College and Research Libraries By W I L L I A M G . H A R K I N S , F R E D L. D I M O C K , and M A R Y E L I Z A B E T H H A N S O N Microfilm in University Libraries: A Report* In 1950-51, the A L A Serials Committee se- lected as one of its projects "the evaluation of the acceptance of microfilm by the clientele of public, college, university and research li- braries." T o conduct the survey a subcom- mittee of three was appointed, and as each of the members had two-year tenure on the Committee, the work was to be accomplished in that period of time. By a later decision, the survey was limited to just college and university libraries but the scope was broadened to include other per- tinent information on microfilm in university libraries. Data gathered covered such topics as the extent and type of the microfilm hold- ings, the reading machines, the physical facili- ties, the use of the film, patron reaction to microfilm, purchasing policies, current sub- scriptions on microfilm, binding vs. microfilms for storage, and the effect of clientele opinion of film as a factor in its acquisition. Consid- eration was given also to including other forms of microreproduction but the vote was to limit the survey just to microfilm. T h e ninety-four institutions chosen for the survey include most of the large graduate schools, the libraries with good financial sup- port, and those with high enrollments. Rap- idly growing young colleges as Wayne, Hous- ton, the University of Miami, and Brooklyn College, but whose libraries are comparatively small, were also included. Although all types of colleges were chosen and from all sections of the nation, the three main factors for in- clusion were nature of graduate program, enrolment which generally exceeded 5000 stu- dents, and geographical distribution. W e wished to have data from not less than 70 libraries. As nine librarians did not reply to our questionnaire, two others failed to furnish the * This report was submitted June 17, 1952, to the A L A Serials Committee by Subcommittee C. Mr. Harkins is chairman of the Subcommittee. data as promised, three submitted negative re- ports because of meager holdings and equip- ment, one sent a return too incomplete for use, and one was unwilling to cooperate, the data for the survey have come from 76 college or university libraries. T h e combined microfilm holdings of report- ing libraries totaled 164,571 reels. Partici- pating libraries were requested to equate the number of reels to 100 feet, and generally the figure reported represented reels of that length. Of the six categories or types of materials on film, by f a r the greatest number of reels was of newspapers, the combined holdings being 98,612. The other materials in order were 16,934 reels of books, 10,066 of manuscripts, 10,053 °f periodicals, 6,977 of documents with more than one third of the total reported by one library, 1,762 of separates, and 21,047 reels undivided by type of material. Because the number of reels of microfilm in the libraries reporting vary from 3 to 20,000, no median has been established, but in Table I is a broad breakdown of the micro- film resources according to number of reels for the various types of publications in li- braries. Dividing the libraries into two groups, those with 1000 or more reels and those with less than 1000, we find the former to be 43 as against 33 for the latter; how- ever, further division by thousands shows 20 li- braries with 1000-1999 reels, 5 with 2000- 2999> 7 i n the 3000's, 6 in the 4000's, 1 each in the 5000's and 6000's, and 2 with 10,000 or more. Thus, the number of reels common to the highest number of libraries is less than 1 0 0 0 . Table I I lists by type of resource the 43 college and university libraries whose micro- film holdings number 1000 or more reels. There is, of course, no magic in the number 1000, but it is a good point of departure. Libraries reporting holdings of fewer than JULY, 1953 30 7 iooo reels were Alabama Polytechnic, Arizona, Boston University, Brooklyn College, Cincin- nati, Cornell, Connecticut, Dartmouth, Den- ver, Fordham, Georgia Tech., Georgia, Houston, Idaho, Iowa State, Joint University, Kansas State, Maryland, University of Miami, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Mississippi, Montana State, City College of N e w Y o r k , Oregon State, Oregon, Pennsylvania State, Rice, St. Louis University, Southern Meth- odist, Syracuse, T e x a s A & M , Virginia Poly- technic, Western Reserve, and Wyoming. T h e following institutions either furnished no report or failed to list holdings where a re- turn was made: Baylor, Louisville, Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, Nebraska, New Y o r k University, North Carolina State, Northwestern, Oklahoma A & M , Oklahoma, Purdue, Tulane, Washington State, and West Virginia. Analyzing the reports from seventy li- braries on their reels of newspapers, it is seen that the greatest number, 46, have fewer than 1000 reels, 21 have from 1000-4999, and only 3 have more than 5000. Of the 46 reporting below IOOO reels, the highest concentration is less than 600 reels, the division being 8 in the 400's, 7 with fewer than 100, 6 having 200- 299 reels, 5 each in the 500's and ioo's, and 4 libraries having from 300 to 399 reels, or a total of 39. Libraries with a rather high number of newspapers on film but not listed by name because the total holdings fell below 1000 reels are the following: Arizona 600, Brook- lyn 772, Cornell 330, Dartmouth 266, Ford- ham 291, Georgia Tech. 448, Georgia 443, Iowa State 562, Miami 408, Mississippi State 230, City College of N e w Y o r k 223, Oregon State 816, Oregon 429, Pennsylvania State 516, Southern Methodist 300, Virginia Poly- technic 200, Western Reserve 447, and Wyoming 589. T h e concentration of periodicals on film is below 250 reels, 42 of 54 libraries which re- ported indicating holdings in that number. Tabulated in ioo's, the division is 22 libraries with fewer than 100 reels, 1 1 with from 100 to 199, the same number for 200's, 3 in the 300's, 4 in the 400's, 