to undertaking large-scale remediation projects, with smaller institutions reporting even greater challenges.
Use of Automation Tools Is Growing
About 46.8% of librarians reported using automated tools or scripts to assist with metadata cleanup, particularly for MARC records and Dublin Core schemas.
Focus on Subject Headings and Authority Control
The most common areas targeted for remediation were subject headings (72.3%) and authority control (68.1%), reflecting a widespread effort to improve consistency and inclusivity.
Collaboration Across Departments
More than 40% of respondents noted cross-departmental collaboration—especially with IT and digital scholarship units—as essential to successful remediation efforts.
Training and Professional Development Needs
A significant 55.3% of librarians expressed a need for additional training in metadata standards and remediation techniques, with many advocating for more structured professional development opportunities.
The report is based on detailed survey responses from 47 metadata librarians, offering a rich dataset that reflects current practices, challenges, and future plans in the field. The findings are broken out by key variables such as type of institution, college size and tuition level, and other variables allowing readers to benchmark their own practices against peer institutions.
Key Findings from the Report Include:
High Priority on Metadata Remediation
Over 63% of respondents indicated that metadata remediation is a high or very high priority in their library’s strategic planning.
Staffing Constraints Are a Major Barrier
Nearly 58% cited insufficient staffing as the primary obstacle to undertaking large-scale remediation projects, with smaller institutions reporting even greater challenges.
Use of Automation Tools Is Growing
About 46.8% of librarians reported using automated tools or scripts to assist with metadata cleanup, particularly for MARC records and Dublin Core schemas.
Focus on Subject Headings and Authority Control
The most common areas targeted for remediation were subject headings (72.3%) and authority control (68.1%), reflecting a widespread effort to improve consistency and inclusivity.
Collaboration Across Departments
More than 40% of respondents noted cross-departmental collaboration—especially with IT and digital scholarship units—as essential to successful remediation efforts.
Training and Professional Development Needs
A significant 55.3% of librarians expressed a need for additional training in metadata standards and remediation techniques, with many advocating for more structured professional development opportunities.
Table of Contents
114 Pages
- Table 1.1 Does your library currently have an active metadata remediation initiative?
- Table 2 Which types of metadata problems are most frequently addressed in your remediation work? (check all that apply)
- Table 3.1 To what extent do you agree with the statement: Metadata remediation is essential to ensuring equitable access and discovery in our collections.
- Table 4.1 What is the single most primary driver behind your metadata remediation efforts?
- Table 5.1 How would you rate the overall scope of metadata remediation at your institution?
- Table 6.1 To what extent do you agree: My library has sufficient staff expertise to effectively carry out effective metadata remediation.
- Table 7 How great a role do each of the following play in metadata remediation efforts?
- Table 8.1 Approximately what percentage of your personal work time is devoted to remediation rather than new description?
Search Inside Report
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
