College and Research Libraries By C U R T I S G . B E N J A M I N Some Problems of Scientific Book Publication Mr. Benjamin is president, McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc. WHEN I was asked to take part in this program on the theme "Problems of Scientific Publication," I accepted readily, for, frankly, I felt I was just the man. I say this because the scientific book publisher nowadays is f u l l of problems, and having a weakness for the spoken as well as the writ- ten word, he likes to talk about his prob- lems. Indeed, many a book publisher is like one of A. P . H e r b e r t ' s fellow Members of Parliament about whom M r . H e r b e r t remarked, " H e is the kind of man who can always be depended upon to find a problem to every solution." T o d a y , we publishers of scientific books find that most of our problems, and most of the problems to the proposed solutions to these problems, are economic ones. T h e y involve rapidly mounting production costs, and failure or inability to adjust prices to meet these costs. Also, they involve the phenomenon of increasing scientific special- ization, under which markets for specialized books have remained relatively small in spite of the tremendous growth in the total field of science and the total numbers of writers and buyers of scientific books. Also involved is a distressing lack of tech- nological improvement in methods and ma- chines for type composition, especially for composition of mathematical, chemical, and other symbolic scientific matter. "Paper presented at meeting of P u r e and Applied Sciences Section, A C R L , New York City, J u l y 3, 1952. I should not take your time this morning for a discussion of these dismal economic problems, for I could only repeat w h a t I said in an article published in a recent issue of Physics Today. If you are interested in these economic and technical matters, you can read this article in a few minutes. But before you do so, I should perhaps help you to evaluate it by quoting from a paper of one of your distinguished colleagues, D r . Vernon T a t e : In the April number of Physics Today, M r . C u r t i s Benjamin, President of M c G r a w - H i l l , published an interesting and provocative ar- ticle entitled, ' W h a t Price Scientific B o o k s ? ' A n abstract of the paper states, ' M a n y special- ized scientific books which should be published f o r the general good of science cannot be accepted f o r publication because of high printing costs and their limited audiences. W h a t is needed is a research program carried out by the publishers themselves that will aim at reduced costs and increased speed in print- ing scientific material.' M r . Benjamin's argu- ment is w e l l phrased, shrewdly designed, interestingly presented and completely f a l - lacious. Of course, my face was inappropriately red at D a r t m o u t h when your colleague finished this evaluation. I soon recovered, however, when D r . T a t e read on and I discovered that he thought my argument was fallacious because necessity, the urgent necessity of science, would surely find a way to solve these problems which have bothered me and other publishers of scien- tific books for several years. D r . T a t e says: A n y needed scientific or technical book or communication can be published today in an 282 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES edition sufficiently small to meet the needs of the field and at costs that are within the realm of possibility. Please note the emphasis on the word published. If the break-even point for a conventional book is 8,000 copies, and the market will absorb only half of these at current rates, including a fair profit for the entrepreneur, then a conventional book is not what is needed, or perhaps conventional channels of publication are not adequate. If author, publisher, librarian and user cannot convince themselves of this elemental fact, we are indeed due for trouble. • N o w , frankly, I in turn was not con- vinced by D r . T a t e ' s argument and assur- ance. M a y b e you would be both convinced and comforted by his article. N o w , I want to turn next to a publishing problem which might be discussed under the heading " T h e Rising T i d e . " In recent years I have heard librarians, and many scientists, too, rail against the rapidly rising tide of scientific literature. Indeed, there is a general tendency to de- plore the volume and berate the density of this tide. M a n y people, including librar- ians, have thrown up their hands and ex- claimed, " T h i s is a senseless and wholly unmanageable flood. H o w can we expect to cope with it? Something must be done to stop it, or at least to check it, or maybe to channel it in a different direction, or something. . . . " T h i s is, I think, an unrealistic and un- reasoned attitude. T h e tide of scientific literature in America is neither higher nor stronger than the tide of science itself. In deed, the tide of literature has lagged be- hind the rising tide of science. T h e fullest flood of books, monographs, reports, sym- posia, pamphlets, articles, indexes, digests, and abstracts is yet to come. None of us should waste any time in deploring and berating. W e should bend all our efforts to coping. Whenever and wherever this problem has" been discussed, there always has been much talk of the evils of duplication in scientific literature. M a n y people seem to be convinced that duplication is an unneces- sary evil, and that if this great evil could somehow be eliminated, the problem of publishing, cataloging, housing and using scientific literature would be easier to solve. W h i l e the great waste of time, effort, and expense is readily evident in the seemingly pointless duplication of publications in al- most every field of science, I cannot join those who