College and Research Libraries versities without presses as participants in scholarly publishing, (9) broadening the role of foundations, (10) collaborating in man- agement by scholarly presses, (11) establish- ing an office of scholarly communications, and (12) continuing discussion related to the intelligent use of technology. In summary, the report affirms that "the goal to be pursued is not a continuation of business as usual, but rather the develop- ment of new ways to meet the needs of scholarship" (p.ll) . The Report of the National Enquiry provides an important assessment of the problems, needs , and future options for scholarly communication in the United States. It deserves thoughtful reading, dis- cussion, and response by all concerned in- dividuals in the academic community.- Kenneth G. Peterson, Southern Illinois Uni- versity at Carbondale. Use of Library Materials: The University of Pittsburgh Study. By Allen Kent and others. Books in Library and Information Science, V.26 . New York: Marcel Dek- ker, 1979. 272p. $25. LC 79-11513. ISBN 0-824 7-6807-8. Ranganathan' s famous five laws of library science can be rewritten to fit the tra- ditional research library: Books are for collecting To some readers their books To some books their readers Waste the time of the reader The library is a growing mausoleum. The University of Pittsburgh study both sheds light on the extent to which these laws are observed and casts doubt on their validity. Its impact ought, and deserves, to be profound. This book in fact reports three studies. Parts of all of them have previously ap- peared as articles, but these were mainly previews. 1 - 3 The first study, conducted in the Hillman Library ("a central research li- brary emphasizing the Humanities and So- cial Sciences"), is a remarkable longitudinal study of books acquired in 1969. By the end of 1975, 40 percent of these had never cir- culated, and a further 14 percent had circu- lated only once. If a book had not circulated in the first six years, the chances of its ever being borrowed were calculated as one in Recent Publications I 551 fifty. Three-quarters of the books used in the library had also been borrowed, so that borrowing is a good measure of total use. Weeding books unused after seven years would extend the life of the building by twenty-one years. This study is much the most important part of the book, partly be- cause of its originality of approach and partly because the findings are of such im- portance. The second study, on the use of journals in six science and engineering libraries , is not as interesting because its methodology is less original and its findings largely rein- force existing knowledge rather than add to it. It is also, along with its appendix , the longest part of the book. Use in these librar- ies was generally low, and highly concen- trated on a relatively small proportion of the collections. Browsing was mainly in current and recent volumes ; the great majority of older volumes were approached through specific references. There are striking dif- ferences among the six libraries , presumably explicable by local conditions (but unfortu- nately not generally explained). The meth- odology of the sample study, intended as a possible model for other libraries , neverthe- less seems hardly less cumbersome and time-consuming than other methods. The third study consists of a very detailed analysis of the costs of library use and a cost-benefit model of library operations. These are some of the most detailed and best such analyses in the literature. The three studies are preceded and fol- lowed by brief, but thoughtful , open- minded and incisive contributions by Allen Kent and his colleagues. The book is not perfect. It barely hangs together, mainly because the different parts have different authors. Some of the detail , especially in the journal use study, is not only unnecessary but of doubtful value (the numbers in some cells are too small to sup- port conclusions drawn from them). Adding 25 percent of the subscription costs of each journal to allow for other costs is far too crude, since these other costs vary greatly according to journal size and frequency of distribution. The fact that most books lent to other libraries were also circulated locally hardly supports the argument for resource sharing, since there must be a good chance - - - - ----~------------------~--------------------------------------- 558 I C allege & Research Libraries • November 1979 that books requested will be in use at the time. We are not told how books were selected for the Hillman Library. And so on. The fact that the book asks at least as many questions as it answers is a tribute to it. Would the books used only once have been used at all if they had not been acquired-were they picked up by brows- ing? If so, this could argue either for their acquisition (because they may have proved valuable to their readers) or against (be- cause they were not specifically identified as needed). Is it possible to select the books that are likely to be used, or must it be accepted that selection is necessarily imprecise? If so, can one not conceive of a large intake- large outflow model , in which acquisition is as extensive as possible , processing is as cheap as possible , and all books not used after n years are discarded, a sort of empiri- cal stock building? How does concentration of demand differ according to the size of a library? If stock is underused, should the librarian buy less, or try" to increase use? How far can resource sharing in its various forms improve the availability:cost ratio? Readers will ask their own questions: let us hope some of them seek their own an- swers, by conducting similar studies in their own libraries. Allen Kent states in his preface that not all of the original objectives of the study were met , that many other analyses of the data could have been made, and that the book must be considered as only a "first edition. " While hoping that there will be a revised edition not only containing new data but presenting the existing data in a more selective and cohesive form, we must be grateful that the publication of this version was not delayed longer for it is a major con- tribution to our knowledge and under~tand­ ing of libraries.-Maurice B. Line, British Library Lending Division, Boston Spa. REFEREN C ES 1. Stephen Bulick and others, " Use of Library Materials in Terms of Age," Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27:175-78 (May-June 1976) . 2 . Thomas J . Galvin and Allen Kent, "Use of a University Library Collection, " Library jour- nal 102:2317-20 (Nov . 15, 1977). 3 . Jacob Cohen, "Book Cost and Book Use: The Economics of a University Library," in Allen Kent and Thomas Galvin, eds . , Library Re- source Sharing (N,ew York: Marcel Dekker, 1977) , p.197-224 . Editor's Note: In July 1979 the Senate Library Committee, University of Pittsburgh, issued a forty-nine page Report on the Study of Library Use at Pitt by Pro- fessor Allen Kent, et al . The committee states that it undertook its evaluation at the request of university faculty, administrators, and librarians for several reasons : the "very strong statements" made by Kent and his associates about the nonuse of books and journals at Pitt; the national publicity given to the statements; the controversy engen- dered both locally at Pitt as well as nation- ally; and the policy implications of the study, both for Pitt and for other academic institutions. The committee's evaluation is based upon several preliminary reports of the study as well as the final report that was issued by the National Technical Information Service, prior to its publication by Marcel Dekker. The report criticizes the study on numer- ous matters: its deficiencies as a case study (p.8-ll); its structure, in text and foot- notes, which makes "careful investigation in reporting on it a difficult matter" (p.l2); its "manipulation of data" on books and jour- nals , in terms of holdings , use, and costs. Accordingly, the study's " results do not support the validity of its root hypotheses that 'mi..1ch of the material purchased for re- search libraries was little or never used, and that when costs are assigned to uses, the cost of book use will be unexpectedly high ' "(p.40). The report concludes that the study rep- resents "a clear threat and a present danger" and urges that "university adminis- trators and librarians not be influenced by the unfounded criticisms and unwarranted recommendations expressed so forcibly by Professor Kent and his associates in their several reports"(p.46). The committee has submitted its report for inclusion in the ERIC data base through the Clearinghouse on Information Re- sources, and, if accepted, the report will be available with other ERIC documents. Introducing anew multidisciplinary index to scientific book reviews. Here are 3 good reasons why librarians and their patrons will find the Index to Book Reviews in theSciences™(IBRSTM), lSI's new index to current scientific book reviews, a valuable and useful tool. 1. IBRS is· multidisciplinary and index- es nearly 35,000 book reviews from all of the major scientific disciplines. The major areas of coverage are: biomedicine, physical and chemical sciences, agriculture, biology, en- 3. vironmental sciences, engineering, technology and behavioral sciences. 2. IBRS is published monthly and pro- vides current access to book reviews. These timely book reviews help you: priate books for lecture prepa- ration and classroom use. • Assist students who wish to lo- cate supplemental reading on specific topics. Entries in IBRS are easy to scan and are arranged alphabetically by author or editor of the book. Fol- lowing the name of each author or editor is a complete bibliographic entry for the book reviewed, fol- lowed by the reviewer's name, the • Evaluate publications for acquisi- title of the journal in which the tion and collection development. review appeared, and a complete • Assist researchers in keeping up- citation. In addition searchers have to-date on specialized research subject access to current book re- published in books. views through the Permuterm®Sub- • Help professors choose appro- ject Index to Book Titles. To learn more about what IBRS can do for you, send for our new leaflet which describes the index in detail and provides sample entries from each index section . • 0 Please send me the new leaflet describing lSI's Index to Book Reviews in the Sciences:Mthe multidisciplinary index to current scientific book reviews to be published in 1980. Name Title Organization/University Department Address City State/Province Country Zip/Postal Code Phone ~®[r~ Institute for Scientific Information ® 101-1632 3501 Market Street • University City Science Center • Phila .. Pa . 19104 U.S.A .. Tel : (215) 386·0100 . Cable : SCINFO . Telex : 84·5305