2 in the 500's and 1 library with more than 500, the count for it being 1200. Institutions omitted from the table above but whose microfilm periodicals holdings number 100 reels or more are: Ala- bama Polytechnic 178, Georgia 170, Maryland 239, Miami 239, City College of N e w Y o r k 210, Southern Methodist 100, Western Re- serve 199, and Wyoming 140. F o r books, manuscripts, documents, and separates, the concentration of holdings in each is fewer than 100 reels. Books numbering 100 or more reels in libraries not listed above are: Cornell 270, Michigan State 574, and Rice 402. Of manuscripts, numbering 100 plus reels, Geor- gia has 139 and Rice 1 3 5 ; of documents, Ore- gon has 300. T h a t periodicals equal only about 7 % of the total reels of microfilm held by 64 li- braries whose reports furnished data on this type of material came as a surprise to the members of the subcommittee. T h e com- parative low number of reels of periodicals is due in part to that type of material having been available commercially just for the last few years, but the main reason seems to be due to libraries following a policy to wait and watch. How long the practice will continue, no one can tell; however, it is our belief that except for projects such as the early American and British periodicals, libraries in general will continue to be slow to increase their holdings of magazines on film in proportion to other resources. For that matter, the same is felt to be true for all types of microfilm acqui- sitions except newspapers. From time to time, there have appeared in the professional jour- nals great claims for microfilm, and certainly it fills a very definite need, but until the reading machines are improved even more, the public is better educated in its use, and li- brarians overcome apathy, microfilm will re- main largely a step-child of the various media and too often will be turned to only as a last resort for supplying needed references. In answer to the question of whether the library was subscribing to periodicals on microfilm in preference to binding the printed issues, of a total of 70 replies, only 18 were in the affirmative. This figure is out of line with that furnished by Eugene B. Power, of the University Microfilms who re- ports 107 college and university libraries sub- scribing to current periodicals^ on microfilm. F o r newspapers on film, of 74 answers re- ceived by the subcommittee, there were 66 affirmatives. A grouping by number* of current periodi- * Other subscribing libraries we learned too late to include in the report are: Skidmore 80, Vermont 80, 308 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES cals being received on film shows 8 libraries receive from I to 9, 2 have 10-15, and 6 re- ceive from* 20 to 67. T w o libraries failed to specify the number received. T h e libraries subscribing to 20 or more titles are City Col- lege of N e w Y o r k 67, Arizona 50, Brook- lyn 38, Pittsburgh 35, Iowa 32, and Southern Methodist 20. Of his 107 subscrib- ing college libraries, M r . Power indicates that 52 take 20 or more titles and that one library receives 125 periodicals. No doubt, the big difference in the findings of the subcommittee and in the report from University Microfilms is that the smaller libraries are those subscrib- ing to periodicals on film, because in the main the smaller libraries were omitted from the survey as it was not expected that they would be the principal subscribers. Although not surprising, it is interesting to learn also from M r . Power that of the total of 223 libraries subscribing from his company for current periodicals on film, 1 1 6 are public libraries, and one of the number receives as many as 156 titles. T h e service has been op- erating for a very short time and the figures may only mean that college libraries were slower to act. Of further interest is his state- ment that " . . . the t e n d e n c y is to p u r c h a s e the most p o p u l a r a n d most u s e d p e r i o d i c a l s , w h e r e a s , a c t u a l l y , i n t e l l i g e n t a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s w h o l e t h e o r y w o u l d i n d i c a t e t h a t the l e s s used, but n o n e t h e l e s s s p a c e - c o n s u m i n g , f o r e i g n p e r i o d i - c a l s a r e the ones w h i c h s h o u l d be k e p t on film. A l l of t h i s i n d i c a t e s to m e t h a t li- b r a r i a n s h a v e not as y e t c a r e f u l l y a n d t h o r - o u g h l y t h o u g h t t h r o u g h the a p p l i c a t i o n a n d the i m p l i c a t i o n s of m i c r o f i l m c o p i e s . I t is i n t e r e s t i n g to note, h o w e v e r , t h a t li- b r a r i e s w h i c h s t a r t e d the p r o g r a m in 1 9 5 0 a r e c o n t i n u i n g it a n d in a v e r y l a r g e m a j o r i t y of c a s e s a r e e x p a n d i n g the n u m b e r of titles w h i c h they keep on m i c r o f i l m . I n a d d i t i o n , n e w l i b r a r i e s a r e c o m i n g in q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y , w h i c h i n d i c a t e s an i n c r e a s i n g i n t e r e s t a n d a p p r o v a l of this m e t h o d . A n y p r o g r a m of t h i s sort m u s t of n e c e s s i t y s t a r t s l o w l y , a n d w e a r e not d i s a p p o i n t e d t h a t it h a s not g o n e f a s t e r . I n f a c t , it h a s g o n e a b o u t the w a y w e a n t i c i p a t e d . H o w e v e r , w e a r e c o n v i n c e d of the s o u n d n e s s a n d l o g i c of the p r o g r a m , a n d t h a t it w i l l c o n t i n u e to g r o w . " California State Poly. 56, Wright Junior 50, Idaho State 28, Principia 25, Tarleton State 22, Howard Payne 20, Rosemont 13, George Pepperdine 12', and New Hamp- shire 3. Unfortunately, our data do not reveal the number of copies of a title or all the titles on subscription nor does University Microfilms. However, M r . Power states that of the ap- proximate 800 titles available, from I to 57 copies of one or more of 500 periodicals are being sent to libraries. In comparing the dif- ference between the 1950 and 1952 lists