sadly deplore this situation and strongly feel that something must be done about it. T h e problem is obvious: W h o will do the eliminating of the offending publications? W h a t man, or what group of men, is so wise as to say generally, " W e already have enough publications on this subject. N o more should be produced." O r , more specifically, who is so wise, or so sure of himself, as to say to an ambitious young scientist, or even to an energetic older one, " L o o k here, young man (or old fel- l o w ) , many of your peers and superiors al- ready have written good books in this field. Y o u must not indulge yourself in the wasteful effort of trying to write another." W h i l e there usually is no direct correla- tion between the quality and the quantity of publications in a given field of science, I am sure that, in the long run, the quality would suffer if the quantity were arbitrar- ily rather than naturally restricted. In the administration of justice it is generally agreed that it is better that ten guilty men should go free than one innocent man should suffer unjustly. F o r my part, I would rather encourage ten, or even twenty, seem- ingly pedestrian authors than to risk the discouragement of one who might make a genuine and original contribution to his field. Indeed, it seems to me that the great advances in scientific literature have been made by striking individual mutations rather JULY, 1953 283 than by systematic stages of evolutionary progression. I have just spoken of the natural restric- tion of scientific publications. B y this I mean the kind of restriction that prevents the publication of many manuscripts in the free competition of normal commercial pub- lication. A s I indicated earlier, economics is a large restrictive factor. Unhappily this factor operates most decisively against ad- vanced and specialized publications which are likely to be of the most value in ad- vancing the front of science. M a n y scien- tific books cannot be published because mar- kets are too small and production costs are too high. ( I n this connection it is interest- ing to note another curious phenomenon: more often than not there is a startling in- verse ratio between the size of the potential market f o r a scientific book and the size of the printer's bill. T h e most highly special- ized scientific publications usually contain the largest amounts of complicated mathe- matical or chemical matter, and hence are the most costly to produce. T h i s vexing phenomenon does not operate in the pub- lication of monographs and specialized treatises in the humanities and social sci- ences, which may explain w h y so many uni- versity presses stick pretty closely to high- brow books in those fields.) T w o other restrictive factors in the nat- ural selection of scientific books are ( I ) lack of technical accuracy and originality, and ( 2 ) lack of literary competence, not to say elegance. Fortunately, these two fac- tors operate most decisively against text- books and general treatises at the elemen- tary and intermediate levels. Recently a well-known librarian read a brilliant paper which revealed his deep concern over the enormous volume of cur- rent scientific literature, the copious dupli- cation of titles, and the onerous job which faces the librarian in trying to separate "the froth f r o m the substance." I wondered then, as I often have before, whether li- brarians in general realize how deep is their debt to book publishers f o r assistance in this onerous separation process. W e l l , I can give you a rough idea. T h e firm with which I am connected publishes about 3 0 0 new and revised books a year. T h i s num- ber is selected f r o m a list of about 2 7 0 0 published titles and an annual offering of 5000 to 6000 new manuscripts. N o w , I realize that our 3 0 0 titles in any year con- tain quite a bit of froth, and I know that w e reject each year much real substance— which is, of course, quickly snapped up by our more astute competitors. I hope, how- ever, that this rough indication of one pub- lisher's ratio of separation w i l l give you both comfort and courage in your own battle against the rapidly rising tide. One further observation in this connec- tion which may give you additional com- fort : scientific literature is w h o l l y free of " v a n i t y " publishing. Y o u do not have to cope with the numerous author-financed volumes which are published each year in poetry, in the polite letters, and in the un- polite controversial areas of economics and politics. F o r this you should, perhaps, thank the scientists more than the publish- ers. A s a rule, scientists are both fiercely proud and moderately poor. Another problem faced by the publisher of scientific books has a direct relation to D r . Sunderlin's interesting and informa- tive discussion of the National Research Foundation. T h i s problem is posed by the flight of scientists, and hence of potential authors of scientific books, to government research agencies. Facts and figures on the extent of this flight have been widely pub- lished in recent months; I am sure they are w e l l known to most of you. Proportion- ately more scientists are now working, either directly or indirectly, f o r the federal gov- 284 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES ernment than there were at the height of W o r l d W a r I I , and, we are told that the new peak has not yet come. A measure of the rapid growth in this new peak can be found in the following fig- ures which were recently published by the National Research Council. T o t a l federal expenditure for research at the height of the W o r l d W a r I I program in 1945 was $ 8 8 0 million. B y 1 9 5 0 this expense had climbed to $ 1 , 0 4 0 million. It was $ 1 , 3 1 0 million in 1 9 5 1 , and is estimated to be $ 1 , 6 4 0 million this year, with a substantial increase ahead for next year. Further it is estimated that 5 6 % of the total research in the country is now financed, either directly or indirectly, by the federal government, and this figure is ex- pected to increase to 7 0 % or 7 5 % within the next few years. T h i s means, of course, that 7 0 % or 7 5 % of the country's scien- tists will be working for the government— or this should be the proportion if the gov- ernment is getting a proper return of brain power f o r its dollar expenditure. W h a t ' s more, this 7 0 % or 7 5 % will include most of the ablest scientists in the land. Patriotic and financial considerations will insure this —and this is, of course, as it should be. N o w , just how does this flight affect com- mercial publication of scientific books? T h e answer is rather obvious: it takes large numbers of top scientists off the market, so to speak, as f a r as private authorship is con- cerned. T h e reason for this is to be found in an antiquated public law, Section 1 1 1 of T i t l e 44, U.S. Code, which was enacted many years ago and which has since been amended in many minor respects but never thoroughly overhauled and modernized to meet modern conditions and requirements. A s all of you know, this law requires that all printing for government agencies (other than the Supreme Court and the National Science Foundation), or for private agen- cies operating with government funds, must be done by the Government Printing Office, or under a hard-to-come-by waiver from the G . P . O . or the J o i n t Congressional Committee on Printing. It follows that under this law, all the results of research done by the thousands of government- employed scientists must be published or printed (most government agencies make no distinction between these two functions) by the G . P . O . T h i s monopoly—and to my way of thinking it is one of the world's largest and most effective monopolies—has cancelled in each recent year a higher pro- portion of the publisher's normal source of scientific manuscripts. N o w , before I pursue this point further, I want to comment briefly on T i t l e 44 of the U.S. Code and on the administration of the G . P . O . under its authority—and I hope you will pardon my obvious prejudice if I sound a bit caustic. First, I think the law is unreasonable and discriminatory in its designation of printing as the only commodity or service which one government agency must buy from another government agency. T h e executive and military departments of the government can buy anything and everything under the sun except printing. T h e N a v y , for ex- ample, can buy anything from a battleship or a super-bomber down to hairnets, fish hooks, and toothpicks—but it cannot buy printing, not without a wTaiver under the strictest interpretation of the law. Second, this law embarrasses and handi- caps operating officials in almost every ex- ecutive and military department of the government. T h e y hate its restrictive and delaying influence on their operations, but they dare not oppose it, or even to cry out against it. T h e G . P . O . is run by a power- f u l J o i n t Committee of Congress, and ap- propriations for the executive and military departments come from Congress. JULY, 1953 285 T h i r d , the administration of the G . P . O . , under this law, permits widespread petty patronage and substantial waste of public funds. N o t many years ago Congressmen gave away packages of seeds—now they give away nicely bound books. ( T h e vo- luminous and costly yearbook of the Depart- ment of Agriculture is a favorite item to gladden a voter's heart.) T h e amount of waste resulting from overprints that are produced for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, if it could be accurately re- ported, would upset taxpayers throughout the land. I know of no recent figures on this, but as some of you remember, L e R o y Charles M e r r i t t , in his The United States Government as Publisher (University of Chicago Press, 1 9 4 3 ) , reported that in 1 9 4 0 only 1 4 ^ % of the copies printed for this purpose were sold. James L . M c C a m y , in his admirable Government Publications for the Citizen (Columbia University Press, I 949)> reported that in the fiscal year 1 9 4 7 , sales income compensated for only 1 4 % of the cost of government publications pro- duced for sale by the Superintendent of Documents in that year. ( I hope you will please understand that in citing these fig- ures, I am not blaming the Public Printer. H e is an experienced man who knows his business. N o r am I blaming the Super- intendent of Documents. H e is a bright, energetic young man who seems to be giv- ing his best effort to his job. I do blame the law, the organizational system, the ad- ministrative policies, and the political tradi- tions under which these men have to op- erate.) N o w , as suggested earlier, T i t l e 44 does provide exemption under which official documents, scientific and otherwise, may be published by private firms. T h e law ex- empts quite specifically "such classes of work as shall be deemed by the J o i n t Com- mittee on Printing to be urgent or necessary to have done elsewhere," and which pre- sumedly should be done elsewhere in the interest of the public good. T h e trouble here is that the administra- tion of the law has been so rigorous as to permit very f e w exceptions in recent years. Most of the exceptions which have been permitted have come in wartime (that is "official" wartime, not "police-action" war- time) and under great pressures or quasi- legal devices. I strongly feel that this law needs funda- mental revision in order to permit the ex- ecutive or military departments to contract with commercial firms for production and distribution of many government publica- tions which can and should stand on their own feet financially. U n t i l this can be done, the J o i n t Committee's regulation of printing under the present law should be relaxed to permit more exemption " f o r the public good." It goes without saying that this should be done with the usual safe- guards against abuses. T h e r e are many arguments—involving matters of law, private rights, and public morals—for and against this proposed legal reform. I shall not attempt to give them even a lightly-once-over treatment here, but I should like to indicate some of the ad- vantages which would accrue from reform, primarily to scientific literature, secondarily to commercial publishers of the same, and tertiarily to the taxpayer. ( I place the publisher in a secondary position because he is also a taxpayer, and hence any reform would compound his benefit.) First, if allowed to do so, commercial publishers could help materially in relieving some of the great pressure for quicker pub- lication of unclassified government re- search. A s entrepreneurs, we could not, of course, publish primary research reports in great numbers, but now and then such re- ports can be made to support themselves 286 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES commercially. W e could, however, publish commercially vast quantities of secondary re- ports and other literary by-products of government research. I refer to such ma- terials as the M . I . T . Radiation Laboratory Series, the A . E . C . ' s National Nuclear En- ergy Series, the Rand Corporation Series, and other similar projects which we at M c G r a w - H i l l have undertaken at our own expense. I refer also to such volumes as the famous Smythe Report, which was published so successfully by the Princeton University Press, and the more recent Glasstone Source Book of Atomic Energy, published so successfully by the D . V a n Nostrand Company. If commercial publishers were permitted to produce many more official publications such as these, this would allow the gov- ernment research agencies and the G . P . O . to devote proportionately more of their time, funds, and production capacity to the publication of primary research, both clas- sified and unclassified. Second, and almost equally important to all of us as taxpayers, commercial publica- tion of self-supporting scientific and tech- nical documents of government origin would save annually thousands upon thous- ands of dollars of federal funds. I hope you w i l l pardon me if I again refer to the Radiation Laboratory Series as an example of what can be done in this direction. A t a rough estimate, the government has a net saving of approximately $260,000 in the avoidance of the production cost of these 27 volumes as official technical reports—reports which were required of M . I . T . under their O . S . R . D . contract. T h i s figure rep- resents the estimated cost of composing, printing, and binding 500 copies of each volume as an official technical report, which would have been done normally at govern- ment expense. T h e publisher assumed all this manufacturing cost and in addition has paid over $ 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 into the U . S . T r e a s u r y as royalty on sales to date. T h u s the com- mercial publication of this series alone al- ready has given the U . S . T r e a s u r y — a n d the U . S . taxpayer—a total benefit of $380,000. A d d to this sum the amount of tax paid by the publisher on his profit from sales of these official reports, and add also the anticipated royalty for the next few years, and one would be rather safe in esti- mating that, in the end, the total benefit to the U . S . Treasury will be well over one- half million dollars. Of course this par- ticular performance could seldom be matched, but with the present legal and regulatory restrictions removed, scores of smaller publications might more than match this saving annually. N o w , I have only sketched this problem in its broadest outlines. Y o u may be sure that we publishers are pressing our argu- ments on our, and your, public servants in Washington. Of course, we have been ac- cused of having special interests, and nat- urally we have been the first to admit the obvious truth of this charge. I hope that you—all of you librarians—will feel that you, too, have special interests in this prob- lem, and that you w i l l see fit to support our arguments whenever and wherever an opportunity presents itself. JULY, 1953 28 7 Proposed Statement of Principles to Guide Large Scale Acquisition and Preservation of Library Materials on Microfilm Introductory Note TH I S S T A T E M E N T of principles was pre-pared by the Cooperative Committee on Microfilm Projects, a subcommittee of the Board on Resources of American Libraries, which was created by the board in 1950 in response to a need for long-range planning to save valuable manuscript and printed records in danger of loss through physical deteriora- tion or the ravages of war. Members of the committee are: Ralph Carruthers, New York Public Library; Donald Coney, University of California; John Cronin, Library of Con- gress; Herman Fussier, University of Chi- cago; Lawrence Kipp, Harvard University; Charles Mixer, Columbia University; and B. E. Powell, Duke University (chairman). Robert B. Downs, University of Illinois, was the committee's first chairman. The committee agreed at the outset that its first efforts should be devoted to outlining the scope of the job of recovery and preserva- tion, and to the preparation of a statement of principles by means of which libraries and li- brarians might be aided in the selecton and mcrofilming of research materials. This is the statement. It suggests some of the areas in which microfilming programs are urgently needed and sets down conditions which must exist if a comprehensive program is to yield maximum results. While the statement was in preparation, the committee decided to select a specific body of materials which everyone recognized as im- portant and concentrate on the development of a program to preserve it. United States newspapers of the woodpulp period (since 1870) were chosen. Representatives in each of the 48 states were appointed to direct selec- tion of the state's most important papers not already filmed. Lists were received from most of the states and have been published by the Library of Congress. Copies have been distributed to state library associations, histori- cal societies, and other state agencies, with an appeal that they cooperate in filming and in stimulating the filming of their state papers appearing on the list. T h e Committee hopes that each state will be responsible for filming its papers, and that the state agencies acquiring copies will make them available for loan. In this manner, unnecessary multiplication of positive copies can be avoided and all avail- able funds utilized to extend the copying program. Anyone interested in assisting with this program may secure additional informa- tion from the president of his state library as- sociation, or from members of the Committee. The Committee will keep its eye on the newspaper project, but will turn most of its attention from now on to the copying of other materials in immediate need of preservation. —B. E. Powell, chairman, Committee on Co- operative Microfilm Projects. S T A T E M E N T The modern hazards of war are such that civilization risks the total loss of valuable manuscript collections unless a coordinated effort can be made to reproduce important manuscript collections and locate the copies at points f a r distant from the originals. One may then hope that either the originals or the copies will survive. Substantial bodies of printed materials are exposed to the same dangers. But some of these printed materials, particularly domestic and foreign newspapers of the woodpulp period, disintegrating peri- odicals, and out-of-print books face even more certain destruction through physical de- terioration. Some progress has been made in conserving these materials through uncoordi- nated microfilming projects which have re- sulted in the deposit of copies of large num- bers of manuscripts and extensive series in collections located in Europe and elsewhere. Microfilming efforts are also under way to preserve many of the outstanding domestic and foreign newspapers. And limited proj- ects have been instituted to film early Ameri- can and English periodicals. But any filming program dependent exclusively upon random selection and chance opportunities is likely to lead to the dissipation of available financial resources without a commensurate increase in either general security or accessibility. If this vast wealth of research material is to be sal- vaged and made accessible a more systematic attack on a larger scale is essential. 288 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Preservation of Library Materials Perhaps the most pressing needs to which inter-library cooperation in microfilm projects would contribute relate to the preservation of library materials, specifically, and in descend- ing order of priority, to the preservation of ( i ) domestic newspapers of the woodpulp period, (2) disintegrating periodicals, and (3) out-of-print books. In each of these fields there have been beginnings, commercial or otherwise. Indeed, in the field of newspaper microfilming vigorous programs are under way in several states where numerous papers have been and are being filmed by various libraries, commercial microfilming agencies and publish- ers. However, despite the relatively high in- terest and activity in this field, there is need for further planning which will augment current activity and resources and will induce a greater number of libraries, associations and other organizations which are interested in the preservation of the record of our civiliza- tion to assume a share of the responsibility for that preservation.1 Toward this end, this committee is en- deavoring to secure from each of the forty- eight states appropriate lists of the newspapers (metropolitan, weekly, county, labor, foreign language, Negro, etc.) which have been micro- filmed and of others to whose preservation highest priority should be given. The Com- mittee is also endeavoring to stimulate partic- ular libraries which have an interest in spe- cific newspapers to undertake responsibility for filming them. Even with this effort, how- ever, it seems unlikely that available resources will suffice for a fully satisfactory rescue operation in the field of domestic newspapers. Nevertheless, plans for preserving domestic periodicals ought not to be postponed until newspaper programs are well launched. T o be sure, the number of domestic periodicals which are rapidly deteriorating is far smaller than the number of deteriorating newspapers 1 The immensity of the newspaper problem is re- flected in the holdings of the Library of Congress in 19th and 20th century woodpulp newspapers which to- tal over 67,000 bound volumes. To microfilm these would require over 67,000,000 exposures at a cost of roughly $2,000,000 for a negative and positive print. Even if the newspaper preservation program were to limit itself during the forseeable future to the filming of 19th century domestic newspapers, the resources of the Library of Congress would suffice only , for a frac- tion of the total work to be done. On its own, the Li- brary can undertake only the filming of certain large metropolitan dailies whose existence has been of major consequence as sources for our national history. The preservation of other papers must be left to the con- science and enterprise of the research libraries with