College and Research Libraries CLYDE HENDRICK and MARJORIE E. MURFIN Project Library Ripoff: A Study of Periodical Mutilation in a University Library A questionnaire study assessed 168 students on tJrir knowledge and opinion about periodical mutilation in the Kent State University li- brary. Three mutilators were also interviewed in detail. Fourteen stu- dents (8.3 percent) admitted to mutilation of journals. S.tatistical tests revealed few differences between mutilators and non-mutilators, although mutilators had generally less favorable attitudes toward the library. The data suggested certain preventive measures; the most im- portant were a publicity campaign to educate students about the costs of mutilation, and specific penalty warning signs strategically located in the library. MosT ACADEMIC LmRARIES, however much they choose to ignore the prob- lem, suffer from a debilitating disease. The quiet but insidious mutilation of their periodical collections not only drains badly needed fhiancial resources but also frustrates and frequently in- furiates their -patrons. This paper re- ports . on a questionnaire study which was conducted to learn about the dimen- sions of the .problem, particularly about those students who engage in the act of mutilatton. The goals of the study were: ( 1) to determine the proportion of students in a sample who admit to periodical mutilation, ( 2) to examine the charac- teristics and attitudes of students who mutilate versus those who do not, ( 3) Clyde Hendrick -is associate professor of psychology and Marjorie E. Murfin is ref- erence librarian and instructor in library administration at Kent State University, Kent, Ohio. 402 I to examine and analyze the actual cir- cumstances of and reasons for acts of mutilation, and ( 4) to determine meth- ods of prevention as suggested by stu- dents which would be most effective in reducing mutilation. The need for such data is abundant, both from the standpoint of the patron and the library. In the present study 76 percent of Kent State students and in another unpublished study 73 percent of Bowling Green students reported having been inconvenienced at least once by mutilated articles. 1 A study by R. G. Martin reported that 80 percent of the libraries surveyed considered that they had a serious mutilation problem. 2 Various other aspects of the mutilation problem have been discussed in the lit- erature.3 The extent of mutilation is a budget- ary consideration which, although small in relation to total library budget, is nonetheless significant. In these days of tight budgets libraries may be tempted I .J to reduce replacement costs, or not tore- place at all. However, to anticipate our data, such reduction may well cause a "chain reaction," leading to even higher mutilation rates. Thus the magnitude of the problem is such that any insights leading to a re- duced rate of mutilation would lead to substantial monetary savings, not to mention reduced frustration and anger on the part of library staff and patrons. In this context the present exploratory study seemed well worthwhile as a first attempt to systematize reasons and pos- sible preventives for periodical mutila- tion. METHOD The study was conducted during the fall quarter of 1973. Students from classes in introductory psychology and social psychology at Kent State Univer- sity served as subjects. The project was explained to subjects and the question- naire, entitled "Project Library Ripoff," was distributed. Both oral and written instructions encouraged frank and hon- est answers, indicating that responses were privileged information, and that no penalty would occur. The questionnaire contained several sections, including both rating and mul- tiple-choice items. The first section per- tained to background data, including such items as subject's sex, age, year in college, religious affiliation, etc. Items were also included covering academic experience, library familiarity and use, attitudes toward mutilation and toward use of the copy machine, circumstances of mutilation, penalties, and replace- ment. A re~ord of most of these ques- tions is included in the four tables in this article. Two sections contained explicit rating items with resp>) non-npo s . Characteristics of the Sample There were 63 males ( 37.5 percent of the sample) and 105 females ( 62.5 per- cent) who participated in the study. Fe- males were somewhat overrepresented for the total university population, but this result is typical for volunteer re- search studies. The class percentages were: freshmen, 43 percent; sopho- mores, 31 percent; juniors, 17 percent; seniors, 8 percent; and graduate students, 1 percent. The sample was young, with 35.7 percent listing their age as eighteen . or under, 28.0 percent listing their age as nineteen, and 36.3 percent listing their age as twenty, and twenty-one or older. As expected, most students were single ( 93.4 percent), with 5.4 percent married and 1.2 percent divorced. The students came from a varied religious background: Catholic 38.1 percent, Prot- estant 36.9 percent, Jewish 7.7 percent, no religious faith 7.2 percent, and "oth- er" 10.1 percent. Similarly, the sample was distributed across most of the col- leges in the university and indicated a great variety of majors. The largest group of students ( 45.6 percent) was enrolled in Arts & Science College, and the second largest group was from Fine & Professional Arts ( 25.9 percent). Fi- . nally, most students ( 81.4 percent) in- dicated that they did (or had) worked full or part time to help pay for their college education. The critical item on the questionnaire used to identify students who ripped out journal articles was "Have you ever in fact tom or cut out an article from a magazine in the KSU library? If yes, check the number of articles torn out in one year." There were 154 students ( 91.7 percent) who checked "none" while 14 students ( 8.3 percent) checked the alternatives "one," "two or three," "four or five," or "more than five." The admission rate of 8.3 percent is ·excep- tionally close to the 8 percent rate ob- tained by the library staff at Bowling Green. Of the 14 students in this study who admitted tearing out articles, 5 were males ( 7.9 percent of all males) and 9, females ( 8.6 percent of all fe- males). Bowling Green found that 7 percent were repeaters while this study showed 3 percent repeaters. (However, interviews and comments indicated that many of those who checked "one arti- cle" were probably actually repeaters.) Comparisons: Ripoffs Versus N on-Ripoffs Comparisons are shown in Tables 1-4. In each case the 14 students admitting to being "ripoffs" were compared to the 154 students ( non-ripoffs) who indicat- ed they had not mutilated journals. Re- sults are tabulated in percentage terms. Chi-square was used as a statistical test of significance for each comparison and the conventional probability level of .05 or smaller was the criterion for deciding whether a difference was significant. If a given comparison was significant (or nearly so), the probability is given in the last column of the tables. If the comparison was not significant, "n.s." appears in the last column. In comput- ing the chi-squares between ripoffs and non-ripoffs, all the response categories in a question were used in making the test. However, for compactness in data presentation, categories are often com- bined. For example, students were asked to indicate their grade point with the al- ternatives 1.00 or less, 1.00 to 2.00, 2.00 to 3.00, and 3.00 to 4.00. In Table 1 these categories were combined as .00 to 3.00 and 3.00 to 4.00. Other items were combined in a similar fashion to reduce the number of categories. Results are presented in terms of the l following categories: student perception on mutilation, general attitudes toward the library, attitudes toward use of the copy machine, and opinions on preven- tive measures. Student perception on mutilation. These results are shown in Table 1. The top section indicates that students did not consider mutilation as a severe of- fense. The great majority were uncon- cerned about getting caught ( ripoffs were totally unconcemed, 100 percent versus 68.8 percent for non-ripoffs); be- lieved that it is easy to tear out an arti- cle ( 92 percent or higher); thought that mutilation is either not a crime or a mi- nor misdemeanor; and stated that a fine paid to the library ( ripoffs, 85.7 percent; non-ripoffs, 77 percent) should be the penalty. Clearly, for both ripoffs and non-ripoffs, journal mutilation was not high on a priority list of horrendous behavior. Congruent with this observation 100 percent of the ripoffs and 63.4 percent of the non-ripoffs stated that they would do nothing if they saw someone else tearing out an article. However, bet- ter than 35 percent of the non-ripoffs said that they would take some action, resulting in the significant difference be- tween the two groups. Only 43.4 percent of non-ripoffs and 21.4 percent of the ripoffs rated the act as "definitely wrong." Student perceptions of replacement were grossly inaccurate. Over half ( 58.4 percent) of the ripoffs estimated three days to one week to replace an article and 46.1 percent of them judged the cost at $0.25. These judgments may be a defensive maneuver to justify their actions. The non-ripoffs were more ac- curate, but over 55 percent estimated re- placement cost as $1.00 or less, about one-tenth of the actual cost. These data suggest that simple, factual education of the student body on the cost issue might drastically reduce mutilation rate. Project Library Ripoff I 405 This pattern of ignorance about the library is further indicated in the sub- section of Table 1 on familiarity. A full 90 percent or better of all subjects had either "none" or "slight" technical familiarity with the library. Neither did they use the library very much. A full _25 percent of the ripoffs said they spend an average of "zero" hours per week in the library, and 57.2 percent of them "almost never" go to the library. The non-ripoffs attended somewhat more of- ten; only 33 percent rated "almost nev- er" and only 14.4 percent spend an av- erage of "zero" hours per week The differences between the two groups were not significant, however. With regard to circumstances of use, 81 percent of non-ripoffs and 64.3 per- cent of ripoffs stated that they have never or only once in a while been in- convenienced by torn-out articles while 35.7 percent of ripoffs and only 19 per- cent of non-ripoffs have been "moder- ately" to "frequently" inconvenienced. The item "Have you ever considered tearing out an article" ~as something of a check question. Of the non-ripoffs 32.5 percent had considered it, and of course logically all the ripoffs should have (actual rating percentage was 92.9). Students tended to perceive their fellow students as mutilators. Their es- timates of the percent of students who mutilated were quite high; 92.9 percent of the ripoffs and 78.5 percent of the non-ripoffs judged the rate as 21 percent or higher. This assessment of student percep- tions yields an image of students as rela- tively unconcerned about mutilation; they assume it is relatively trivial and easily repaired, and in general they are unaware of the great costs and effort in- volved in this problem. Clearly a job of education is in order. General attitudes toward the library. These results are presented in Table 2. Inspection of Table 2 indicates that stu- 406 I College & Research Libraries • November 1974 I ~J TABLE 1 STUDENT PERCEPTIONS oN MuTILATION 1'1- r+ Percent of Significance Ripoffs Non-Ripoffs of Items Response Alternatives (N= 14) (N = 154) Difference Being Caught and Penalty If you have actually torn out No to somewhat concerned 100.0 68.8 an article or considered it, Moderately to very concerned 0.0 31.2 .05 were you concerned with being caught? How easy do you think it Very to moderately easy 92.3 94.1 would be to tear out an Somewhat to very difficult 7.7 5.9 n.s. article? What do you believe is the None 41.7 33.1 penalty for ripping off Misdemeanor and above 58.3 66.9 n.s. library materials? What in your opinion should None 14.3 4.6 be the penalty? Fine 85.7 77.0 n.s. More severe 0.0 18.4 Attitude Toward Ripping Off If you saw someone tearing Nothing 100.0 63.4 out, what would you do? Ask to stop, or report it 0.0 36.6 .05 Do you feel that tearing out No, not at all 21.4 10.0 a magazine article is morally Somewhat, very minor 57.2 46.6 .03 wrong? Yes, definitely wrong 21.4 43.4 Replacement What would be the time Three days to one week 58.4 26.8 period to replace a torn out One to three months 41.6 61.1 .002 article? Six months 0.0 12.1 What would be the cost of $ 0.25 46.1 8.7 replacing a torn out article? $ 1.00 38.5 47.0 .002 $ 5.00 to $10.00 15.4 40.9 $15.00 0.0 3.4 Academic Experience Gradepoint 0.00 to 3.00 42.9 61.3 3.00 to 4.00 57.1 38.7 n.s. Number of term papers done None to four 57.1 77.3 so far? Five or more 42.9 22.7 n.s. Library Familiarity and Use Do you have technical Yes, a great deal 7.1 - 4.6 familiarity, such as working Slight 42.9 54.2 n.s. in a library or taking library None 50.0 41.2 science? How many times a week do Almost never 57.2 33.0 you go to the library? Once a week to daily 42.8 66.2 n.s. How many hours a week do Zero hours 25.0 14.4 you spend in the library? One to sixteen hours 75.0 85.6 n.s. Circumstances Have you ever been Never, to once in a while 64.3 81.0 inconvenienced by a torn Moderately to frequently 35.7 19.0 n.s. out article? Have you ever considered Occasionally to frequently 92.9 32.5 tearing out an article? Never 7.1 67.5 .001 What percentage of students 0 to 20 percent 7.1 21.5 rip off an article? 21 percent and above 92.9 78.5 n.s. Did you know that Yes 42.9 51.3 periodicals can be checked No 57.1 48.7 n.s. out overnight? Project Library Ripoff I 401 TABLE 2 SuMMARY OF "GENERAL ATTITUDES TowARD THE LIBRARY" Response Categories Significance Ripoffs vs. 1+2 3 4+:5 of Attitude Items Non-Ripoffs (False) (True) Difference In general, I feel very positive toward RO the library. NRO The library is a cold and anonymous RO place. NRO I find the library staff to be quite RO friendly and helpful. NRO I always find what I need in the library. RO NRO I would have to say that I feel rather RO negative toward the library as an N.RO institutional part of KSU. I have been treated unfairly by the RO library at least once-such as being NRO charged for a book I did not check out. The library discriminates against RO undergraduates because it has more NRO lenient checkout policies for faculty · and graduate students than for undergraduates. dent attitudes toward the library were generally quite positive. The majority of students felt positive toward the li- brary, did not think it is a cold anony- mous place, found the library staff help- ful, etc. Ripoffs did not differ signifi- cantly from non-ripoffs on most of these items. However, it can be seen that on each item in this section ripoffs had less favorable attitudes toward the library. There was also a significant dif- ference in that more of the ripoffs ( 21.5 percent) than non-ripoffs ( 7.2 per- cent) felt that they had been treated unfairly by the library on occasion. Attitudes toward use of the copy ma- chine. These results are shown in Table 3. The first item strongly discriminated ripoffs from non-ripoffs. Of the ripoffs 78.6 percent believed the copy machines were too expensive while only 38.4 per- cent of non-ripoffs agreed with this. It is commonly thought that ripoffs do not realize the inconvenience they are causing others. The contrary was found here in that only 7.1 percent of ripoffs believed that "no harm is done 0.0 42.9 57.1 7.1 14.3 78.6 n.s. ( .08) 57.2 7.1 35.7 64.7 15.7 19.6 n.s. 7.1 35.7 57.2 9.2 32.0 58.8 n.s. 50.0 7.1 42.9 26.8 25.5 47.7 n.s. 78.5 14.3 7.2 79.3 16.9 3.8 n.s. 78.5 0.0 21.5 81.7 11.1 7.2 .02 30.8 53.8 15.4 40.2 48.7 11.1 n.s. since chances are that no one else will need that particular article." However, they still showed a significant difference from non-ripoffs on this item. Other than these two items, however, the two groups did not differ from each other. Generally, response patterns show considerable distribution across the rat- ing categories, and no well-defined nega- tive attitude toward the copy machine is evidenced. Opinions on preventive measures. These results are shown in Table 4. Only one measure showed a significant difference between groups. For the pre- ventive option of closed reserve, 62 percent of non-ripoffs stated that they would not tear it out (instructions stat- ed "Imagine you need a periodical bad- ly in a few hours") under this contin- gency. However, only 35.7 percent of the ripoffs indicated that closed reserve would serve as a complete deterrent. The data show some other interesting results. As might be expected, free copy- ing would reduce the mutilation rate, according to the subjects' ratings. How- 408 I College & Research Libraries • November 1974 TABLE 3 SuMMARY oF "UsiNG THE CoPY MACHINE" Response Categories Significance Ripoffs vs. 1+2 3 4 + 5 of Attitude Items Non-Ripoffs (Disagree) (Agree) Difference Copy machines are too expensive. RO NRO The copy machines take too long to use. RO NRO The copy machines are usually out RO of order. NRO It is just too easy to tear out the articles RO since no attempt is made to protect them. NRO Many other students tear out articles; so RO why should I have to pay for them. NRO Probably students who "tear out" rather RO than copying on the machine are just NRO trying to get even with the "system." The library can easily replace that article. RO NRO No harm is done since chances are that RO no one else will need that particular NRO article. ever, better than 60 percent of both groups also indicated that a penalty warning sign would serve as a complete deterrent. Two-week checkout for peri- odicals was a popular deterrent as well. Opinions were mixed as to the effective- ness of a publicity campaign. If student opinion translates into action, the single best deterrent (and probably least ex- pensive) would be posted signs stating the exact (maximum) legal penalty for the crime. Certainly it is an option li- braries might wish to consider seriously. Based on the data presented thus far, the ripoffs did not seem to differ much in characteristics and opinions from the non-r~poffs. The two groups aid not dif- fer significantly on any of the demo- graphic characteristics discussed earlier. One might suggest that the two groups are indeed from the same "population" and whether one becomes a "ripoff" or not depends upon immediate situational circumstances. INTERVIEWS AND DISCUSSION A number of findings and possibili- ties emerged from the three interviews 14.3 7.1 78.6 51.9 9.7 38.4 .04 71.5 14.3 14.2 87.6 9.1 3.3 n.s. 57.1 21.4 21.5 59.5 30.1 10.4 n.s. 42.9 14.3 42.8 40.2 25.3 34.5 n.s. 42.8 7.1 50.1 63.6 14.3 22.1 n.s. ( .09) 42.8 14.3 42.9 50.3 18.3 31.4 n.s. 58.4 16.6 25.0 77.3 12.3 10.4 n.s. 71.5 21.4 7.1 94.1 1.9 4.0 .002 with ripoffs and from the open-ended questionnaire items. Some of this mate- rial is discussed, and suggestions based on it are made. One issue of importance is the prior intent of students who mutilate jour- nals. All three interviewees claimed they had not intended to rip off the materials before going to the library. For the two males, this is probably the case since both described feeble and ineffective attempts to use the copier. The female, however, admitted to being a multiple ripper on the questionnaire, and said in the interview that she ripped out be- cause she was "lazy" and "didn't care about her schoolwork or anything else; always took the easiest w:ay." The motivation and specific circum- stances for mutilation are also of inter- est. All three interviewees said they were motivated by assignments. One · also said he tore an article out of Billboard mag- azine for his personal use. Two ripoffs had approached the periodical collec- tion through Readers' Guide ("the big green books"), and the third had a cita- tion given him by a friend in College Project Library Ripoff I 409 TABLE 4 SUMMARY RESULTS FOR PREVENTIVE MEASURES Ripoffs vs. Preventive Options Non-Ripoffs A. Closed Reserve Periodicals kept on closed RO reserve, have to sign for it. NRO B. Limited Access Don't have to sign for article RO but periodicals can't be NRO removed from area. Librarian stationed in area. c. Sign warning of penalty. RO $500 fine or thirty days in jail. NRO D. Signs indicating cost of RO replacement and time to replace. NRO E. Arrangements where periodicals RO could be checked out for two NRO weeks like books. F. A publicity campaign showing RO extent of problem and urging NRO concern for others. G. Availability of free copying. RO NRO English, indexed in Education Index. This finding indicates again the need to protect these particular groups of peri- odicals. A most striking factor in regard to time emerged. Two of the three inter- viewees mentioned that they had done it "just before the library closed." An- other of the fourteen ripoffs (not inter- viewed ) mentioned this factor on the questionnaire. Other non-ripoffs men- tioned on their questionnaire that "need as the library was closing" was a reason some might tear out articles. This result has possible implications for supervi- sion of the periodical area prior to clos- ing time. The questions of where and how the mutilation was done are of interest. All three interviewees used study carrels for the act of mutilation. Neatly ripped pages do not necessarily mean the pre- meditated act of carrying a razor, but simply that some subjects may usually carry penknives with them. This fact Response Categories Would make no difference. I would still Would dis- I would not Significance tear it out if courage me attempt to of I could. somewhat. tear it out. Difference 28.6 35.7 35.7 8.0 30.0 62.0 .03 23.1 46.2 30.8 12.7 47.3 40.0 n.s. 7.1 28.6 64.3 12.8 25.7 61.5 n.s. 14.3 50.0 35.7 29.5 46.3 24.2 n.s. 14.3 14.3 71.4 12.8 15.4 71.8 n.s. 21.4 57.1 21.4 27.3 41.3 31.3 n.s. 7.1 7.1 85.7 4.0 12.1 83.9 n.s. has implications since a great deal of the ripping appears to be a tense, hur- ried, unpremeditated affair. Removal of some study carrels from the periodical area or at least close surveillance of them might be helpful. The interviewees were asked about the effects on them when they found ar- ticles ripped out by others. The two males said they were made "extremely angry" and the female expressed her- self as "upset." All . three felt it was a factor in their tearing out. Other ripoffs also mentioned this factor on their questionnaires, as did several non-rip- offs. To some extent, then, a hostile-ag- gressive motivation may be a determin- ing factor. Many non-ripoffs also said that they were tempted to mutilate out of a desire to get even with their fellow students and the "stupid" library. It is clear that ripped-out articles form a breeding ground for more ripped-out articles. One finding emerged from the inter- 410 I College & Research Libraries • November 1974 views which had not been anticipated. The interviewees stated they would not tear out of "books" because they were much more expensive. Book mutilation appeared to be something of a taboo since they viewed books as precious ob- jects (no doubt due to the high capital outlay at the beginning of each quar- ter). However periodicals were regarded as cheap. They expressed a tendency and preference to tear out of current periodicals. All three also stated that they would hesitate to tear out of a clean volume while one with ripped-out articles was already "ruined." The fourteen ripoffs reported a total of seventeen instances of mutilation. Comments on the questionnaire indicat- ed that in eight cases students probably attempted to use the copy machine and the following problems were encoun- tered: no money, three; no change, two; library was closing, no time, one; copier won't do color photos, one; copier won't do fine print and tables, one. All of these problems could probably be pre- vented. In the other nine cases the students probably did not attempt to use the ma- chine. The reasons were as follows: tore out articles for personal pleasure and use, three; laziness, two; photocopy too expensive, two; hostility at ripped out articles and missing periodicals, two. These latter problems would probably be harder to prevent since they indicate an egocentric attitude and a general lack of concern for others. One female ripoff expressed the atti- tude in her interview that "if you're go- ing to tear out, you're going to tear out" and seemed to feel her problem was a character defect of "laziness." Another female ripoff expressed it as "laziness and orneriness." Surprisingly enough, however, most of the ripoffs appeared preventable. Signs posted about overnight checkout might have prevented one ripoff. Anoth- er two might have been prevented by a sign showing where to get change and another three by a photocopy loan fund. Another might have been pre- vented by a better quality copier and possibly four others by a copier which would reproduce color photos. Two oth- ers might have been prevented by prompt replacement of ripped-out arti- cles. It was the second author's impres- sion that one of the ripoffs interviewed was extremely surprised in learning about replacement costs and that his at- titude appeared to change so much that he might even have been willing to lead a crusade against future ripoffs. This study also indicates some rather simple things libraries can do to reduce the rate of mutilation. The authors be- lieve that a vigorous but inexpensive publicity campaign, particularly in re- gard to replacement costs (annually re- peated) will considerably reduce muti- lation. Basically decent motivation on the part of the vast majority of stu- dents must be assumed. But they are ap- pallingly ignorant of the cost of re- placement. Publicity in the sense of ed- ucation about the library should help. The world is full of warning signs- why not in the library as well? This fac- tor should further reduce the incidence of mutilation. Of course signs can in- sult and anger also, so care must be tak- en. Probably, a simple sign stating the applicable section of the legal code and penalties is adequate. Some libraries have already taken steps in this matter- for example the University of Idaho, which imposes a fine of $125 and/ or expulsion.4 Other libraries should follow with or- derly and fair procedures for enforce- ment, strongly supported by an educa- tional campaign. Other measures hardly need stating, such as willingness to show students how to use the copy machine, courtesy in helping students and, most importantly, programs which will re- duce the hostility and alienation which some of the ripoffs feel toward the li- brary. It is also important that ripped- out material be replaced promptly and that unobtrusive surveillance be main- tained in critical areas. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the authors that there is no reason why li- Project Library Ripoff I 411 braries should continue to suffer the problem of mutilation in silence. Many of us consider such mutilation an insult to the storehouse of civilization. This study appears to indicate that, though it is difficult, it should be possible to prevent a good deal of the mutilation which now takes place. REFERENCES 1. Unpublished data provided by Angela Pou- los, reference librarian, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. 2. R. G. Martin, "Mutilation: A College and University Survey Concerning Microfilm Replacement for Mutilated Periodicals and Circulation of Microforms," Nebraska Li- brary Association Quarterly 3: 18--20 (Winter 1972). 3. Barbara Feret, "Back to Student Rip-Offs' Point of Sale," Wilson Library Bulletin 47: 46 (Sept. 1972); Goldie Marshall, "Trou- bled by Page Slashers?" Library Journal 85: 23 (Nov. 15, 1960); William L. Emerson, "Theft and Mutilation," Library Journal 85: 208 (Jan. 15, 1960); "'Jack the Ripper' Is Apprehended in So. Dakota," Library Jour- nal 97:2680 (Sept. 1, 1972); Robert Light- foot, "Project Mutilation: An Attempt at a Solution to a Growing Problem," Illinois Li- braries 52:946 (Nov. 1970); Ronald Hoppe and Edward Simmel, "Booktearing and the Bystander in the University Library," Col- lege & Research Libraries 30:247-51 (May 1969); Lee Zimmerman, "Pilfering and Mu- tilating Library Books," Library Journal 86: 3437-40 (Oct. 15, 1961). 4. "Again-Book Thefts and Mutilation," Book- mark (Idaho) 13:1 (Sept. 1960).