of magazines from University Microfilms, we found that 1 1 6 titles have been crossed off the 1952 list and that they may be discon- tinued "because of lack of interest." Forty- five periodicals have been added to the 1952 list, making a total of 774 of which 1 1 6 may be discontinued. Generally, the reasons for selecting titles to be received on microfilm by the above libraries were limited demand as currently received, little used when older than several years, cheaper than binding, and for experimentation. Five of the six libraries receiving microfilmed periodicals although not binding the printed issues are still retaining them for one reason or another, but mainly because microfilm as a substitute for printed periodicals has not yet proven satisfactory in all respects. Of special interest were some of the com- ments from a few of the librarians experi- menting with periodicals on microfilm. Jerome Wilcox of the City College of N e w Y o r k wrote: " W e a r e not e x p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h a n y of the p o p u l a r p e r i o d i c a l s but o n l y t e c h n i c a l p e r i o d i c a l s . S i n c e t h i s is the first y e a r w e h a v e a t t e m p t e d the e x p e r i m e n t , w e a r e not p r e p a r e d to m a k e a n y final s t a t e m e n t s . So f a r , s t u d e n t s a n d f a c u l t y h a v e m a d e the f o l - l o w i n g c o m m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g m i c r o f i l m e d i - t i o n s : a. S t u d e n t a n d f a c u l t y m e m b e r s i n v a r i a b l y p r e f e r book m a t e r i a l but do not o b j e c t to m i c r o f i l m . b. E y e s t r a i n r a r e l y r e p o r t e d . c. O p i n i o n is e q u a l l y d i v i d e d on r e a d i n g s p e e d — m i c r o f i l m v s . c o d e x book. d. T h e r e is a s l i g h t a m o u n t of i n c o n v e n - ience to both c l i e n t e l e a n d l i b r a r y staff in s e t t i n g up a n d m a n i p u l a t i n g m a c h i n e s , but this is f a r outweighed by shelf space saving. e. I l l u s t r a t i o n s in c o l o r ( p a r t i c u l a r l y c o v e r s ) not c l e a r l y p h o t o g r a p h e d ; p e r - h a p s c a m e r a t e c h n i q u e c o u l d be i m - p r o v e d b y use of filters, d i f f e r e n t e x - p o s u r e times, etc. T h i s e x p e r i m e n t is b e i n g r u n e n t i r e l y b y School of T e c h n o l o g y s t u d e n t s a n d f a c u l t y . JULY, 1953 309 T h e y a r e introduced to the o p e r a t i o n of the equipment and t h e r e a f t e r o p e r a t e it them- selves. Since these students a r e m e c h a n i c a l l y minded they can p r o b a b l y be entrusted w i t h o p e r a t i n g this type of m a c h i n e better than w o u l d other types of students. W e hesitate at this time to m a k e a n y b r o a d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g w i d e - s p r e a d adoption by l i b r a r i e s of m i c r o f i l m sub- stitutes f o r bound v o l u m e s f o r technical p e r i o d i c a l s . " From Pittsburgh, A . L . Robinson stated: " W e h a v e a v e r y f a v o r a b l e reaction to the use of film as a substitute f o r the printed issues. N o p o p u l a r titles w e r e selected. W e b e l i e v e that the cost of s e r v i c i n g the film to the public is less t h a n it w o u l d be f o r bound v o l u m e s . T h e films a r e kept in the R e f e r e n c e D e p a r t m e n t w h e r e our film r e a d e r s a r e also located so that w e can p r o d u c e the reel of film much m o r e quickly t h a n the bound v o l u m e w h i c h h a s to be b r o u g h t f r o m the Stacks w h i c h a r e a c o n s i d e r a b l e distance a w a y . I f the client h a s used one of our m i c r o f i l m r e a d e r s b e f o r e , w e permit s e l f - s e r v i c e of the film. If the client is u s i n g film f o r the first time, a R e f e r e n c e D e p a r t - ment a s s i s t a n t p l a c e s the film on the r e a d e r and r e m o v e s it a f t e r use. E v e n this much s e r v i c e w e c o n s i d e r to be less than that in- v o l v e d in s u p p l y i n g a bound v o l u m e . W e a r e v e r y satisfied w i t h our p r o g r a m l a r g e l y b e c a u s e w e seem to h a v e selected titles w h i c h a r e seldom c a l l e d f o r . T h i s w a s our m a j o r p u r p o s e . A s I h a v e pointed out, these films can be supplied to our r e a d e r s m o r e quickly than bound v o l u m e s . T h e films cost no m o r e t h a n b i n d i n g , w h i c h w e h a v e n o w discontinued f o r these 35 titles. W e w i l l soon decide w h e t h e r to d i s c a r d the printed issues. I suspect t h a t our decision w i l l be to d i s c a r d them and thus a c e r t a i n amount of stack space w i l l be s a v e d in addition to the other a d v a n t a g e s pointed out." On the basis of experience at Brooklyn, Humphrey Bousfield reported: " T o d a t e the use of the m i c r o f i l m copies h a s been r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l due to the f a c t t h a i until v e r y recently w e h a d not d i s c a r d e d any printed issues. T h e r e a r e distinct d i s a d - v a n t a g e s in the use of m i c r o f i l m . W e h a v e only t w o ' r e a d e r s ' so only t w o p e r s o n s can be a c c o m m o d a t e d at a time. M o r e time and l a b o r is e m p l o y e d in i n s t a l l i n g the film t h a n in c h a r g i n g the bound v o l u m e . T h i s is es- p e c i a l l y true w h e r e the r e a d e r d e s i r e s only to scan s e v e r a l v o l u m e s . W e do not permit r e a d e r s to i n s t a l l films as this m a y d a m a g e , r r either the m i c r o - r e a d e r or the film. On the other h a n d , as m i c r o f i l m copies n e v e r c i r c u - late, no time is lost in l o c a t i n g a f i l m ; nor do film copies s u f f e r mutilation. P r o b a b l y the most s e r i o u s objection w e h a v e f o u n d concerns not the use of the m i c r o - film but the m i c r o f i l m i n g itself I n n e a r l y e v e r y