strong interest in their regions, to the state and local libraries and the historical societies. not only because of the better quality of the paper on which they have been printed but also because the greater convenience of their format more adequately protects them. Nevertheless, there are titles among the do- mestic periodicals which should receive prompt attention or shortly there will be no extant copies suitable for filming.2 Lists should be compiled of foreign newspapers and of do- mestic and foreign periodicals urgently in need of salvage operations and priorities for their microfilming established. It must be recognized that the problem of physical deterioration of woodpulp books and periodicals is now with libraries permanently. Long range plans for alleviating the situation must therefore be adaptable to incorporation into the regular fabric of the library economy. The even greater problem of preservation of foreign materials is covered implicitly in the following section on large scale acquisitions programs. Large-Scale Acqusitions Programs The Committeeshares with the Library of Congress a conviction that it is important that there be a planned program for copying large bodies of source materials in the countries of Western Europe and other parts of the world, as described in the following para- graphs, and hopes that many of America's re- search libraries will find it possible to partici- pate in such a program. The national microfilming program should be comprehensive and developed in detail as to method, type of operation, spheres of in- fluence, priorities, and similar matters. It likewise should be flexible enough to permit alteration in nature, scope, duration, etc., without disrupting the basic structure of the program. Beginning with a statement of ob- jectives this plan should progress through a survey of information and an analysis of all known factors, and conclude with a recom- mendation for action.3 2 Recently, /the University of Kentucky Library cir- culated a list- of most frequently cited periodicals and inquired into , the the interest of research libraries in subscriptions for them in various forms of reproduc- tion. This commendable type of activity should be ex- panded on a planned basis. It relates to acquisitions as well as to preservation. 3 The Library of Congress has taken systematic meas- ures which are preliminary to a planned program for copying large bodies of source materials in Western Europe. This action has resulted from the conviction that a primary requirement of American scholarship is ready access to information concerning the collections of ma- terials, published or unpublished, in the libraries, ar- chives and similar institutions of Europe. In 1950 the Library sent a member of its staff to Paris as the base from which to embark upon the major assignments JULY, 1953 289 Despite any planned program to acquire re- search materials in microfilm form there will be other favorable opportunities to obtain valuable source materials at moderate cost through cooperation with organizations whose activities abroad permit including microfilm- ing projects without normal overhead expendi- ture, e.g., the Library of Congress projects on Mt. Sinai and in Jerusalem. Additionally, particular opportunities to perform "rescue operations" by filming bodies of important materials which are likely to be destroyed or closed indefinitely to western scholarship will merit serious consideration as they occur. It is clear, however, that any acquisitions pro- gram dependent exclusively upon such chance opportunities will exhaust the financial re- sources of American libraries on a miscellany of unrelated projects; and it is equally appar- ent that a world-wide program planned to bring to this country copies of all valuable source material which may be soon lost to us would require the expenditure of sums greatly in excess of the resources available to our libraries for such purposes. Action Needed by Research Libraries The urgency and scope of the problem are of the mission; namely, the dissemination of the Li- brary's philosophy of cooperation in ascertaining and sharing information, in acquiring and sharing ma- terials significant for research; and the surveying of quantities of unpublished bibliographical tools in ar- chives, libraries and similar institutions with a view to future microfilming projects. Correlative assignments were the compilation of data on microfilming facilities and on the accessibility of materials for examination and for copying. I n the execution of these assignments the L i b r a r y ' s representative established liaison with the Division of Libraries at Unesco; acquainted himself with the survey of information on microfilm equipment which was be- ing conducted by Unesco and with the survey of facili- ties which was being compiled by the International Federation for Documentation in addition to making independent inquiries; spoke briefly at several inter- national conferences and at a meeting of archivists and special librarians; called upon the directors of more than 100 institutions in Austria, Belgium, England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Scotland, and Switzerland in order to gather at first hand essential information on the existing unpublished bibliographies, guides to collections, inventories, calendars, indexes and similar means of access to information; recommended priorities for suggested copying projects; and, finally, placed an extensive order at the Archives Nationales in Paris. The result of the survey is embodied in a pub- lication entitled Unpublished Bibliographical Tools in Certain Archives and Libraries of Europe: A Partial List which the Library of Congress issued in October, 1952 and which has been distributed to the major re- search libraries of the United States