General Considerations
One important way in which the description of a periodical will differ
from that of a book is that it will have to recognize, both conceptually and
structurally, that periodicals have a kind of dual existence that most books do
not have. Whereas a book is almost always a self-contained publishing unit, a
periodical exists both as a self-contained unit (the individual number) and as
part of a larger unit (the entire run of the series, described by Scott Bennett
as "a single entity that happens to be spread over time"[24]).
This problem is not an entirely unfamiliar one, because books published
in parts or as volumes in collected editions or in series also have this kind of
dual existence. However, descriptions of such books tend to place their
emphasis on the larger context, giving a full description of one
"representative" volume in the set or series, and briefly indicating the ways in
which individual volumes differ — a practice that tends to distort the
history of the individual volumes by forcing them into a framework that
emphasizes similarity and glosses over differences.
The limitations of this approach make it as unsuitable for periodicals as it
is for books in series. A description of a periodical will misrepresent its
subject if it fails to give full consideration to both the periodical's individual
and its corporate nature. Since the individual existence of
the periodical number is the aspect that has been most often overlooked, it is
especially important that the separate issues, impressions, and editions of
individual numbers be carefully delineated, just as they would be in a
bibliographical description of a book. In most cases it will be necessary and
logical to organize the description according to the smallest publishing unit
— the daily, weekly, monthly or quarterly number — tracing the
subsequent history of the unit in its larger amalgamations, such as the bound
volume.
Even so, there are several reasons why the bibliographer's range of study
must extend beyond the single number, even if (especially if) only one
number is being described. Periodical numbers do not exist by themselves,
but as part of a larger series of publications, and so the number's relation to
that larger body must be indicated in the description. Also, as the foregoing
discussion has indicated, important information about individual numbers is
likely to appear in subsequent numbers, in errata slips, and in tables of
contents and indexes.
The need to account for the periodical's dual citizenship will require the
bibliographer to present more information than is customary in book
descriptions. The body of the description will also be likely to contain more
information than is usually the case. Periodicals, by their very nature, simply
tend to present a great many bibliographical details; this is especially true of
periodicals that contain numerous small articles per page or are copiously
illustrated. Anyone contemplating bibliographical work on periodicals will
have to come to terms, perhaps in new ways, with the old problem of how
much detail can and should be included in a description.
