College and Research Libraries r " Recent Publicatiotts COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES Gore, Daniel, ed. Farewell to Alexandria: Solutions to Space, Growth, and Performance Problems of Libraries, reviewed by Maurice B. Line . 556 The Sourcebook of Library Technology: A Cumulative Edition of Library Tech- nology Reports, 1965-1976, reviewed by Joseph E. Nitecki . 558 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Volume 10, reviewed by Stephen N. Silberstein 561 The Library of Congress as the National Bibliographic Center, reviewed by George Pitemick 562 Chisholm, Margaret, with McDonald, Dennis D., eds. Reader in Media, Technology and Libraries, reviewed by David B. Walch . 563 Black, Donald V., and Cuadra, Carlos A. Directory of Academic Librat'y Consortia, 2d ed., reviewed by Leonard Grundt . 563 Media ·in Higher Education, the Critical Issues: Ideas, Analysis, Confrontation, reviewed by Cathleen Flanagan . 564 Thompson, Anthony Hugh. Censorship in Public Libraries in the United Kingdom during the Twentieth Century, reviewed by Roger L. Funk . 565 Lewis, Felice Flanery. Literature, Obscenity & Law, reviewed by Eli M. Oboler 566 Kochen, Manfred, ed. Information for Action: From Knowledge to Action, reviewed by W. David Laird 566 Stecher, Elizabeth. Catalogue Provision in Libraries of Colleges of Advanced Edu- cation, reviewed by Helen R. Citron . 568 Ellsworth, Diane J., and Stevens, Norman D., eds. Landmarks of Library Literature, reviewed by David Kaser 568 Cri'x, F. C. Reprographic Management Handbook, reviewed by Francis F. Spreitzer 569 New, Peter G. Reprography for Librarians, reviewed by Francis F. Spreitzer . 569 LaHood, Charles G., and Sullivan, Robert G. Reprographic Services in Libraries, reviewed by Francis F. Spreitzer . 569 Hassall, A . . G., and Hassall, W. 0. Treasures from the Bodleian Library, reviewed by Howard W. Winger . 570 Stuart-Stubbs, B.; Friesen, M.; and Mcinnes, D. Interlibrary Loan in Canada: A Report of a Survey, reviewed by Bruce Cossar . 572 Stuart-Stubbs, B.; Nichol, K.; Friesen, M.; and Mcinnes, D. A Survey and Inter- · pretation of the Literature of Interlibrary Loan, reviewed by Bruce Cossar . 572 Shores, Louis. Reference as the Promotion of Free Inquiry, reviewed by James F. Parks, Jr. 573 " Other Publications of Interest to Academic Librarians 575 Abstracts 580 I 555 556 f College & Research Libraries • November 1976 BOOK REVIEWS Gore Daniel ed. Farewell to Alexandria: Soiutions to Space, Growth, and Per- formance Problems of Libraries. West- port, Conn.: Greenwood Pr., 1976. 180p. $12.50 (LC 75-35345) (ISBN 0-8371- 8587-4) "Limits to growth" have recently become fashionable in economics-big is not neces- sarily beautiful. Limited production seems likely to apply to books as well as to tele- vision sets and dishwashers. Unfortunate- ly or fortunately, limited book output will not automatically result in limited libraries, since books do not easily die or rot (in spite of the efforts of some publishers); unlike TV sets, they are both media and matter. Many libraries are now full, or approach- ing fullness, and have little prospect of ad- ditional accommodation. The eight years, 1967-197 4, witnessed the biggest building boom in American library history: About 570 new or expanded library buildings were built, enough to accommodate 163 million volumes. But aggregate growth in stock was 3 million volumes more than this and would have been higher if 17 million volumes had not been discarded. And the situation is growing worse: In the last two years of the period, 1973 and 1974, capaci- ty for 25 million volumes was created, while 41 million volumes (net) were add- ed. The crisis is well documented by Claudia Schorrig. Unfortunately, she does not pro- vide estimates either for the future growth of world book production or for the future intake of libraries, which will be drastically limited by reduced funds-a factor which must in turn affect book production. Never- theless the crisis is clear enough. However few b~oks are published or added, they still constitute net library growth unless weeding also takes place. This volume contains most of the papers presented at a conference held in April 1975 on "Touching Bottom in the Bottom- less Pit." The papers not included sound as interesting as those published, especially as they all seem to be concerned with pos- sible practical solutions (e.g., Spaulding on "Microtechnology and the space problem," and Harrar on "Co-operative storage facil- ities"). One would like to know why they were omitted. The key paper (not apparently given at the conference) is Daniel Gore's; this com- bines statistical evidence, a systematic ap- proach, logical argument, and polemic in a forceful presentation of the issues. His case is oversimplified, though the main points are valid. To argue for no growth at all is to advocate throwing out, for every year's intake, the equivalent of the intake of two or three previous years, when acqui- sitions will have been much less. Is this really possible, and for how long can it be continued? If the annual volume of publica- tion increased again at a fast rate, and li- braries were able to keep pace with it in their acquisitions, they might eventually end up with the intake of the last three years and nothing else. Ellsworth Mason's approach is sensible and cautious, perhaps disappointingly so for the conference organizers. He hardly even manages to bring computers into the discussion. He does mention several aspects -mainly in passjng-that are neglected by others; I refer to some of these later. What criteria should be used for weed- ing, and how should weeding be done? Eu- gene Garfield suggests that citation analyses can be used for weeding journals, without offering evidence that citations are a suffi- ciently valid indicator of use as well as quality. It is highly unlikely that any one citation analysis, based on however many source journals (why only source journals, anyway?) will be a precise indicator of use in any one library; in particular, the cor- relation is likely to be lowest around the area of marginal journals, though this is exactly where decisions have to be made. 1• 2 In any case, journal weeding should, to be optimal, be based on both titles and dates -the use of either alone will be suboptimal (and perhaps pessimal). Preprints of high- ly cited papers would undoubtedly be very useful, as Garfield (following De Solla Price) suggests. Richard Trueswell reviews and updates his work in this field and continues to rec- ommend last circulation date as a criterion. As suggested by John Urquhart, 3 however, outside the items for obvious retention (which are easily identifiable in other ,.., ways), distribution of use among the stock may well be random, so that the weeding of the noncore stock could equally (and much more cheaply) be done at random. The two approaches should be tried in comparable libraries and the results as- sessed. So far as I know, no library has ac- tually used the Trueswell model, although his first published paper is now twelve years old. Blair Stewart demonstrates that in a group of ten liberal arts college libraries, a modest proportion (900) even of their present limited holdings of journals (4,107) satisfies by far the majority (90 percent) of their interlibrary loan requests. The titles most requested are also the most commonly held by the libraries, including some held by all ten. Stewart expresses surprise at these results, which are similar to those found in an analysis of requests received by the British Library Lending Division. 4, 5 Buckland and Hindle outline a systemat- ic analytical approach to collection control, drawing on their own work at Lancaster University Library and the work of others. The relevant factors are defined, and mod- els for control are suggested. Like most li- brary models at the present early state of the art, the data collection and analyses re- quired appear to be out of proportion to the practical results likely to be obtained. Again, only actual use of models and a comparison of results with less sophisticat- ed approaches (e.g., rule-of-thumb weed- ing) will demonstrate their utility and en- able progress to be made. One . of the most interesting papers, be- cause it describes practice rather than the- ory, is that by Marvin Scilken. I particu- larly liked his ideas of leaving cards for some weeded books in the catalog ("gone hut not forgotten") and buying cards but not the books in doubtful cases ("pre- weeded"). The reader suffers from delay in supply when he wants such books, but his suffering is less than the benefits to readers in general resulting from duplica- tion of heavily used books bought with the money saved. Finally, Corya and Buckland present a useful paper on how the computer can help in collection control (Ellsworth Ma- son, please note). Recent Publications I 551 Only one of the speakers (Ellsworth Ma- son) seems to have questioned the concept of the limited library, and few of the dis- cussants offered serious challenge. Indeed, the panel discussion, which should have been the liveliest part of the conference, is largely irrelevant and certainly not notable for its quality. Could not one advocatus dei (since the devil had all the advocates he needed) have been included among the speakers? Several important issues are unexplored by the book. The costs of discarding are hardly mentioned, nor the staff needed for a withdrawal program. The limited growth library will presumably have an even high- er ratio of staff-to-acquisitions expenditure than libraries have at present, unless radical changes are made in other library opera- tions to save staff. The question of process- ing current intake for easier future disposal too receives little attention, although Corya and Buckland point out that automated cat- alogs and circulation systems can make dis- posal easier and cheaper. "Negative discarding," whereby each book acquired has to justify its retention after four or five years, so that the onus is on retention rather than withdrawal, de- serves to be explored. So does the question of what should happen to books when they are withdrawn. What is little used in one library is likely to be little used in other li- braries, and outright disposal, without a home for retired books, could result in total unavailability. Readers as well as books oc- cupy space, as Mason points out, and stock rationalization should be accompanied by studies of seating requirements. To judge from a recent British study, common im- pressions about the intensity of occupancy and accepted standards of seating may prove to be wrong. n Underlying the whole question of limited libraries is the fundamental concept of the library. It seems that many of those attend- ing were librarians of colleges rather than major academic institutions, where the con- cept is open to most serious challenge. The functions and problems of public libraries, special libraries, college libraries serving mainly undergraduate needs, and large re- search libraries are quite different, and it is important to distinguish among them in 558 I College & Research Libraries • November 1976 any rational discussion of the question. It is absolutely right to measure libraries by performance rather than by size, but per- formance criteria for libraries differ accord- ing to their function. There is no doubt about the tremendous importance and urgency of library restric- tion. This book is a major contribution to librarianship in that it is one of the first to ask questions hitherto thought improper and to suggest unpalatable answers. If its overall quality leaves something to be de- sired, good though individual papers are, the significance of the book is unquestion- able. Its appearance slightly predates a report of the UK University Grants Committee,1 on the need to control library growth be- cause of the shortage of capital for new buildings-a report of which the impact };las yet to be felt. I hope it will be fol- lowed by more systematic analyses, related to different types of library, and above all by reports of carefully monitored practical experience in libraries following some of the principles advocated. Librarianship is after all a practical matter, and a gram of ex- perience is worth a kilogram of theory.- Maurice B. Line, Director General, British Library Lending Division, Boston Spa, England. REFERENCES 1. Pauline A. Scales, ''Citation Analyses as In- dicators of the Use of Serials: A Comparison of Ranked Title Lists Produced by Citation Counting and from lJse Data," Journal of Documentation 32: 17-25 ( March 197 6 ) . 2. Maurice B. Line, "On the Irrelevance of Ci- tation Analyses to Practical Librarianship," Paper presented to EURIM 2 Conference, Amsterdam, March 1976. To be published. 3. John Urquhart. Personal communication. 4. C. A. Bower, "Patterns of Use of the Serial Literature at the BLLD," BLL Review 4: 31-36 (April1976). 5. Maurice B. Line and D. N. Wood, "The Ef- fects of a Large-Scale Photocopying Service on Journal Sales," Journal of Documentation 31:234- 45 (Dec. 1975). 6. Cambridge University, Library Management Research Unit, ''Factors Affecting the Use of Seats in Academic Libraries," Journal of Librarianship 7:262-87 (Oct. 1975). 7. Great Britain, University Grants Committee, Capital Provision for University Libraries: Report of a Working Party (London: HMSO, 1976). The Sourcebook of Library Technology: A Cumulative Edition of Library Technol- ogy Reports, 1965-1975. 1976 ed. Chi- cago: American Library Assn., 1976. 1 v. (loose-leaf) with 30 fiche in pockets. $50.00 (ISBN 0-8389-5469-3) During this year of the U.S. Bicenten- nial, a reader may easily overlook the com- pletion of a single decade of one library publication project, the Library Technology Reports (LTR). Prepared by the ALA, which itself is celebrating a century of notable existence, the LTR is a significant accomplishment and has been fully appre- ciated by any librarian in need of advice in selecting library equipment. Throughout its ten years of existence, the LTR has offered a number of objective and clearly presented reports and evaluations on many library products, systems, and ser- vices. As its editors point out, the financing of all the publication's operations has been exclusively from its subscriptions, making the LTR independent of any commercial influence. Simultaneously, close coopera- tion with competent, national laboratories has produced reports with very high tech- nical standards, thus quickly turning the LTR into the librarian's version of the Con- sumer Reports. As to format, the original loose-leaf re- ports soon evolved into a bulky, eleven- volume set, creating some problems . for maintenance and use. Beginning with the 1976 volume, the overall format of the pub- lication has changed. Now, the reports (LTR) are being published bimonthly in a noncumulative book format and are sup- plemented by an annually edited compila- tion, called The Sourcebook of Library Technology (SLT), published in part on microfiche. The first issue of the new LTR is a 132- page, softbound book, offering as its major feature a comprehensive evaluation of the OCLC system. The first SLT, issued at the same time, is an edited compilation of sur- veys and reports published in the LTR be- tween 1965 and 1975. The printed Source- book is issued in a three-ring, loose-leaf binder and contains a title page, subscrip- tion information, an introduction, an in- struction "how to use the Sourcebook," a table of contents, and an eleven-page in-