and which is available to others upon application. Libraries will be encouraged to allocate funds for filming those items of special interest to them. The Library of Congress is prepared to devote as much of its resources as obliga- tions of higher priority will permit to the reproduction of those bibliographical aids. Active participation of other libraries will bring closer the day when the American scholar will have ready access to vast quanti- ties of information hitherto available to him only at great cost and after considerable delays. outlined above. Research libraries are urged individually to take an active, continuous and systematic role in its solution through action as follows: A. Adoption and adherence to the prin- ciples to govern microfilming activities and services set forth in this Statement. B. Regular and continuing allocation of a portion of each year's book funds to microfilm projects. Research libraries should agree to purchase positive film copies of materials only when needed for continuous reference, using available funds primarily for making negative copies of printed and manuscript matter not hitherto filmed. (The percentage allocated need not be large, and regular use of from one to two percent of book budgets by each of the nation's research libraries will support sizeable expansion of microfilming activities.) Each library should select its projects first with its own needs in mind. A secondary con- sideration will be the requirements of national scholarship in general. Where no compelling local need dictates the project, the library can determine an appropriate annual one (or a longer-range project to be completed in annual installments) by: ( 1 ) Consulting with the state representative of the Committee on Cooperative Microfilm Projects to select newspapers which need microfilming. (2) Selecting one or more items from the Unpublished Bibliographical Tools in Euro- pean libraries to be copied, or (3) Consulting with the Library of Con- gress Union Catalog Division regarding co- operative projects under way or being planned by other libraries in which the library may participate. C. Active participation with the Association of Research Libraries, the Library of Con- gress, state library associations, and other learned societies and associations in initiating and supporting requests for foundation and governmental grants to support microfilming projects aimed at preserving disintegrating research materials like those identified in this Statement or at bringing to this country in film form research materials which are not now available here. Principles Only through an organized cooperative pro- gram, backed by libraries and other institu- tions, can acquisition and preservation of the scope envisioned be accomplished. And under- 290 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES lying any broad program of cooperation in which numerous libraries and agencies share the expense, work, and product of micro- filming activity, there should be basic agree- ment on the technical standards which will obtain; on policy with respect to the pricing of positive copies of microfilm, in order to share equitably the cost of the program; and on the ready accessibility of microfilm for the use of scholars. The Committee has agreed upon the follow- ing principles which should be followed if maximum effectiveness is to be achieved: T E C H N I C A L S T A N D A R D S Good technical standards are essential to any large scale microfilming project. A satis- factory set of tentative standards for micro- filming newspapers has been prepared for the Association of Research Libraries. The Com- mittee endorses its use. Standards to cover, in greater detail, this and other aspects of the microfilming program envisioned by this Com- mittee are being prepared by the A L A Com- mittee on Photoduplication and Multiple Copying Methods. P R I C I N G On the assumption that it is reasonable for a library sharing access to material through owning a positive microfilm print to pay a share of the negative's cost, the Committee proposes the following principles on pricing: ( 1 ) A library owning a master negative may include in the sale price of all positive prints to other libraries or to individuals whatever portion of the negative cost it con- siders necessary to equalize the cost of pro- ducing the microfilm copy. Once the markup for sale of positive prints from a master nega- tive has been established, it will be continued for all subsequent sales so as not to inflict an inequity upon early purchasers or sub- scribers. (2) The sale price to non-participating li- braries or to individuals of positive prints from master negatives produced in the course of a cooperative project will be fixed by the co- operative agreement. (3) An organization lending materials for microfilming by another library will not ex- pect to receive in return a free positive or other compensation. (In case this is necessary in foreign microfilming, the cost will be con- sidered as part of the negative cost.) (4) Nothing in this section shall be con- strued as contravening the normal profit in- cluded in the price of microfilms established by any library. ACCESSIBILITY It is important that the results of the pro- gram be made as accessible as circumstances will permit. T o this end the Committee recommends the following principles on access: (1) Permission to read. Libraries should make microfilm as accessible as they would original materials of similar nature. (2) Permission to copy original materials. The owning library should not impose limita- tions on the accessibility for reproduction of material in its collections unless the nature, status, or physical condition of the material makes copying inadvisable. (3) Loan of microfilm. Any film, positive or negative, which can be replaced easily should be made available on interlibrary loan. The Committee approves and recommends to libraries the principles set forth in the report of the A R L Committee on Inter-Library Lending of Microfilm.4 (4) The reproduction of film copy. Al- though the owning library itself should not impose limitations on the accessibility of micro- (Continued on page 302) 4 The Committee on the Inter-library Lending of Microfilm f a v o r s a liberal policy of microfilm lending. T h e principal provisions of such a policy are set forth below. It should be borne in mind that any one pro- vision listed below is subject to limitations implied in the other provisions. a. T h e conditions of loan set forth in the proposed (Approved by A L A Council, J u l y 1 9 5 2 ) revision of the A L A Interlibrary Loan Code under Part I: Prin- ciples and Policies should apply to the interlibrary lending of microfilm. Specific reference is made in P a r t I of the Code to the purpose, responsibilities, ex- penses, and duration of interlibrary loans. b. Positive microfilm should be lent freely and with- out restriction. c. Negative microfilm should be lent provided the lending library owns the original, or has easy access to the original f o r re-photographing, and provided the original is not so f r a g i l e that re-photographing would damage it. E x t r e m e care should be exercised in han- dling negative microfilm. d. Microfilm of manuscript material owned by another library should not be lent without the permission of that library except in instances where it is quite ob- vious such permission is unnecessary. The use of such material should be subject to the conditions imposed on the borrowing library by the report of the Committee on the U s e of Manuscripts (Appendix B , p. 32, " M i n - utes of the 37th Meeting of the A R L , Chicago, J u l y 6-7, i 9 5 i " ) . . . . . . , . , e. The requesting library is required to name in the first application f o r a loan of microfilm the type of microfilm reading equipment it has available f o r use. Microfilm should be restricted to use in the building where suitable equipment and supervision are avail- able for its use. f . The minimum unit of loan will be one reel. Not more than four reels should be requested at one time. ( S e e also A R L " M i n u t e s , J a n u a r y 26, 1 9 5 2 , " ap- pendix E , p. 59.) JULY, 1953 291 pleased his advice had not been taken. He wonders if it is yet time for standardization. When it is time, we do not want to fail to get standards, he stated. Our talking should be about standardizing reproduction, not ma- chines, he added. Donald Cameron (Rutgers): The more machines Rutgers has, the more expensive they become. As improvements arise, and new machines are purchased, he has tried without success to turn his old ones in. He believes that the time is too early for stand- ardization. Mr. Clapp: He agreed that machines are bad. He points out that the subject under discussion is standardization of materials sizes. The standardization of film, as we have it, is owed to the film industry, and because of that standardization, it is possible to order usable film from Greece, for in- stance. , Today's talk is not about film, but "flats," transparencies and non-transparencies. Pow- ers can produce flat film. W e should express preferences for one or more sizes. He thinks these preferences de- pend upon the filming equipment we have. Mr. Powers: He observed that roll, card and flat each has a place. It depends upon what it is for. He thinks sheets costly. He has no reader, except an experimental one, for flat prints. He can work on rolls more cheaply. Mr. Boni: He suggested that sizes should be expressed in inches. Ermine Stone (Sarah Lawrence): She asked if F I D had done anything for standardization. Mr. Clapp: He said that-the International Standards Organization is the standardization agency for Europe. Morris Gelfand (Queens): He believes that a study is required. He does not favor too specific recommendations now. He won- ders if the group present is the one to speak. Mr. Clapp: This body, having been con- sulted as to its preference of the 8 sizes, can transmit to the American Standards Associa- tion its opinion as an expression of preference. Charles F. Gosnell (New York State Li- brary): He observed that the sizes M r . Clapp suggested are good. Mr. West: He believed that if we want anything done, we should tell the A S A . Fremont Rider (Wesleyan): He agreed with the anonymous writer that we should favor standardization, but he did not believe that it is the time for regulation of sizes. He thought the three sizes mentioned are far enough to go. Proposed Statement on Microfilm (Continued from page 291) film material in its own collections, manu- script and rare printed materials available on film should not be reproduced by one library for another without permission of the library owning the original materials. Microfilming Clearing House There has been established in the Union Catalog Division of the Library of Congress a Microfilming Clearing House, the purpose of which is to provide a central source of in- formation on extensive microfilming projects planned, in progress, or completed. Much of the material here assembled is disseminated in the Microfilming Clearing House Bulletin which is published at irregular intervals as an appendix to the Library of Congress Informa- tion Bulletin. The quality and value of this service will depend on the cooperation of all who undertake extensive microfilming projects. Therefore, to prevent unnecessary duplication of effort, all institutions are urged to report their current and completed projects on the printed cards provided by the Library of Con- gress and to make inquiries before starting new projects. 302 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES