Goodreads Librarians Group discussion
Questions (from Librarians only)
>
Same ISBN for the whole collection
date
newest »


I found this situation also, and in 2023 editions. here's an example:
https://www.goodreads.com/series/3942...
I ended up adding the ISBN to the first book I added.
Then when I realized that the other books shared the same ISBN, I added them without ISBN.
But I don't think this is a good solution.
I also thought of adding an edition with all 4 books of this colection, like a boxset that would have the ISBN, but I don't think this would be a good solution too, as I would be creating a non-existent boxset.
I hope to learn a good advice/solution from this thread.

In this case, the solution would be:
* Add the ISBN to the first book of the series or collection.
* Add a librarian note to the first book stating, "ISBN 1234567890123 is reused by other books in the XXX collection", or "YYY series".
* Add librarian notes to all the other books using this ISBN, indicating, "Reuses ISBN 1234567890123."
Creating a "collective entry" is not only aesthetically wrong, but it also goes against policy. If the rules apply, you can create a series, or if not, use Listopia. However, an entry that represents a series or collection that wasn't published as such should be NABed (marked as invalid).
Books mentioned in this topic
Premio para insensatos (other topics)Psicontrol (other topics)
All the books in these collections were released individually - as standalones, not as a set. In fact, some of these collections have a few dozens of different titles each.
I consider these as cases of reused ISBNs, but as some of these collections have collective entries (such as Colección: Punto rojo or Colección : La conquista del espacio), I noticed some librarians just refer the users to these entries instead of adding the individual books. So now I wonder if that would be the proper course of action in this case?