August 1950
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
retained and recorded ha3 been sepaiated into its smallest unit. Each file item deals with only one report, one journal article, or one subject, but the material is there complete. Each recorded item is filed, and it will be available to the prospective user in a sorted arrangement according to the most suitable index or classification. Because the material is sorted and arranged as it is being incorporated into the central file, no sorting operation is required when it is used. Much of the need for abstracting, with all the time, expense, and inadequacies that go with it, has also been removed. Instead of the abstract, we have the record of the complete original document in combination with detailed subject headings. The convenience of the method described is most apparent to the person who actually uses the file material. First of all, the method provides the user with a place to send the material which he himself feels is valuable and should be retained and which he may desire to consult in the future. It provides also a notification service t o inform him of the new data in his field which have been received from other individuals and all the usual sources. He
1467
may select only those items which are of interest and value to him in his work. Having selected an item, he can take it with him directly. H e gets the complete document-not an abstract-which he can keep and use as he desires. The subject headings and other indexing information on the microcard enable him to arrange his own personal file with little difficulty. Where formerly the person in search of information had to spend hours in a library or wait for the material to be sent to him item by item, he now has all the information in his immediate field of investigat,ion at his finger tips. Because there is so much less difficulty and fewer steps in the process of getting at information, there is great,er assurance that the information will be put to effective use. LlTERATURE CITED
(1) Gull, C. D., SpeciaZLibraries, 40, 83-8 (March 1949). (2) Microcard Committee, College and Research Lzkaries, 6, 441-46
(September 1945).
(3) Rider, Fremont, “The Scholar and the Future of the Reseaich Library,” New York, Hadham Press, 1944. RECEIVED January 9, 1950.
Problems in the Use of Microfilms, Microprint, and Microcards in Research Libraries MAURICE F. TAUBER School of Library Service, Columbia University, New York, N . Y .
As a result of a questionnaire sent to librarians working with research material and to individuals interested in microdocumentation developments, answers were suggested to several problems in the acquisition of microfilms, microprint, and microcards; cataloging and storage; and use by staff members or patrons. Many problqms remain unsolved, however, and continuing cooperation between scientists and librarians is highly desirable.
T
HE basic problems involvcd in the dissemination and acquisition of scientific documents are not without importance to the work of chemists. Librarians, on the other hand, are aware of the needs of research workers and are seeking new ways of aiding them. Continuous cooperation between scientists and librarians is highly desirable. The acquisition and use of microfilm, microprint, and microcards in research libraries have created (5) or are likely to create problems for librarians as well as for users. In order to discover the extent and intensity of these problems, a questionnaire was sent t o a group of librarians whose work brings them into contact with research material in general and, in some cmes, with the chemical literature. Contacts were also made with individuals interested in microdocumentation developments. The following questions were asked: What problems have you met in the acquisition of microfilms, microprint, and microcards? What problems have developed in the cataloging and storage of these mkterials? What problems have staff members or patrons met in the use of these materials? (Please indicate if there are any preferences for a specific type of reproduction for any category-of material.) Please note any difficulties in the handling and use of projectors. ACQUISITION
Microfilm. The six principal problems are: (1) lack of facilities for filming material desired, (2) the question of copyright,
especially of foreign materials, (3) slowness in getting mici tifilm copies from foreign or domestic libraries, (4)high prices, ( 5 ) poor quality of work, and (6) errors in orders, Lack of filming facilities is not a particularly severe problem for research workers in science, &s there are many institutions which provide filming services (3). Eugene Powers reports that University Microfilms are completing 300,000 feet of filin annually, including dissertations produced in fourteen universities. I n so far as materials in foreign countries are concerned, American research libraries have not always succeeded in obtaining desired items. Fussler (3) has discussed fully the problem of copyright. The “gentlemen’s agreement” of fair use should remove any problems. There seems to be a general complaint of librarians concerning the difficulty of obtaining nGcrofilms from libraries abroad. Lengthy correspondence is sometimes necessary, orders are not always filled promptly or correctly, work is poor, and prices are frequently prohibitively high. The Librarian of Congress says with regard to obtaining foreign materials: “One point of interest. . .is that a number of European institutions. . .have expressed a desire in recent months to enter into exchanges with the Library of Congress of microfilms of periodicals institutions appear to be very well equipped to give prompt and competent service in filming almost all recent European technical journals.’ ’ The Director of Libraries a t the University of Kentucky writes. “I am looking into the possibility of getting certain nineteenth century files of scientific journals . b y way of exchange from German libraries on an exposure-for-exposure basis. This proposal has been made to me by a couple of German libraries and it sounds pretty good. . I intend to explore the matter further,” Microprint and Miniature Printing. Microprinting wm developed by the Readex Microprint Corporation (Albert Boni, president) to serve three purposes ( I ) : 1. To make possible publication of research material in small
1468
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