case w h e r e the i n d e x w a s pub- lished s e p a r a t e l y and issued some time a f t e r the completion of the v o l u m e , the i n d e x w a s not i n c l u d e d in the microfilm. W e h a v e had e x t e n s i v e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h the f i r m on this m a t t e r . Not long a g o they stated they w o u l d suspend o p e r a t i o n s until they h a d s t r a i g h t - ened out this m a t t e r , but only last month w e r e c e i v e d another title w h e r e the index w a s m i s s i n g . C o n s i d e r a b l e time is spent e x a m - i n i n g film f o r such e r r o r s . In one case a spot check r e v e a l e d that the inside f r o n t c o v e r and first p a g e w e r e omitted. I n another case the tpi w a s m i c r o f i l m e d w h e r e the p u b l i s h e r h a d tucked it in behind the c o v e r of the last issue, instead of p h o t o g r a p h i n g it at the b e g i n n i n g of the film. I n s e v e r a l instances w h e r e the p u b l i s h e r employs d a r k - c o l o r e d c o v e r s , the c o v e r s a r e completely or almost completely i n v i s i b l e on m i c r o f i l m ; the c o v e r i l l u s t r a t i o n s of Nature Magazine, f o r instance, a r e v i r t u - a l l y i n v i s i b l e . " M r . Robert T r e n t ' s statement from S M U w a s : " W e selected only scientific, technical and p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s on microfilm, those w h i c h a r e n e c e s s a r y f o r r e s e a r c h but w h i c h w i l l not be f r e q u e n t l y used by anyone and h a r d l y e v e r b y u n d e r g r a d u a t e s . F i l m is an u n s a t i s f a c t o r y substitute f o r the o r i g i n a l . I t is m o r e inconvenient to use, it is h a r d e r on the eyes, c h a r t s and d i a g r a m s on film a r e not too s a t i s f a c t o r y , cost of s e r v i c i n g a film is g r e a t e r t h a n a bound v o l u m e . Y e t , it is the only a n s w e r to the s t o r a g e p r o b l e m . W e w o u l d not recommend that other li- b r a r i e s b u y much used p e r i o d i c a l s on film unless they can also bind the o r i g i n a l s . M a n y people f o r g e t , in counting the s a v i n g of film o v e r bound volumes,- that a d d i t i o n a l r e a d i n g m a c h i n e s a r e n e c e s s a r y , that these a r e ex- p e n s i v e , and that they take floor s p a c e and s e r v i c i n g . W e do not r e g r e t our decision so f a r , but w e h a v e t r i e d to be v e r y c a r e f u l in o u r selection of titles. W e do not do a g r e a t d e a l of r e s e a r c h here n o w . A s o u r r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m g r o w s , w e m a y h a v e p r o b l e m s . " A t Iowa, the variety of titles selected was wider, and so the experiences have been some- what different. Norman Kilpatrick replied: 310 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES " O n list I , you w i l l find such titles as, the Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Affairs, Harpers, etc. W e e x p e r i m e n t e d w i t h this type of m a - t e r i a l on film, t h i n k i n g that a f t e r the first y e a r these g e n e r a l p e r i o d i c a l s w e r e i n f r e - quently used and, t h e r e f o r e , the film copy w o u l d be sufficient. H o w e v e r , our e x p e r i - ence so f a r h a s p r o v e n that this is not so and w e recently decided that w e w o u l d continue to bind Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, Reader's Digest and Popular Science Monthly. We a r e g o i n g to t r y out a scheme of p l a s t i c bind- i n g w h i c h w e can do here r a t h e r t h a n send the items out. W e did not discontinue the film f o r these titles because f r e q u e n t l y an issue is m i s s i n g a n d the use seemed h e a v y enough to w a r r a n t h a v i n g a film as w e l l as the bound copy. F o r the other m a t e r i a l on this list, Country Gentlemen, Library Journal, National Real Estate and Building Journal, etc. w e a r e still w i t h h o l d i n g a final opinion. On list I I , you w i l l note that all of the m a t e r i a l is m e d i c a l . H e r e w e w e r e of the opinion that the q u a r t e r l i e s and the r e v i e w s w e r e used e x t e n s i v e l y w h e n they first c a m e , but little use w a s m a d e a f t e r a f e w months. T w o of these titles, Occupational Therapy and Rehabilitation and the Quarterly Review of Ophthalmology and Allied Sciences, have h a d such h e a v y use that w e h a v e decided that the film is no substitute and, t h e r e f o r e , h a v e canceled the film subscription f o r these titles. It is our opinion that f o r j o u r n a l s that h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e use the film is not s a t i s f a c t o r y , but that it is s a t i s f a c t o r y f o r those j o u r n a l s that h a v e v e r y little use a f t e r the first f e w months. I am not able to define e x a c t l y w h a t titles these w o u l d be, but in our situation w e w o u l d include such items as, Quarterly Re- view of Biology, Quarterly Review of Medi- cine, Quarterly Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Country Gentlemen, Library Journal, Social Forces and Survey." Of 75 replies received to the question, " D o you contemplate changing the current maga- zine files from binding to f i l m ? " only 4 0 % were unqualified. T h e r e were 26 " N o ' s " ; 7 which stated " N o , with exceptions"; 1 " S a v e as needed"; I " C a n not answer now, un- doubtedy will come to i t " ; 2 " D i s c u s s e d " ; 8 "Considering"; 1 1 " N o t at present"; 1 " W o u l d like t o " ; 1 " F e w , soon"; 1 "Selected group in two y e a r s " ; 1 " T o experiment in one department"; " P l a n in a year or s o " ; 6 " E x - perimenting"; 1 " Y e s , but wish to retain printed copy"; and 4 " Y e s ' s . " Certainly, it is evident librarians at least are thinking on the question of microfilm as a substitute f o r bind- ing, but mainly because storage space has become so pressing a problem. T h e one most optimistic library reported that 5 0 % of its periodicals would be on microfilm if proven satisfactory a f t e r 5 years of service. F o r newspapers, the grouping by number of titles received is as f o l l o w s : 44 libraries re- ceive fewer than 13 titles, 3 are in the 20's, 2 in the 30's, 2 in the 40's, 1 in the 50's, and one receives "too many to list." T h e other 13 libraries reporting newspapers on micro- film in preference to binding fail to list the number of titles being received. Further analysis for the libraries with f e w e r than 20 newspapers show 1 2 have 1 title, 13 have 2, 5 have 3, 3 have 4, 3 have 5, 4 have 6, 1 has 7, and 3 have 13. Almost without exception, the one newspaper received on film is the New York Times, even where it is the only title. D o libraries have definite policies for the purchasing of microfilm? Seventy-two li- braries furnished answers to the question. Forty reported negatively, thirty replied a f - firmatively, and two were classed as limited. T h e point on which there was the most agree- ment w a s that newspapers if kept on file should be on microfilm. Other factors com- mon in the policies were meeting urgent needs for graduate and faculty research, acquiring items available in print but too costly to buy, completing gaps in perodical runs, to overcome bulk and disintegration, to save purchasing rare and expensive items, to make available little used material and especially sets of limited use, and to acquire only when avail- able in no other form except microfilm. Points mentioned singly by the libraries as a part of their policies were the acquisition of general and literary periodicals prior to 1850 as available on microfilm, scientific magazines when too expensive or unavailable otherwise were to be bought on film, to purchase micro- film of some principal source materials and early runs of research periodicals where use is limited, to acquire long runs of foreign periodicals, to save w e a r and tear on orig- inals, and to meet interlibrary loan needs. Only two libraries mentioned a time factor in their policies, one stated, " M o n o g r a p h s — R e f e r items searched f o r one year to source of request f o r decision on purchase of film. Serials—Missing issues—Order is submitted with note as to whether microfilm is acceptable a f t e r trying two dealers f o r originals." T h e JULY, 1953 311 other reported, "Books: If we cannot obtain original, and at a satisfactory price, we pur- chase on microfilm after a 'search' period of 6 months." Another comment of interest on a purchasing policy was the statement from one library that its policy was one of expe- diences and that it was "reluctantly backing into using microfilm." Of governing factors in purchasing micro- film, the one reported most important was the saving in storage cost or in space, fifty li- braries listing it. Other points given, in or- der of number, were the saving in purchase cost 45, the use to which the material was to be put 13, the availability of a needed item 1 1 , preservation of the material 4, the binding cost 3, satisfying of the faculty 2, condition of the paper 2, the time in which an item had to be furnished 2, and one each f o r subject content of the desired item, format of the publication, importance of the material, and service econ- omy. On the question of whether a film would be purchased only when the codex book was unavailable, there was a more nearly equal distribution of answers than on any other. Thirty-three libraries reported negatively and thirty-one replied affirmatively. Quite a number answering "yes" made the qualifica- tion of "generally." So strong is the aversion to film by a few libraries that where a printed book can not be bought it will not be supplied if available only on film. In quite a number of instances, the decision as to purchasing film, if available only in that form, was reported to be made by the user of the material. As a matter of fact, in answer to the ques- tion, " H a s the reaction, whether adverse or favorable, in using film been a major consid- eration in your microfilm acquisition pro- g r a m ? " the libraries reporting " Y e s " num- bered 12 and those replying negatively totaled 54. Several librarians stated that the program had been slowed considerably by the resist- ance to film, a couple of others reported buy- ing film only with the approval of the academic departments, and there was one spe- cific instance where acquiring the New York Times on film was delayed two years because of adverse opinion. However, other libraries reported favorable reception of film had acted as a stimulant to the buying program and one institution sometimes splits the cost of the film between the library and an academic de- partment. There was only one report that newspapers on microfilm had been purchased because of faculty insistence. Of 75 libraries reporting on their microfilm facilities, only three claimed them to be ex- cellent. Forty-six others replied that they were adequate and 26 reported them to be inadequate. No definition was given in the questionnaire for the meaning of "adequate," and so the standards set are those of the in- dividual libraries. Some did state, however, that the facilities were adequate for present needs. In comparing the microfilm holdings, the number of reading machines, the locations of the machines, etc. for the seventy plus libraries, there was the feeling that many of the libraries reported as adequate were really sub-standard in their microfilm facilities. Of course, the quality of the microfilm accom- modations are really only the concern of the individual library; however, the subcommit- tee does believe that the better the facilities, the more chance there is to educate the clien- tele to satisfied use of microfilm, and thereby, the greater the opportunity to broaden the re- sources of the library. T h e number of reading machines reported for 75 libraries was 307, which would be an average of four to an institution. Actually, a grouping by number shows the following: 13 libraries to have I machine, 13 with 2, 18 with 3, 12 with 4, 1 with 5, 6 with 6, 2 with 7, 3 with 8, 1 with 9, 3 with 10, and one each with 12, 15 and 2 1 . Libraries having four or more readers are California 2 1 ; Chicago 1 5 ; Virginia 1 2 ; Columbia, Illinois, and Michigan Univ. 1 0 ; Wisconsin 9; Duke, North Caro- lina Univ., and Ohio State 8 ; Harvard and Kentucky 7 ; Brown, California at Los An- geles, Johns Hopkins, Missouri, Pennsylvania State and Princeton 6; Wayne 5 ; Arizona, C C N Y , Emory, Georgia Tech, Iowa Univ., Minnesota, Rochester, Southern California, Stanford, Utah, Washington (Seattle), and Y a l e 4. No doubt, quite a number of local factors determine how many reading machines are necessary to provide good service to a micro- film collection. T o be sure, there is some degree of correlation between the number of reels and of the machines but it is not high. F o r example there are eight libraries with more than 2,000 reels of film but with four or less machines and yet six libraries with fewer than 2,000 reels have five or more readers. As to be expected, the amount of 312 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES graduate study is a determining factor in the number of readers, but this can not be claimed as the most important factor. T o arrive at any definite conclusion, much more will have to be known of individual libraries than we know now. By f a r the favorite make of reader among the libraries reporting is the Recordak, 167 of one model or another out of a total of 307 machines being in use. Second highest is the Spencer with 48, third is the Argus with 33, and fourth is the Griscombe with 32. No other make of machine was reported in more than nine libraries, although ten additional trade names were listed. Of the thirty port- able readers available, several libraries stated they are loaned for as much as two weeks and one library has a loan privilege of three weeks. T o make microfilm more convenient in its use, the day will have to come when many libraries have portable readers to be issued on loan. In the location of the reading machines for servicing, it was expected that most libraries would list them as being in the reference room or department, and such was the case, fourteen being so reported. Other favorite locations were the stacks, periodical room or department, special collections room, circula- tion department, librarian's office, and rare book room. Machines have also been placed in the interlibrary loan office, graduate read- ing room, map room, newspaper room, audio- visual department, science room, archives sec- tion, music room, acquisitions department, modern language room, mathematics office, graduate history room, and English seminar. Reading machines also were reported as hav- ing been placed in the departmental libraries, the practice being to shift the older models to the branches. Thirty-two libraries indicated the reading machines are in a separate room but only three noted a microfilm reading room or department. Fifty-five of 72 libraries have their machines in locations which are dark or which may be darkened. What proportion of the users of microfilm are undergraduates, graduate students, faculty members, and others? T h e percentage av- erage for the 63 libraries replying to this question was 22.08, 43.27, 30.95, and 3.74 respectively. As one might imagine, however, the group of users varied greatly from library to library. For undergraduates, 13 libraries indicated no use, 33 reported 2 5 % and less of total use, 8 from 26% to 50% of the users, 4 fr.om 5 1 % to 7 5 % , and 5 with 76% or more. T h e highest percentage of undergraduate use in a library was 92% but another had 90%. The breakdown for graduate students was 1 library with no use, 17 with 2 5 % and less, 27 with 26% to 50%, 13 with 5 1 % to 7 5 % , and 5 with 76% or more. Faculty use indi- cated one library with no patrons, 35 with 2 5 % and less, 18 with from 26% to 5 0 % , 7 with 5 1 % to 7 5 % , and 2 with 76% or more. Of users classified as others, 37 libraries re- ported none and the percentage for the other libraries ranged from 1 to 60. As more news- papers and magazines are placed on film, there can be little doubt but that the under- graduate use will increase proportionately. Such a trend may have drawbacks on the one hand but it should be a boost to the microfilm program in helping students to become edu- cated sooner than normally to the use of film in libraries. T o have some data directly from the users of microfilm, 20 patron data forms were sent to eighty of the libraries with the request that the forms be completed. Most libraries were reluctant to ask their clientele for cooperation, and so only 496 completed forms were re- turned to the subcommittee. From the an- swers, we learned the frequency of microfilm use by nearly 500 patrons during the regular school year or nine months was as follows: 71 I time 106 2-5 times 87 6-10 times 55 1 1 - 2 0 times 176 more than 20 times T h e length of time the machines were used w a s : 28 for 15 minutes or less, 61 for 15 to 30 minutes, 103 from 30 to 60 minutes, 173 from 1 to 2 hours, and 1 3 1 for more than 2 hours. Of the types of material used on microfilm, newspapers led with 239, books were used 101 times, magazines 52 times, and other than these but generally manuscripts 184 times. In some instances, more than one type of material was checked. In regard to the reaction to the use of microfilm, 285 patrons indicated that although the printed or codex book was preferred there was no objec- tion to microfilm, 89 expressed a preference for microfilm, 72 stated no preference, 47 ob- jected to using film, and 3 supplied no answer. As to be expected, the most common objection to microfilm was that it caused eyestrain, but JULY, 1953 313 other factors with a high number of checks were "cumbersome to use," "inconvenience in scheduling the reading machine," and "head- aches." M o r e than half, 282 to be exact, of the patrons reported microfilm can be read as rapidly as a codex book. T h e final item requested classification of the user as to un- dergraduate, graduate student, faculty mem- ber, or other, and of the 496 replying the di- vision was 77, 219, 142, and 53 respectively. These figures on the users of microfilm do not compare unfavorably with those reported above as the average for the 63 libraries fur- nishing user data, although arrived at quite differently. Summary: From data submitted by 76 col- lege and university libraries, certain findings on microfilm in this type of library are now evident. T h e libraries in most states of the nation are represented, and although the greatest number of them are the largest li- braries, included too are those of some of the youngest institutions. Not too numerous are the smaller libraries, those whose holdings of books number less than 200,000 volumes and whose student clientele is below the 5,000 mark. T h e combined microfilm holdings of the libraries number 164,571 reels. Deducting 21,047 reels not divided into type of publica- tion on film, we find that of the remaining newspapers constitute nearly 69% of the total, books 1 2 % , manuscripts 7 % , periodicals slightly less than 7 % , documents 5 % , and separates 1 % . T h e number of reels in the microfilm collections of the libraries ranges from 3 to 20,000 reels. Thirty-three libraries own less than 1,000 reels each, 20 have from 1,000-1,999, and 23 report 2,000 or more. T h e number of reels of newspapers most common to libraries is fewer than 600, 35 libraries reporting in that range, but of periodicals it is fewer than 100 reels. With but a few exceptions, the libraries have ceased to bind newspapers which are to be retained indefinitely, but instead are using microfilm for preservation and storage. T h e reasons for this change are obvious and need no explanation. Sixty-six of 74 libraries re- port current newspapers on film where they are to be kept permanently. Periodicals, how- ever, proportionately are being changed rather slowly to film and mainly in the smaller libraries, and yet microfilming seems to offer the best solution to the costly prob- lem of storage. University Microfilms advises that of 107 college libraries subscribing to from 1 to 125 current periodicals on film, 52 of the libraries receive 20 or more titles. This number of subscribing libraries is much higher than the 18 reported to the subcommittee, and of the 18 only 6 receive 20 or more film sub- scriptions. Apparently, this difference is due to so few small libraries having been included in the survey. Considering that 1 1 6 public libraries also subscribe to periodicals on film and that commercially film subscriptions have been available but a few years, there seems to be little doubt but that librarians are consider- ing the utilization of film in preference to bind- ing more rapidly for magazines than they did for newspapers. Of course, if the change is to be made, the sooner the better, but in most of the libraries, there is still a strong inclination to follow the policy of waiting and watching. There is, to be sure, much interest evidenced in the change and only 20% have rejected the idea completely. With college and university libraries the policy has been to select titles on film which will be little used, mainly scientific, technical, and professional journals, and so f a r the ma- jority of the libraries seems satisfied. Certain objections have, of course, been made, notably the absence of color from pictures and the blackness of pictures in film, and there are still "bugs" to be worked out in the filming of the magazines by the processors, but on the whole the reports are encouraging. T h e two main factors in placing magazines on film rather than binding them are the sav- ing in space and the difference in the cost of the film and of the binding costs. Other im- portant factors are the use to which the ma- terial is to be put, and the availability of a needed item. N o figures are available for comparing the current patron reaction to microfilm with that of ten years ago, but gradually microfilm is becoming better accepted, and as more un- dergraduates use film, the opposition to it will be lessened considerably. T h e percentage average for 63 libraries showed microfilm users to be 22.08 undergraduates, 43.27 grad- uate students, 30.95 faculty, and 3.74 others. Of 496 users of microfilm 285 indicated a preference for the codex book but had no ob- jection to film, 89 expressed a preference for film, 72 stated no preference, 3 supplied no an- swer and 47 definitely objected to using it. There is a strong feeling on the part of 314 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES Table I Reels of Microfilm Resources by Types of Publications Libraries Libraries Libraries Libraries Libraries Libraries Reels Libraries with with with with with with Newspapers Periodicals Books Manuscripts Documents Separates 0 1 0 1 2 20 26 32 1 - 9 9 5 7 22 27 25 27 25 100-249 3 8 20 S 8 6 5 250-499 8 1 5 9 4 5 3 1 500-749 9 1 0 2 5 3 750-999 8 6 7 1 1 , 0 0 0 - 1 , 4 9 9 1 3 8 I 2 2 1 1 , 5 0 0 - 1 , 9 9 9 7 4 1 2,000—2,999 5 5 I 1 3 , 0 0 0 - 3 , 9 9 9 7 2 4 , 0 0 0 - 4 , 9 9 9 6 2 5 , 0 0 0 - 5 , 9 9 9 1 6 , 0 0 0 - 6 , 9 9 9 7 , 0 0 0 - 7 , 9 9 9 I 8 , 0 0 0 - 8 , 9 9 9 9 , 0 0 0 - 9 , 9 9 9 1 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 - 2 2 not divided 6 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 Total of Libraries 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Table II Institutions with 1000 or More Reels of Microfilm Reels of Reels of Reels of Reels of Reels of Reels Institution T o t a l News- Periodi- Reels of M a n u - Docu- Sepa- Not Reels papers cals Books scripts ments rates Divided Alabama 1 , 3 1 0 * * 1 , 3 1 0 * * Arkansas 1 , 5 2 0 1 , 2 7 6 182 3 1 8 23 3 , 6 0 7 * * Brown 3 , 6 0 7 * * 1 , 2 7 6 3 , 6 0 7 * * California (Berkeley) 4 , 6 7 6 60s 4 , 0 7 1 California 4 , 6 7 6 (Los Angeles) 1 , 8 3 8 544 299 493 3 3 i 28 2 1 3 Chicago 20,000 1 5 , 0 0 0 5 , 0 0 0 Colorado 1 , 0 7 7 1 , 0 7 7 Columbia S , i 4 i 2 , 8 1 5 35o 652 1 , 2 1 2 1 4 98 D u k e 4 , 1 1 8 2 , 7 8 3 250 850 185 5o Florida State Univ. 4 , 206 4 , 0 3 6 7 60 103 Florida 3 , 4 6 5 3 , 0 4 6 1 1 6 208 89 99 7 H a r v a r d 4 , 5 o o 3 , 3 7 5 1 , 1 2 5 Illinois 3 , 8 9 0 1 , 8 4 7 908 ISO* 800* 950* 1 0 0 * 43* Indiana 1 , 2 3 5 1 , 8 4 7 908 16 21 1 5 6 108 26 Iowa Univ. 2,800 1 , 5 8 2 1 1 4 889 2 1 5 J o h n s Hopkins 1 , 0 0 0 431 238 1 5 5 30 K a n s a s 1 , 1 6 2 793 209 1 3 1 4 25 K e n t u c k y 2 , 4 5 5 1 , 0 4 5 376 651 383 7 Louisiana S t a t e 3 , 1 3 8 2 , 4 1 8 2 1 0 505 5 Michigan 4 , 6 7 1 45o 5 5 ° 2 , 9 6 1 ' 500 200 Minnesota 7 , 8 3 2 4 , 9 7 1 403 1 , 1 2 7 99 1 , 1 8 8 44 Missouri 1 5 , 0 0 0 1 1 , 5 0 0 * 1 , 200 1 , 0 0 0 1 , 0 0 0 300 New Mexico 1 , 1 0 0 * 37o* 2 , 2 6 3 730* North Carolina 3 , 260 528 334 2 , 2 6 3 1 3 5 Ohio S t a t e 1 , 0 0 0 * 528 1 , 0 0 0 * Pennsylvania 4,000 2 , 7 3 8 185 879 198 76 Pittsburgh 3 , 8 0 4 2,908 267 506 35 338 76 Princeton 2 , 5 9 6 1 , 3 0 8 42S 1 5 7 3 0 1 338 67 Rochester 1 , 0 7 6 608 76 3 i i 81 Rutgers i , 3 7 i 1 , 1 8 1 66 20 104 4 South Carolina 1 , 3 5 0 1 , 2 2 8 1 3 59 59 i 7 8 f Southern Calif. 1 , 0 3 8 440 98 1 1 7 97 97 i 7 8 f Stanford 1 , 0 7 3 703 23 78 236 33 Temple 1 , 8 5 5 1 , 0 1 8 242 565* 30 Tennessee i , 5 5 5 889 400 28 89 145 4 1 , 5 8 3 T e x a s 3 , 1 5 4 1 , 5 7 1 1 , 5 8 3 Utah 2 , 0 5 2 1 , 6 3 7 4 1 5 568 g* Virginia 1 , 7 7 9 295 92* 797 568 g* 1 8 * Washington (St. Louis) 1 , 6 9 3 1 , 6 1 7 39 3 34 Washington (Seattle) 1 , 4 4 0 367 533 800 54o W a y n e 1 , 0 0 0 90 1 5 0 800 100 U n i v . of Wisconsin 9 , 5 0 0 * * 9 , 0 0 0 * * 500 Y a l e 2 , 6 0 0 * 1 . 1 0 0 * 3 7 0 * 75o* 3 7 o * t Indicates music scores. * Figure estimated. . . * * A l a b a m a reported 1 , 3 1 0 cataloged items, Brown 3,607 pieces and rolls, and Wisconsin includes S t a t e Historical Society JULY, 1953 315 the subcommittee that much of the objection to microfilm is psychological. No tests have been made to learn how valid the objections expressed most often really are. No doubt, a contributing cause to the aversion for film is that the microfilm facilities are substandard. Only 3 of 75 libraries indicated their facilities were excellent and in each of these there was a high percentage of satisfied patrons. Cer- tainly, there is great need for educating to film use not only the public but also librarians, many of the latter being apathetic and even daunted because some slight mechanical sense is required. J u s t how f a r libraries will go in using film in preference to binding, no one can say for sure. T h e time must pass to permit a thorough comparison of the different types of micro-reproduction. No doubt, the five year experiments being conducted with microfilm by several college libraries will go f a r in pro- viding necessary information for a decision. Possibly, by 1960 many librarians will have taken a definite stand, but of course, many others will still be waiting and watching. However, until there is developed a form of reproduction which will suit the library cli- entele better, and yet offer as many advantages as microfilm, at least for much of the periodi- cal literature, there seems no better solution to the problem of costly storage. American Historical Association (Continued from page 306) suits of the various microcopying projects. It is the desire of the committee to promote the principle of a centralized depository in the Library of Congress in connection with an inexpensive interlibrary loan service. This principle the Librarian of Congress has in- dorsed. But interlibrary loan service to be effective must be supplemented by a publication of the micro-acquisitions, both old and new, of the Library of Congress so that scholars will know what is available. T h e committee is endeavor- ing to publicize the results of its programs by printing the checklists of materials obtained and deposited in the Library of Congress in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association, Vol. I . Proceedings as supple- ments to the annual committee reports.4 W e 4 For checklists submitted by research scholars jointly sponsored by the Committee on Documentary Reproduc- tion and the Library of Congress see "Committee on Documentary Reproduction," Annual Report of the Am- erican Historical Association for the Year 1951; 1952, Vol. I , Proceedings (publication pending) are encouraging our jointly sponsored research scholars to submit for publication in the American Archivist articles related to their work in foreign archives that will be helpful to colleagues who may follow them in work abroad.5 Attention should also be called to the Library of Congress Quarterly Journal of Current Acquisitions for information re- garding the microfilm holdings of the Library of Congress. I wish in particular to cite an article in the November, 1952 issue of the Quarterly Journal by D r . Lester K . Born, entitled "Microreproductions" for an excellent summary of the Library of Congress holdings in micro-materials, as a good start for learn- ing of the vast resources that already have been acquired by the library and that are available to the scholar. 5 For articles already published see Rice, Howard C., J r . , " T h e P a r i s Depository for Notarial A r c h i v e s , " American Archivist, 14:99-104, April, 1 9 5 1 ; Topping, Peter, " T h e Public Archives of Greece," American Archivist, 15:249-257, J u l y , 1952. Suggestions for A C R L Publications Committee One of the functions of the A C R L Publications Committee is to recommend needed book- length studies in the college and university field to the A L A Publishing Department. There are, undoubtedly, many good ideas for books in the minds of A C R L members, and, in order to get them discussed and presented to the A L A Publishing, such requests should be channeled to the A C R L Publications Committee. A C R L members who have suggestions are requested to send them to Lawrence S. Thompson, chairman, A C R L Publications Committee, University of Kentucky Libraries, Lexington, Kentucky. 316 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES