College and Research Libraries Letters Indexes as Memory Assists To the Editor: Elaine C. Clever's article "Using Indexes As 'Memory Assists'" (C&RL, Sept. 1979) contains at least two major substantive er- rors. First, on page 448 Clever attempts to compare the cost of searching Social Sci- ences Citation Index, Social Sciences Index, and Humanities Index. She states, "Assum- ing a rate of $9/hour, the cost of searching SSCI was 20.5 cents per minute for list I and almost 44 cents per minute for list II." Unfortunately, Clever confuses cost per minute with cost per hit (that is, the number of citations located). Cost per min- ute cannot vary unless the cost per hour varies. That is, assuming a set rate per hour (for example, Clever's $9/hour or 15 cents per minute), a seventy-five-minute search must cost the same per minute as a fifteen-minute search; only the total or end costs differ. While space precludes a com- plete analysis of Clever's error, it is clear that she has confused cost per minute with cost per hit. Second, Clever utilizes a research design that biases the results. Clever insists on judging the utility of the Social Sciences Index and Humanities Index on the basis of criteria the two indexes were never de- signed or intended to fulfill. The two in- dexes were doomed to fail, as Clever's evaluation was based on functions which neither the publisher nor most subscribers expect the indexes to satisfy. Finally, Clever cites a catalog use study by Lipetz and Stangl (Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science 5:137-39) as evidence that faculty and grad- uate students use periodical indexes as "memory assists." However, Lipetz and Stangl discuss use patterns of card catalogs only; no mention is made of indexes; abstracts, or other reference tools. One simply cannot assume, a priori, that use pat- COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES terns of periodical indexes and abstracts parallel use patterns of card catalogs. Evaluation research should focus on the function for which a product is designed. Evaluation of subject/author indexes on the basis of key word title criteria is both un- necessary and unacceptable.-David R. McDonald, Systems Librarian, Stanford University Libraries, Stanford, California. Response To the Editor: Mr. McDonald is right. It is cost per hit, which is what I had in the original manu- script, but I failed to catch the change in a subsequent revision. More important, I regret that I did not elaborate on the relationship between the Lipetz and Stangl use study of the univer- sity catalog and research that shows that not only the catalog but other materials in the library are used extensively this way. It's implied, but not stated, that if a person comes into the library looking for something already known to exist and if that item is current, he or she will use indexes for the search. It may be obvious to the reference librarian that the search does not have a high likelihood of success, but it is interest- ing, I believe, to learn just how unlikely it is.-Elaine C. Clever. ISBD: Aid or Barrier? To the Editor: Researchers often fail to extract all of the important information immanent in their data. In contrast, Gorman and Hotsinpiller (C&RL, Nov. 1979) have contrived to ex- tract from their data more information than is actually contained in it. From being un- able to reject their hypothesis that "there is no significant difference in understanding as between ISBD and non-ISBD (catalog) de- scriptions," Gorman and Hotsinpiller make an illogical leap. They conclude that their I 243 244 I College and Research Libraries • May 1980 study "proves that the ISBD aids, rather than halts, the understanding and speed of use of descriptive data." Astounding! The results merely suggest that ISBD descrip- tions are neither easier nor harder to under- stand than non-ISBD descriptions. One should perhaps more readily conclude that ISBD has provided a standard where none was needed. The emphasis given to the speed of the use of ISBD descriptions is as unwarranted as the claim that they aid understanding. Given the timing methodology adopted, the observed average difference of only one second between ISBD and non-ISBD de- scriptions could be ascribed to experimental error. Speed is a virtue only if the re- sponses are correct. Although the ISBD de- scriptions resulted in " 15 quicker re- sponses" (p.526) , it is apparent that in four of these cases (questions 2, 4a, 7, and 15) the non-ISBD descriptions elicited more correct answers. This study is flawed by at least seven se- rious reporting errors. Mostly these errors take the form of discrepancies between the text and the data; the data (appendixes 3 and 4) are assumed to be substantially cor- rect. But appendix 3 contains two egregious summation errors: the total number of "cor- rect'' responses for non-ISBD descriptions should be 60, for a proportion of 65.2% ; the number of "partially correct" responses for these descriptions should be 16, for a pro- portion of 17.4% . Perhaps the most disquieting aspect of this work by Gorman and Hotsinpiller is their use of a catch-all rating category, Par- tially Correct, in which responses which "gave too much information (including the correct answer)" were given equal weight with responses which gave only "half of the answer. " One is left to wonder how these quite different kinds of responses were dis- tributed between ISBD and non-ISBD de- scriptions. Taken together, the foregoing criticisms bring into question the reliability if not the validity of Gorman and Hotsinpiller' s work. There is no compelling reason to suppose that the laxity which permeates their re- porting did not extend also to the conduct of their enquiry.-]oseph M. A. Cavanagh, Library Systems Planner, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore , Maryland . Response To the Editor: Joseph Cavanagh's letter about "ISBD: Aid or Barrier to Understanding" (C&RL, Nov . 1979) contains a number of assertions and implications upon which I would like to comment. First, the "leap" from the hypothesis that ISBD and non-ISBD are equal in promoting understanding to the conclusion that ISBD · aids, rather than halts, that understanding is not "illogical." The study suggests that ISBD entries may be marginally easier to understand than non-ISBD entries. Second, Cavanagh relates speed and accuracy. The study did not . Cavanagh is free to interpret the data any way he chooses. We simply reported on the speed of response . I agree that the difference is certainly insignificant. In fact, after consult- ing with Charles Davis (dean of Illinois 's library school) and other research-oriented colleagues at the University of Illinois, I can state that there is no statistically significant difference between ISBD and non-ISBD entries for any of the comparisons . This can be seen by inspection in most of the cases, but where it is not obvious , chi square and t test analyses do show that the observed differences could have occurred by chance. This suggests to me that users would be better served , or at least just as well served , by entries comforming to ISBD . Third , of "seven serious reporting errors" Cavanagh quotes two . Both concern totals which are wrong by one (due to error in the translation from manuscript to typescript to print, not error in "summation"). Cavanagh describes these errors as "egregious" ; I would suggest that he try to acquire a great- er sensitivity to the English language or a greater sense of proportion. The other five (presumably less egregious) "errors" are not described. If they exist , one can assume that they have a similarly minor effect on the results of the study . Fourth , in the real world "partially cor- rect' ' is a large category of response. The study did not choose to analyze it further. I can see no benefit to be gained by doing so. Fifth, Cavanagh's letter (and, in particu- lar, its last sentence) should win some award for its snide sub-academic tone. Cavanagh is presumably trying to imply that the whole study was rigged but has not the courage to say so .-Michael Gorman . To the Editor: Despite the elaborate " method," the nicely reproduced card examples, and the impressive statistical tables , Michael Gor- man and Jami Hotsinpiller ' s "study " (C&RL , Nov . 1979) does not prove that " ISBD aids , rather than halts , the under- standing and speed of use of descriptive data as compare d with pre-ISBD descrip- tions. " Why? Not because of too small a sample nor the exclusive testing of under- graduate s, but rather because the questions e mployed-e. g., "Is this book illustrated?" or "What is the subtitle?"-inevitably pre- judice the results. That is , the questions themselves tend to induce " correct " answers. For instance, it's a very different matter to ask an "ordinary user" what " ill ." means (in context) than to ask "Is this book illustrated?" The former question genuinely tests understandjng and recognition, while the latter "gives away" the answer, merely testing (if anything) the respondent's ability to apply external cues , to guess rightly with the benefit of Very Heavy Hints . For examples of truly objective research into ordinary -users' understanding of stan- dard bibliographic elements , particularly abbreviations , see Larry Legus ' "Sure, They Save Space, But Who Knows What They Mean?" HCL Cataloging Bulletin, no.40 (May-June 1979), p.24-29, and "The Mys- tery of Ips and Mono ; or , Do Students Understand AV Card Catalog Terms?" by Jane Schlueter and Robert D. Little, in Deirdre Boyle's Expanding Media (Phoenix: Oryx Pr. , 1977). These studies, incidentally, demonstrated a significant non-recognition or non-understanding of such taken-for- granted cataloging conventions as " c " (copyright), " d " (died) , " v" (volume) , " 1'' (leaves), and "n.d." (no date) . No, the "long-drawn-out 'controversy ' over the ISBD" is hardly ended by Gorman and Hotsinpiller' s transparently flawed "re- search. "-Sanford Berman , Head Catalog- er, Hennepin County Library , Edina , Min- nesota . To the Editor: As a librarian who has been concerned with the fear public library users seem to Letters I 245 have for our catalogs, I welcome Gorman and Hotsinpiller's interest (C&RL, Nov . 1979). It appears, however , that wrong questions were asked about wrong books to (admittedly) wrong people. Questions: Out-of-school public library users rarely seek information from the cata- log about publisher, place of publication, or subtitle. Of the questions asked, only those relating to the author or title of the book might be asked with some frequency. There is a slight possibility that questions about illustrations might be asked. Books: American public libraries deal overwhelmingly with English-language books. Why ask questions about books in foreign languages? People: College students are a vastly different population from general public library users. If catalog intelligibility is really our goal , why don't we have our computers spell out what the ISBD symbols stand for? Our slo~ gan might be: "ISBD for machines , English for people." And less is more; we should simplifY and suppress information that is not sought by the overwhelming majority of public library readers (e. g. , place of pub- lication, ISBN). For an example of a reader-oriented for- mat, see my "Scilken' s Supercard" (The Un- abashed Librarian , no.12, 1974). Why use arcane symbols when real En- glish is available to us? If we make finding aids easier to use , perhaps more people will use our catalogs-and our libraries.-- Marvin H. Scilken , Director, Orange Public Library , Orange, New ] ersey. Academic Libraries and Undergraduate Education To the Editor: In the article " Academic Libraries and Undergraduate Education" (C&RL, Jan. 1980) it is stated that the CLR-supported college library programs were "based on concepts generated by Patricia Knapp ' s Monteith College library experiment. " Pa- tricia Knapp was one of the founders of the library-college movement and remained a key spokesperson for its precepts. We spent much of one day discussing library-college not long before her death on her last visit to Washington, D.C. 246 I College and Research Libraries • May 1980 While it is encouraging to observe the studies made in bibliographic instruction practice in the 1970s, it is appropriate in this context, I believe, to acknowledge its antecedents in library-college theory and practice. · Promulgated by the writings and practice of Louis Shores and B. Lamar Johnson in the 1930s and revitalized by Louis Shores, Patricia Knapp, and others in the 1960s, the concepts of library-college are virtually identical with those expressed in the Gwinn article: "the closer integration of academic libraries with undergraduate education, " "an academic library . . . as an active , com- mitted partner in . . . education," and "to provide to the academic library world exam- ples of things that could be done to inte- grate the library more fully into campus life. " The majority of the librarians mentioned in this article and its bibliography of CLR- supported college library programs were participants in one or more of the many lib- rary-college workshops held yearly or more often since 1965. Long articles on library-college can be found in the Encyclopedia of Education and the Encyclopedia of Library and Informa- tion Science.-Robert T. Jordan, Professor, Department of Media , Information and Learning Systems, University of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C. Research and Publication Requirements To the Editor: The elaborate research design of Rayman and Goudy in their article " Research and Publication Requirements in University Libraries" (C&RL , Jan . 1980) is wasted on a set of i;.complete returns. The authors sent questionnaires to all ninety-four ARL librar- ies but received only sixty-eight responses. A 72 percent return on some questionnaires is considered a success , but in this case the institution that does not respond either has something to hide or cares too little about the subject to bother responding. In either case we need to know which libraries re- sponded. Can we assume that the sixty-eight librar- ies that responded to the questionnaire rep- resent a true cross section of the ARL lib- raries or not? Our researchers tell us no- thing about those who responded or those who did not respond. Though they express their hope that this study will provide a benchmark for future investigations, without the knowledge of which libraries (or even which types of libraries) responded we can- not know whether the next study on this subject will deal with the same set of librar- ies. The results may not be comparable. Why couldn't the names of these institu- tions be published? The authors are not dealing with secret information ; rather it is policy information that presumably could be obtained from published personnel docu- ments or from any librarian on each cam- pus. It is time we started gathering com- plete data and naming names in the same way that AAUP gathers salary data. Then we can have a data base on which to do some research .-R. Dean Galloway, Li- brary Director, California State College, Stanislaus. Response We would like to thank R. Dean Gallo- way for his letter. We reluctantly reply since we mutually feel that the "letter-to- the-editor" format , with which Galloway is so well versed , is an inadequate forum in which to analyze or criticize research effec- tively in our field . Statements of opinion, no matter how well intentioned they may be , are absolutely no substitute for actual research. We carefully delineated the limitations inherent in our research and dealt with those effectively. And , because of the sensi- tive nature of our ground-breaking study, we assured potential respondents of com- plete confidentiality . We were rewarded with a very acceptable return rate , as well as a number of revealing comments that helped in the writing of our article . We feel confident that the results of our research are valid and valuable and will provide a basis for continued research on this in- creasingly important topic.-Ronald Ray- man and Frank Wm. Goudy. The lazy penon's guide to the Russian Language. If you 're like most people who use the Russian language infrequently, you know how difficult it can be to recognize the characters of the Cyrillic alphabet. You also know that remembering the alphabetic order of the characters is not easy, either. So it's no wonder that you've found translating Russian with a standard, Russian-English dictionary is a real chore. Until now. Now the Transliterated Dictionary of the Russian Language provides an easy way around the obstacles posed by Cyrillic. Its simple conversion tables enable you to convert any Russian word, on a letter-by-letter basis, from its Cyrillic form to Roman. Once converted many Russian words, especially technical words, are recognized easily. For example, the Russian Cyrillic word 'lransUterated Dictionary of the Russian Language 382 pages, conversion charts on endleaves MaWMHa transliterates to " mashina" (machine) and Cr..1CTEMA transliterates to " sistema" (system) . If simple transliteration does not make the meaning clear, you can look up the word easily in the Transliterated Russian-English section. Here you 'll find over 17,000 frequently used Russian words already transliterated into Roman characters and arranged into the Roman alphabetical order. With each transliterated word you 'll find a brief definition and the designation of its part of speech. Although the Transliterated Dictionary of the Russian Language is designed primarily for going from Russian to English, by using a separate English-Transliterated Russian section and the conversion chart, you can identify many Russian words and convert them to their Cyrillic form. This dictionary makes it easier for anyone without the time to study Russian seriously to translate Russian titles and abstracts, request reprints, deal with all kinds of correspondence to and from Russian nationals, and cite Russian material. Travellers, too, will find the Transliterated Dictionary of the Russian Language of great value. So if you find translating Russian a chore, let the Transliterated Dictionary of the Russian Language make life easier for you . Order your copy today. D Please send me __ copy(ies) of the CLOTHBOUND edition @ $25.00. (ISBN : 0-89495-003-7) D Please send me_·_ copy(ies) of the PAPERBACK ed ition @ $14.95. (ISBN : 0-89495-011-8) lSI Press pays postage on all USA orders accompanied by full payment. Orders from Canada and Mexico , add $2.00 for postage ; other locations, add $3.00. Residents of New Jersey, California and Pennsylvania, please add sales tax . Enclosed is my payment of$ Bill me ; my purchase order number is _ ___ _ Name Address City/State/Zip Organ ization A Division o f the Institute for Scientific I nformation~~> 3501 Market Street, U niversity City Science Center, Philade lph ia, PA 19 104 U.S.A . Country 1 0 1-2 1 81 Cll980 lSI NEW Up-To-Date Books From Noyes Data NOYES DATA has developed two new techniques of vital importance to those who wish to keep abreast of rapid changes in technology and business conditions: 1) our advanced publishing systems permit us to produce durably-bound books within a few months of manuscript acceptance; 2) our modern processing plant ships all orders on the day after they are received. HARDCOVER BOOKS-LATE SPRING 1980 PRIORITY TOXIC POLLUTANTS-Health Impacts and Allowable Limits; edited by Marshall Sittig: Provides specific information on the 65 priority toxic pollutants (actually reflecting 129 compounds), their derivatives or degradation products, or intermedia transfers. Considerable information is given on these pollutants, which have been defined by the EPA as compelled by a consent decree obtained in a federal court. ISBN 0-8155-0797-6; $54. FRAGRANCES AND FLAVORS; edited by S. Torrey: This book describes recent syn- thetic techniques and manufacturing processes for various fragrances and fla- vors. ISBN 0-8155-0798-4; $45 . FATTY ACIDS MANUFACTURE; edited by J.C. Johnson: This book describes practical syntheses and manufacturing methods for fatty acids that are used by the major chemical industries and are commercially available as a rule. Includes the prep- aration, separation, purification and uses of aliphatic carboxylic acids having both odd- and even-numbered carbon atoms. ISBN 0-8155-0799-2 ; $54. BIODEGRADATION TECHNIQUES FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC WASTES; edited by D.J. De Renzo: Provides engineering and waste management personnel with data on the biological treatment of hazardous and toxic compounds in problem- atic industrial waste effluents. ISBN 0-8155-0800-X; $28. SPINNING, EXTRUDING AND PROCESSING OF FIBERS; edited by J.S. Robinson: De- scribes the spinning, extrusion and processing of polymers that will be made into fibers. Emphasizes energy saving, minimizing scraps and discards, polymer recovery, and other cost saving and ecological considerations. ISBN 0-8155- 0801-8; $48. RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES-Advances Since 1977; edited by M. William Ranney: This book describes recent advances in the manufacture of rechargeable batter- ies. Discusses many new efforts to decrease costs and reduce waste. ISBN 0-8155-0802-6; $54. INTERIOR WATER-BASED TRADE PAINT FORMULATIONS; by Ernest W. Flick: This is a practical volume of 305 paint formulations intended for professionals in the paint and coatings industry, both in the raw materials supply and manufacturing areas ISBN 0-8155-0803-4; $36. PROTECTIVE BARRIERS FOR CONTAINMENT OF TOXIC MATERIALS; edited by R. Fung: This book describes the use of protective, impermeable barriers to pre- vent or minimize the escape of toxic pollutants from disposal sites. Synthetic and natural lining and cover materials are discussed. ISBN 0-8155-0804-2; $39. ndc NOYES DATA CORPORATION NOYES BUILDING, PARK RIDGE, NEW JERSEY 07656