editions a t low cost. Editions of 50 copies will sell for $1.25 for each 1000 pages of original text. 2. T o deliver a product that requires no apparatus or special care to protect it from deterioration, 3. To obtain a product that makes possible an easy and quick location of research references when using a reader. This is accomplished by st’andardarrangement on the card of the microprints of individual pages of the original text. Production of microprint is just beginning. The titles announced so far are Index Medicus, li. S . Patent Abstracts Classified, and Science Abstracfs. The sponsors of microprint state that the average doctoral dissertation or research study can be issued for $25 to $50. Scientific and other texts “which now cost 25 to 50 cents a page to photostat can be made available for a few dollars a volume to the handful of scholars” (4)who need them. The cards are so arranged that each side of the card carries microprints of 100 pages, any one of which can be positioned in the reader by dialing. Librarians foresee no serious difficulty in the use of microprint aside from the obvious inconvenience of having to use a reader. Miniature printing, in its present form as developed by Edwards Brothers of Ann Arbor, Mich., involves a four-to-one reduction. Such material can be read by the naked eye and in this respect miniature printing differs from microprinting. At the end of August 1949, Edwards Brothers had announced the publication of some 36 titles in science and technology. The cost is 2.5 cents per original page. It is feasible t o put material in stock as soon as 25 orders have been received. No special problems of cataloging or st,orage are introduced. Microcards. Microreduced text, printed on paper the size of a catalog card, is intended to reduce bulk, cut text cost, provide catalog information, and eliminate binding cost. Few libraries have acquired microcards, although many librarians are interested. Present production has not extended very far into the scientific field, most of the material available being in the humanities and social sciences. The Microcard Foundation, however, has indicated that publications in progress include Zeitschrijt f u r Physikalische Chemie and Beilstein. Generally, librarians anticipate no special problems in acquisition of microcards. What is needed is better coordination and cooperation in material covered, format, and type of projectors needed for t,he users. While experimentation is good in any field, librarians are concerned about developments in microreproduction which require several types of projectors to handle the products. Fussler ( 8 ) made the following observations on the use of microfilms and their relation to other types of reproduction: Clearly the use of microfilms has been seriously handicapped. . . by the cost and technical inadequacy of the reading equipment’ The scholarly world still needs a better ine, and I am reasonably confident that it will come. . . . The use of higher reduction ratios and thus the use of more expensive cameras, . .may grow but such reduction ratios will use less film. . , and permit more extensive duplication .of . Reproduction of relatively mmaterial a t less cost per copy active reference material, required by a fairly large number of libraries, will almost certainly increase. . . . The use of long rolls of film will give way in part to microcopies on flat surfaces, though I am not convinced.. .they will all be on opaque media. . , . In saying this, I do not wish to eliminate the attractiveness of certain other applications of the opaque medium, as represented in microprint and microcards; I am simply saying that there are other demands which can perhaps be met more satisfactorily by a transparent medium which we may have also, either as a supplement t o or in competition with existing microcards, microprint, and microfilm in long rolls. CATALOGING AND STORAGE
Most librarians have concluded that the cataloging of microfilm should be kept simple, following the recording of books,
Vol. 42, No. 8
with information that the item is a microfilm. Classification is generally by broad subject, and then by numerical sequence in acquisition. Because so little has appeared as yet in microprint form, no special problems have arisen. It would seem, however, because microprints are in sheet form, that they will be handled in much the same way as books. Some question has developed in the case of cataloging of microcards. From the standpoint of the individual, microcards can be regarded as a combined catalog card and actual arrangement of the material. In the library’s handling, however, because of possibility of damage or loss, it is considered desirable to treat the microcards more like books, and not place them in a general card catalog. Present proposals are for classifying them similarly to microfilm, using broad classification with a running number. PROBLEMS OF USE
I t is probably too early to estimate the opinions concerning ease of use of microfilm, microprint, and microcards. Librarians have observed t’hat research workers, as a rule, are not too eager to use microfilm. This stems from poor quality of film and the difficult’y and inconvenience of using existing projectors. These problems are surmountable, of course. Film ’n File, Inc., has developed Filmsort cards in which one or more frames of microfilm are inserted in cards. The cards may be coded by punching the edges, thus facilitating sorting and filing operations. B special projector is needed to read these cards. I t has been found difficult to provide proper space and illumination for the use of film materials. One librarian writes: “llicrofilms are very unpopular with the men. The fault lies more with the machine. . ,set up in a well-lit and busy office, which makes both reading and concentration difficult.” Some of the same problems met with in reading microfilm are present in reading microprint and microcards. Many librarians feel that users require the help of library staff, suggesting that readers need experience and training in the use and care of these new t.ools. One prominent scientific librarian makes the following pertinent comment:
I a m pretty well convinced that microprints and microcards have all the disadvant’agesof microfilm without having some of the advantages of microfilm. . . . For example, microcards can be produced only in appreciable sized editions; microfilm can be produced economically in single copies. blicrofilm can be used where there are no reading machines simply by making enlargement prints, while enlargements cannot be made for microcards, etc. I am not, therefore, convinced that the microcard offers a final solution to anything. . .
.
Librarians and others interested in making materials available t o research workers have not solved all their problems, and await further developments in the important task of serving scholarship. Chemists can help by becoming interested in these developments and by taking fuller advantage of services now available. LITERATURE CITED
(1) Boni, Albert, letter, July 14, 1949.
(2) Fussler, H. H., “Microphotography-Past and Present,” in Summary of Proceedings, Third Annual Conference, American Theological Library Association, Chicago, Ill., June 20-21, 1949, p. 8. (3) Fussler, H. H., “Photographic Reproduction for Libraries,” Chicago, Ill., University of Chicago Press, 1942. (4) Lowenthal, Marvin, Saturday Reaiew of Literature, 22, 11-13 (Sept. 7, 1940). (5) Tauber, WI. F., J . Documentary Reproduction, 3, 10-25 (1940); 4, 150-7 (1941).
RECEIVED May 8, 1950,
