College and Research Libraries ROBERT C. SULLIVAN Microform Developments Related to Acquisitions INTRODUCfiON LIBRARIES ARE SPENDING an increasing amount of money on acquisitions and an expanding portion of these expendi- tures is for microforms. The current student enrollment in colleges and uni- versities in this country is estimated to exceed six million. The expansion in area studies programs, as well as in the traditional curricula has contributed to the need for increased resources that is being increasingly met by microforms. Perhaps the most important factor con- tributing to this trend is the Higher Ed- ucation Act of 1965 which under Title II, Part A, provides funds for the strengthening of college and research library resources. This authorization in- cludes funds for the purchase of micro- films, microfiche, and micro-opaques, and the volume and variety of micro- forms being made available have grown apace. The academic library statistics for 1969/70 published by the Association of Research Libraries ( ARL) show that there are a total of 34,410,400 micro- form units in the collections of the sev- enty-six major United States libraries tabulated. The median total microform units per library for 1969 I 70 was 412,869 units, an increase of 57 379 ' units over the median figure reported for 1968/69. Even though a microform unit may vary from a single microfiche Microcard or Microprint to a full roli Robert C. Sullivan is chief, Order Divi- sion, Library of Congress. 16 I of microfilm, an average increas,e of 57,000 units per year for the larger re- search libraries represents an impres·sive volume of microform acquisitions." The largest total number of mi~roform units held was reported by Syracuse Uni- versity library with a collection consist- ing of 22,449 reels of microfilm, 203,276 Microcards, 690,678 Microprint sheets and 271,360 m.icrofiche. Boston U niver- sity library reported 98,598 units, the smallest total number of microform units held; this figure includes 5,920 reels of microfilm.! The most widely publicized develop- ment in library microforms in recent years has been the microfiche, particu- larly the ultramicrofiche ( UMF). The traditional 35mm roll microfilm, the dominant microform for library con- sumption for approximately the twenty- five year period between the late '30s and the .early '60s, has now been up- staged by the microfiche, usually in the 4"x6" film transparency size. Currently, 16mm roll microfilm is gaining some- what in popularity, especially in car- tridge format in special libraries. Much has been written, particularly in the data processing journals, about the promise of computer output microfilm (COM). At the same time, micropub- lishing is flourishing with many new firms offering an expanding variety of materials in microform to libraries and educational institutions. For several years, the federal government, through the Office of Education, has been fund- ing microform research, a most welcome and healthy development. Fortunately, publications about microforms are more numerous than ever before. All of these trends constitute significant de- velopments in the area of library micro- forms. It behooves the acquisitions li- brarian to be aware of these changes and to try to interpret them to assist in the acquisition of microforms for his particular library. MICROFICHE To define our terms, the word ccmicro- form" refers mainly to roll microfilm, Microcard, Microprint, and microfiche. To maintain perspective, it should be recognized that there is no one single microform process, size, or format that is best suited for all situations. Each microform has peculiar advantages and disadvantages and should be judged on its merits based on the type of material filmed and the use made of it in a par- ticular situation. One index of the ma- turity of the microform industry is that these advantages and disadvantages are now well publicized and generally ac- knowledged. The annual Guide to M i- croforms in Print, lists these factors to assist the buyer in choosing from the va- riety of microforms available. 2 General- ly speaking, roll film is preferred for browsing for material such as a news- paper file. Roll microfilm ( 35mm at a modest reduction) is best where archival preservation is the primary goal. The unitized format of the Microcard, Mi- croprint, or microfiche lends itseH to more direct reference and to situations where mass-dissemination is the primary aim. The unitized microform is essen- tially utilized as a publishing medium rather than a means of preservation. The ascendancy of microfiche is due largely to its adoption by the federal government for the dissemination of scientific and technical reports by agen- cies such as AEC, NASA DOD, ·Depart- ment of Commerce (NTIS) and OE. These fiche conform to COSATI speci- fications in that they are 4"x6" in over- Microform Developments I 17 all size and employ an 18X-20X reduc- tion. Under the OE ERIC Program alone more than one million microfiche are now disseminated each month. Leas- co Inc. has the current contract to pro- duce these microfiche for OE. Librari- ans may be more familiar with the many advertisements by Encyclopaedia Britannica for their ultramicrofiche ( UMF) or "Micro book" process, or with the National Cash Register Company (NCR) advertisements for their Photo-chromic-micro-image (PCMI) process. These processes are differ- ent in technical detail but it will suffice to note that the EB fiche is 3"x5" in overall size, the image is reproduced on the fiche at a 55X to 90X reduction, and approximately 90 percent of the ti- tles are filmed on a single fiche. The NCR fiche is 4"x6" in overall size at lOOX to 150X reduction, with an aver- age of seven to ten titles per fiche. The bonus to libraries, no matter which of these UMF processes is chosen, is that they have demonstrated the degree to which bibliographical control can and should be made available with micro- form projects. LC cards are to be pro- vided to subscribers to these series, as well as printed indexes of the contents of each series offered. Thus, a valuable precedent has been set, and librarians should demand this type of complete systems approach to all future micro- publishing projects. CARTRIDGE MICROFILM Roll microfilm in cartridges or cas- settes is increasing in popularity because of the obvious convenience it offers in avoiding the threading of microfilm reading machines, the scanning speed possible in motorized readers, and the attractiveness of using it with reader- printers. Both 35mm and 16mm car- tridges are available, but the 16mm size is more popular because the equipment to utilize it was developed earlier, pro- moted more widely, and the economy of 18 I College & Research Libraries • January 1973 the smaller-sized film is attractive. Prob- lems militating against the more wide- spread use of this medium, in addition to the competition offered by other for- mats, are the relatively higher reduction ratios necessary and the nonstandardiza- tion of the cartridges. The U.S. Army is working on a microfilm container standardization project to make the presently most popular containers, of Eastman Kodak, the 3M Company, and Bell & Howell, compatible. 3 The most popular applications for 16mm car- tridge microfilm have been the micro- filming of library card catalogs and back files of scientific and technical pe- riodicals. Libraries of such diverse sizes as Pennsylvania State University and El Centro College have distributed com- puter-output-microfilm of their card catalogs in 16mm cartridges to numer- ous locations on their campuses to assist faculty and student access, as well as to expedite book ordering. CoMPUTER OuTPUT MICROFILM Computer-Output-Microfilm has re- ceived a great deal of publicity in re- cent years. Although it has had some spectacular applications in business and industry, its impact on the library world has been minimal to date. Like library automation, its actual practical applica- tion in libraries is apt to be painfully slow and expensive. The COM technol- ogy is undergoing a process of gradual refinement and evolution rather than revolution. A computer microfilm infor- mation system is not suitable in a situa- tion where the data base changes rapid- ly or where user interaction with the data base is required. Just as was the case about ten years ago when a growing number of computer installations gave birth to numerous data processing ser- vice compani~s, we have witnessed a rap- id growth in the number of firms offer- ing COM equipment and services. How- ever, this field is suffering acute growing pains with the competition intense, as evidenced by the number of firms that have recently dropped by the wayside, have been gobbled up in corporate mergers, or have severely curtailed their services. A successful application of COM for student records control is in operation at the University of Wisconsin, Mil- waukee campus; it employs a Chicago- based COM service bureau to produce 4"x6" microfiche. These listings of stu- dents and their schedules are updated by-weekly in various sequences and for- mats and are supplied to more than twenty campus locations. Similar appli- cations have been reported in use at Temple University, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Missouri, and the University of Washington. The University of Colo- rado library at Boulder employs a COM service bureau in Denver to produce a weekly update of its process file which records the status of all materials on or- der. This film is supplied in 16mm car- tridges which can be employed with a reader-printer if a hardcopy reproduc- tion of .any order slip is required. COM applications are increasing in number but the technology suffers seriously from lack of standardization. As is un- fortunately the case with much micro- form equipment, one COM device or system is not compatible with another, much less with existing microform equipment generally found in libraries. Librarians should approach COM with cautious optimism and only after care- ful analysis of all options possible and evaluation of all of the cost factors in- volved. MICROPUBLISHING Micropublishing is flourishing, as is amply evidenced by the volume and va- riety of advertisements in library litera- ture. The Department of Commerce published a pamphlet in 1969 entitled Microforms: A Growth Industry which estimated current micropublishing sales J volume in this country to be $25 million a year, with a 10 percent to 15 percent annual increase predicted. 4 EB alone is reported to have invested more than $6 million in launching its first ~~Micro­ book" series entitled The Library of American Civilization. As an indication of the growth of the industry in recent years, NCR acquired the Microcard Corporation and launched its own UMF ( PCMI) series on American Civiliza- tion. The Bell & Howell Company ac- quired the firm of Micro-Photo and re- located it in Wooster, Ohio. The Xerox Corporation acquired University Micro- films of Ann Arbor, Michigan, and more recently the New York Times ac- quired the Microfilming Corporation of ' f America. Reprint publishers such as Greenwood Publishing Corporation and AMS Press have created microform divi- sions. The 3M Company, IM Press has a contract with New York Public Li- brary and NCR's Micro Photo Division has a contract with the Newberry Li- brary in Chicago. New firms and new services are offered with each passing month. The expanded utilization of micro- fornls in the federal government con~ tinues with the applications at the So- cial Security Administration, Census Bu- reau, and the Patent Office being prime examples. Most newsworthy perhaps is the announcement late in 1970 by A. N. Spence, the Public Printer, that the Government Printing Office is exploring the possibilities for converting all pub- lications listed in the GOP Monthly Cat- alog to microform. The potential im- pact of converting such a large number of publications to microform, particu- larly on depository libraries, is sizeable. The information available thus far sug- gests that microfiche at a 48X reduction is receiving favorable consideration. However, all that is known for certain is that GPO will actively investigate the adoption of some microform program in the near future. The technical and Microform Developments I 19 bibliographical standards agreed upon for such a program could help stabilize the present chaotic situation where a multitude of microform formats and reduction ratios are employed. Several standards very likely will have to be ac- cepted because of the variations in the sizes and styles of government publica- tions. Allen Veaner's chapter on micropub- lic.ation in Volume 2 of the Advances in Librarianship Series gives particular attention to the problems of acquiring, controlling, and servicing microtexts in libraries. This survey of the state-of- the-art of micropublishing provides ex- cellent background information for the acquisitions librarian. 5 COOPERATIVE PROJECTS The most noteworthy cooperative mi- croform projects are those operated un- der Association of Research Libraries ( ARL) sponsorship such as the Foreign Newspaper Microfilm Project, the Cen- ter for Chinese Research Materials, and the Slavic Bibliographic and Documen- tation Center. The Foreign Newspaper Microfilm Project is operated by the Center for Research Libraries ( CRL) with most of the actual filming being done at the University of Chicago li- brary photoduplication department; its purpose is to subscribe to a list of more than 100 top priority foreign newspa- pers that are not regularly available from reliable sources, commercial or noncommercial, to regularly film them, and to sell positive prints to subscribing libraries as economically as possible. Participants in the project pay an annu- al membership fee in addition to a flat rate for each foot of positive microfilm supplied.6 The Chinese and the Slavic Centers are located at ARL headquarters in Washington, D.C.: their purpose is to collect and disseminate information on fugitive Chinese and Slavic research publications, including a limited num- I 20 I College & Research Libraries • January 1973 l her of photoreproduction and reprint-ing projects. The ARL was also instrumental in es- tablishing the Official Gazettes Micro- filming Program at the New York Pub- lic Library ( NYPL) in 1958. In cooper- ation with the United Nations Library, NYPL regularly films the national and local official gazettes of foreign coun- tries; a list of more than 300 gazettes filmed, generally from 1958 to date, is published by NYPL. An exception to the NYPL project is that the official na- tional and local government gazettes of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and Nepal are filmed in New Delhi for the Library of Congress. 0 Additional cooperative microform projects sponsored by CRL are the Co- operative Mrican Microform Project (CAMP) and the South Asian Micro- form Project ( SAMP). CAMP was formed in 1963, as a result of discus- sions in meetings of the African Studies Association, to acquire microforms of Africana selected by the sixteen partici- pants in this country, Canada, France, and Africa. SAMP was developed in 1967 at the request of members of the Association of Asian Studies; its pur- pose is to create and maintain, for the common use of the subscribing li- braries, a readily accessible collection of back-files of nineteenth and twentieth century newspapers, periodicals, and documents relating to South Asia that are unobtainable in this country. Each library subscribing to this project pays an annual subscription fee based on the size of its book budget. RESEARCH More than three-quarters of a million dollars has been provided by the Office of Education ( OE) to underwrite re- search relating to library microforms in 0 Details regarding the availability of these more than forty titles may be secured from the Library of Congress photoduplication ser- vice. j the past four years. The major research projects undertaken, some portions of which are still in progress, have been the following: Association of Research Libraries (ARL) 1 19 T 69 he origfinal gDrant to ARL fforUFY j was or a etermination o ser Needs and Future Requirements for a Systems Approach to Microform Tech- nology, with Donald C. Holmes as prin- cipal investigator. The report for this initial project in the summer of 1969 contained nine recommendations for further study.7 Funding for this project was continued into FY 1970 but the mis- sion was divided into two parts: Part I, with Donald C. Holmes as principal in- vestigator, was for a Determination of the Environmental Conditions Required in a Library for the Effective Utiliza- tion of Microforms. 8 Part II, with Felix Reichmann as the investigator, was de- voted to the Determination of an Effec- tive System of Bibliographic Control of Microform Publications. 9 Again, the r . funding to ARL was renewed and for FY 1971 the project is continuing in two parts: Part I, with Edward Miller as the investigator, is pursuing Holmes:. first recommendation in the initial report that a permanent, national microform organization or agency be established; Part II continues the Reichmann study to make final recommendations for the bibliographic control of microform publications on the local, national, and international levels. Establishment of a national microform agency to promote and police standards would be a great boon to libraries and we hope that this recommendation can be implemented soon. One of the recommendations in Reichmann's preliminary report is that published papers should urge library ad- ministrators to assign adequate man- power to the processing and servicing of microforms. I would add emphasis to the word ''adequate." ~· ~ Denver Research Institute ( D RI) The original grant to DRI at the Uni- versity of Denver, also for FY 1969, au- ~ thorized a study of the Characteristics ~ of Ultramicrofiche and Their Applica- tion to Colleges and Universities, to be .,. conducted by James P. Kottenstette.10 One of the five major conclusions reached was that UMF is economically attractive for the creation of "core".- li- brary collections and can be utilized to ~ create information systems of great val- ue to the student. Another finding was that no "best" reduction ratio can be identified for the UMF, either on a cost or operational basis, and that it is the responsibility of the market place to ~ judge the system that responds best to particular needs in education. Funding for this project was authorized for FY 1970 for .a study entitled An Investiga- tion of the Environment for Education- al Microform Utilization, this segment of the research was subdivided into classroom studies and a carrel design ~ study.u Preliminary findings showed that students prefer to be able to adjust the angle of the reading screen on a microform reader and to be .able to ad- just their own reading position, just as they would if they were reading a hard copy book. Also, it was found that stu- ~ dents better tolerate microforms and as- sociated equipment if the material to be viewed on film is assigned or required reading rather than review or leisure reading. This project culminated at the University of Denver Conference on Microform Utilization in the Academic Library Environment which was held on December 7-9, 1970. One recommen- dation of the conference was that great- er consideration be given by microform equipment manufacturers to the needs and comfort of the user. Another rec- ommendation was that libraries fully support the LC National Register of Microform Masters to promote biblio- graphic control of microforms and that Microform Developments I 21 micropublishers be urged to provide full bibliographical control with their future microform projects. 12 American Association of 1 unior Colleges (AA]C) Phase I of this four phase project was launched in March 1969 for a study entitled Determination of Student Ac- ceptability and Learning Effectiveness of Microform Collections in Commu- nity Junior Colleges. 18 Bibliographies were compiled for courses in Art appre- ciation, Black studies, Economics, En- glish, Life science, Mathematics, Nurs- ing, Political science, Psychology, and Spanish. A research design was devel- oped to measure the acceptability and effectiveness of microform collections for courses common to junior colleges. Phase II for 1970/71 consisted of sev- eral pilot studies in junior colleges in the Washington, D.C. area. Phase III for 1971/73 will consist of a two-year field test and Phase IV for 1973/74 will include the analysis, reporting, and in- terpretation of the data collected throughout the study. The findings of this study will most likely provide a fur- ther stimulus to the micropublishing in- dustry which in turn will expand the statistics on the acquisition of micro- forms in libraries. PUBLICATIONS: BASIC COLLECTION Essential to the effective performance of any library technical service unit is the assembly and intelligent utilization of a basic reference collection and the tools of the trade. For microforms these reference tools are not as plentiful nor as comprehensive as one would like, but fortunately the choice is widening. The literature of microreproduction for the years 1950 through 1955 is documented in a bibliography compiled by Lester K. Born which appeared in American Doc- umentation, similar literature for the years 1956 through 1966 appeared in Special Libraries in a series of bibliog- 22 I College & Research Libraries • January 1973 raphies compiled by Loretta J. Keir- sky.14· 15 This literature is predominant- ly commercially or technically oriented rather than bibliographically or library oriented. Surprisingly little has been written on microforms from the point of view of the acquisitions librarian. The most valuable general back- ground articles are contained in the fol- lowing issues of Library Trends: The April 1955 issue devoted to current ac- quisition trends in American libraries, the January 1960 issue devoted to photo- duplication in libraries, and the January 1970 issue devoted to the problems of acquisition for research libraries.1s, 17,18 Roma Gregory's article on the acquisi- tion of microforms in the latter issue of Library Trends is the most current and relevant article on this subject. A very helpful article by Albert Diaz on what is available in microform and where to find it appeared in the Spring 1967 issue of Library Resources and Technical Services.19 To keep abreast of developments re- lating to library microforms, the annual review articles in LRTS that have ap- peared since 1957 should be consulted.20 The bibliographies that appear at the end of these articles since 1967 are es- pecially valuable since the Keirsky bibli- ographies cited earlier only extend through the year 1966. It is encouraging that the ERIC Clearinghouse for Li- brary and Information Science has promised to investigate the possibility of continuing these bibliographies on the reproduction of documentary infor- mation through 1971 and publishing them annually in the future. In addition to Library Resources and Technical Services, articles on micro- forms appear frequently in most of the library periodicals such as College & Research Libraries, Special Libraries, American Libraries, ASIS ] ournal, Pub- lisher's Weekly, Unesco Bulletin for Li- braries, Wilson Library Bulletin, etc. The advertisements for microforms in these journals are particularly informa- tive with regard to new acquisition sources. Specialized library journals fre- quently contain articles of interest. For example, the February 1970 issue of Law Library ] ournal contains a good ar- ticle entitled ccAcquisition of Micro- forms in Law Libraries."21 Micrographics Weekly, which com- menced publication in mid-1970, has emerged as a significant source of prompt information about the micro- form industry and micropublishing.22 It reviews new developments and evidences the awareness of the interest of li- braries and educational institutions in microforms. The monthly Information and Records Management periodical al- so contains a wealth of information on microfilm and its applications.23 Obviously, membership in the Ameri- can Library Association, Resources and Technical Services Division, Reproduc- tion of Library Materials and/ or Ac- quisitions Sections, and participation in their activities is a primary means of keeping informed. The same is true of the Special Libraries Association and the American Society for Information Science, if the membership dues can be mustered. Next on the priority list of memberships is the National Microfilm Association ( NMA). Included in NMA membership are subscriptions to the bi- monthly The ] ournal of Micrograph- ics,24 the monthly Micro-News Bulle- tin,2 5 the quarterly International Micro- graphic Congress ] ournal, 26 and the an- nual Proceedings of the NMA Conven- tions.24-21 Increasing appreciation of the library and education market is being reflected in the content of these NMA publications; acquisitions librarians will labor under a handicap if they do not have access to this NMA literature to facilitate an understanding of the micro- graphics industry. For example, the Jan- uary 1971 issue of The Journal of Micro- graphics featured a series of articles on microform utilization in libraries and ed- ucational institutions. NMA also pub- lishes a valuable reference tool for an understanding of the equipment avail- able for the utilization of microforms in Hubbard Ballou's Guide to Microrepro- duction Equipment ( 1968), which is now in its fourth edition. 28 The 1970 sup- plement to the Guide lists over 137 new pieces of equipment in 250 pages.29 A companion volume, also available from NMA, is the International Directory of Micrographic Equipment ( 1967). 3o The NMA Glossary of Microfilm Terms is also a helpful reference tool for inter- preting offers from and drafting corre- spondence to micropublishers or other sources of microforms. 31 A reference tool that is essential for inclusion in the ready reference collec- tion of every acquisitions librarian is ALA's Copying Methods Manual ( 1966) .32 This is an invaluable source for gaining an understanding of the various photographic processes, methods, and techniques, and contains a wealth of information relevant to the acquisi- tion of photo reproductions by li- braries. The relevance and utility of this manual is no accident since the au- thor was at one time the head of the Photoduplication Service at the Univer- sity of California Library and Berkeley and has authored countless reports for ALA's Library Technology Program. The bi-monthly Library Technology Reports are also a valuable source of in- formation about new microform equip- ment services and related products. 33 The acquisitions librarian cannot intel- ligently discharge his other responsibili- ties without an understanding of the equipment to be employed in servicing the microforms acquired. SEARClllNG-BmLroGRAPHICAL CONTROL The above suggestions for a basic ref- erence collection for maintaining cur- rent awareness will not equip the acqui- sitions librarian for the necessary nego- Microform Developments I 23 tiations or the preparation of requests and orders. After the general back- ground literature has been assembled and digested, the librarian must deter- mine what material is needed and/ or available for acquisition, or decide where to acquire what has already been recommended for acquisition. U nfortu- nately, the bibliographical control of microforms has not received the atten- tion and support it deserves. The prolif- eration of microforms produced and acquired by libraries has far out- stripped the capacity of libraries to cat- alog and record their location internal- ly, much less to report holdings to a central source. The need expressed in the series of articles in the January 1960 issue of Li- brary Trends, devoted to photoduplica- tion in libraries, for a Microforms in Print catalog no doubt encouraged the publication the following year of the first issue of the Guide to Microforms in Print. This bibliography is described by the publisher as an ''annual cumula- tive guide, in alphabetic order, to books, journals, and other materials, which are available on microfilm and other micro- forms from United States publishers. Theses and dissertations are not listed. The Guide lists the offerings of fifty- six micropublishers and contains more than 18,000 titles; some of these entries are for entire collections but the majori- ty are for newspapers and periodicals. A companion volume Subject Guide to Microforms in Print lists the same en- tries under broad subject classifica- tions.34 The pleas and planning of the library community for bibliographical control of the rapidly mounting number of microforms, best illustrated by the 1960 Library Trends article by Schwegmann, culminated in 1965 in a grant by the Council on Library Resources Inc. to the Library of Congress to establish the National Register of Microform Mas- ters ( NRMM). 35 As indicated in the I 24 I College & Research Libraries • January 1973 +oJ I introduction: "The Register has two ba- sic purposes. One is to provide a com- plete national register of microform masters from which libraries may ac- quire prints when needed and thus avoid the expense of unnecessarily mak- ing another master. The other purpose is to help libraries assure the preserva- tion of our intellectual heritage by identifying those microform masters that meet the requirements for such preservation." The Register is concerned only with master copies, which are de- fined as those which are held solely for the purpose of making further copies. For the purposes envisioned by the Reg- ister, single copies from the master must be made available at any time and for a reasonable fee. The Register also in- cludes a second category of masters which, in addition to meeting the fore- going requirements, are housed in tem- perature controlled, fireproof space and are owned by a responsible, nonprofit institution. The Register includes for- eign and domestic books, pamphlets, se- rials, and foreign doctoral dissertations; it does not include newspapers, techni- cal reports, typescript translations, for- eign or domestic archival manuscript collections, or U.S. doctoral dissertations or master~ s theses. The first issues of the published Reg- ister, uniform in format with the other Library of Congress catalogs and pro- vided free to subscribers to the National Union Catalog, were published in Sep- tember 1965 and January 1966. Annual cumulations have been published for 1966 through 1969. The 1969 issue of the Register contains only serials listed alphabetically by main entry; it does not supersede the 1966-1968 issues which are to be used to locate entries for mon- ographs. It supersedes and cumulates the more than 14,000 entries for serials in- cluded in all previous issues. Fuller descriptions of the NRMM are contained in articles by Applebaum and Blum. 36· 37 The fact that the Register is a union list which emphasizes the ~~master" preservation negatives in li- braries and excludes newspapers distin- guishes it from the Guide. Libraries are urged to report holdings of master nega- tives to make the NRMM as complete as possible. The need for such complete reporting was recognized by both the Reichmann study and the Denver Con- ference mentioned earlier. Since the NRMM editions do not in- clude any of the newspaper entries list- ,~ ed in the sixth edition ( 1967) of News- J papers on Microfilm ( N 0 M), now pub- lished by the Catalog Publication Divi- sion of the Library of Congress, librari- ans should continue to consult NOM to search for U.S. holdings of microfilm of domestic and foreign newspapers.38 Reference should also be made to the Microfilm Clearinghouse Bulletin for which eighty-six numbers have been is- sued since 1951 as supplements to the Library of Congress Information Bul- letin. 39 Another source for microforms is the series of approximately 180 an- nouncements of research materials filmed at the Library of Congress since 1965; these circulars are available from the Photoduplication Service of LC. Many microform projects combine the copying of published and unpub- lished documents. The Center for the Coordination of Foreign Manuscript Copying, formerly located in the Manu- script Division of the Library of Con- gress, was established in 1965 to coordi- nate photocopying projects conducted in foreign archives and libraries by Ameri- can institutions and individuals to avoid duplication of effort and expense through cooperative planning. Further purposes of the center were to record the location of copies of foreign collec- tions in this country, in the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collec- tions, eight volumes of which ( describ- ing 25,145 collections) have been pub- lished since 1962, and to disseminate in- formation to the scholarly community.4o ~- f Beginning in the spring of 1967, the center published seven reports which ap- peared as semiannual issues of News From the Center. 41 These issues of the ,. New·s included lists of recently complete photocopying projects and bibliograph- ~ ical lists relating to foreign manuscript collections in the United States and to manuscript collections in Western Eu- rope, Asia, the Pacific area, France, and Latin America. The center has now ~ been closed, but answers to questions in # this area, or copies of issues of the News, can be obtained from the Manu- script Division, Library of Congress. The 1967 Diaz article, referred to ear- lier, also relates the first attempt to list • microfilms by the publication in 1942 of the Union List of Microfilms, with .-- a cumulative edition in 1951 and a sup- plementary and final cumulation for 1949-1959 published in 1961.42 A Union List of Publications in Opaque Micro- form also was published in 1959, with a 1961 supplement and a 1965 revised edition.43 These volumes of the various ~ versions of a Union List, together with the Guide, NOM and NRMM, are es- sential reference tools for searching to determine availability of publications in microform. The Union List volumes exclude newspapers, dissertations, and ~ a number of specialized series. In addition to searching the standard bibliographies already cited and scan- ning the currently published journals for advertisements and announcements, the obvious approach to discovering new micropublications is to write to all mi- cropublishers and ask to be added to their mailing list to receive all catalogs and announcements. Some of the major micropublishers such as University Mi- crofilms and Micro Photo publish news- letters which are helpful in keeping posted on what is available and what is planned. The best single source of names and addresses of micropublishers is contained in the Guide to Micro- forms in Print. However, this list is not Microform Developments I 25 exhaustive and should be supplemented by names and addresses identified in scanning the literature. Frequently overlooked sources for li- brary microforms are the numerous li- braries listed in the Directory of I nstitu- tional Photocopying Services compiled by Cosby Brinkley.44 Librarians all too often equate microforms with commer- cial producers and neglect library pro- ducers. The Directory is now in its fourth edition and lists 151 libraries with ~'significant facilities" for photo- copying. Many of the libraries listed have sizeable stores of master negative microfilms from which positive copies can be purchased at reasonable rates. Librarians have to decide whether to purchase a copy of an existing micro- form or to order one prepared to their specifications. Obviously, it is much less expensive to purchase a print from an existing microform, when the cost of the master negative has already been paid, than to pay the full cost of pre- paring the negative. Service is also much faster when only a print needs to be made from an existing negative. If an order is to be directed to one of the libraries listed in the Directory, a search should first be made to determine whether the library holds the original of the item required. This is increasing- ly more possible with the publication of the printed volumes of the National Union Catalog, Pre-1956 Imprints.45 A total of 124 volumes have been pub- lished to date, covering the alphabet to "Counihan,'' with the exception of vol- ume 53-56, which have been reserved for Bible entries and will be published later. Editing of the letter "E" has been completed, representing more than a fourth of the total catalog. Free cost estimates for photocopying are available from many libraries. For instance, the Library of Congress pro- vides this service; it holds an extensive collection of master negative microfilm and is adding more than 8,000 reels each 26 I College & Research Libraries • January 1973 year to this collection. Other large stores of master negative microfilm are con- tained in the holdings of the New York Public Library, the University of Chica- go library, and the Hoover Institution. Examination of prospectuses and an- nouncements should be made with great care to determine whether the micro- form advertised is actually available. Unfortunately, some advertisements still appear that do not state when the microforms will be completed and ac- tual delivery will be made. To avoid the pitfall of encumbering funds that might lapse, careful inquiry should be made to determine whether the master negative microform exists and what the delivery schedule is for distribution copies. Announcements should be scanned to determine such vital factors as the film format or internal and external dimen- sions of the microform, the reduction ratio and position of the images, the polarity (negative or positive), genera- tion (whether printed directly from a master negative), and film stock ( wheth- er silver emulsion, diazo, or vesicular film). Preferably, samples should be ob- tained for examination prior to order- ing. If possible, a cost quotation should be secured before an actual order is is- sued. If a cost estimate is made, care should be taken to provide for added costs such as reels and boxes, mailing, minimum charges per item or order, spe- cial handling, etc. It is particularly im- portant to determine before an order is issued whether the file filmed was complete. If possible, a list of any miss- ing or mutilated issues should be se- cured to permit evaluation of the bib- liographical integrity of the filmed file. It also should be determined whether the material filmed was tightly bound resulting in any loss or distortion of text in the gutters of the spines of the volumes. The availability of printed cards and/ or of published indexes, lists, or guides to the material filmed should also be determined. Added items ., to ascertain are whether returns are ac- I ceptable and what payment schedule is permissible. Standards that should be included in the acquisitions librarians ready refer- ence collection and which may be cited in the specification of order include ALA's Microfilm Norms, Specifications for Library of Congress Microfilming, the ( COSATI) Federal Microfiche Stan- dards, and NNSI's Specifications for Microfiches (PH5.9).46-49 These publi- cations refer to ANSI, NMA, and other photographic standards. ORDERING Standard library purchase requisition or request forms are insufficient for - microforms; the specifications of order should be complete and precise in detail to avoid misunderstanding. Not only should the bibliographical citation be complete, but the order should specify such vital factors as the format, reduc- tion, position, polarity, generation, film stock, background or integrated density, and hypo residue. Libraries should take care to develop their own general specifi- cations for acquiring microforms or should specify that the microform con- form to Microform Norms, Specifica- tions for Library of Congress Micro- filming or other published specifications. Any special targets required should be clearly explained and preferably should be supplied with the order. If the film ordered is to be spliced into existing film, the order should state the spacing needed on the film between nonconsecu- tive issues, etc. If the film is to be uti- lized for Xerox Copyflo printing then the order should clearly state this re- quirement. How should microforms be ordered? Carefully. AccEssiONING The need for the inspection of de- livered microforms is frequently ig- nored or given too little attention in li- [ braries. If the specifications of order are carefully defined then the determi- nation of whether the product delivered actually conforms to these specifications should be equally detailed. Fortunately, librarians now have a detailed guide to follow in performing this evaluation. The Library Technology Program has published The Evaluation of Micro- publications: A Handbook for Librari- ans by Allen B. Veaner.50 The Veaner handbook is based on an article in the June 1968 issue of the ACRL book re- view publication CHOICE entitled <'The Crisis in Micropublication/' as well as two additional articles later the same year. With the support of ALA's Library Technology Program, and uti- Microform Developments I 21 lizing the procedures set forth in the Handbook, the editorial board of CHOICE has agreed to cooperate with the Micropublishing Subcommittee of ALA in regularly publishing reviews of micropublishing projects, just as is now done for books. These reviews, to be published in CHOICE, will be invalu- able to acquisitions librarians in making intelligent selections of micropublica- tions. Sections of the handbook are de- voted to the micropublishing industry and procedures for the evaluation of micropublications on the basis of bib- liographical, administrative, and techni- cal criteria. An excellent bibliography appears at the end of this indispensable work. REFERENCES 1. Association of Research Libraries, Academic Library Statistics 1969/70 {Washington, D. C.: ARL, 1970), 17 p. 2. Guide to Microforms in Print, 1970 (Wash- ington: NCR- Microcard Editions, 1970), 113 p. 3. U. S. Army Munitions Command (Pic- atinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey: EDS&R Project, Interim Reports. 1970). 4. U. S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration, Mi- croforms: A Growth Industry (Washington: GPO, 1969), 18 p. 5. Allen B. Veaner, "Micropublication," in volume 2 of Advances in Librarianship, (New York: Academic Press, 1971), (In press). 6. The Center for Research Libraries, Foreign Newspaper Microfilm Project, Circular Let- ter No. 21 (Chicago: Feb. 1971 ), 3 p. 7. Donald C. Holmes, Determination of User Needs and Future Requirements for a Systems Approach to Microform Technology (Washington: U. S. Office of Education, 1969), 35 p. (Interim Report; ED029-168). 8. --, Determination of the Environ- mental Conditions Required in a Li- brary for the Effective Utilization of Micro- forms (Washington: ARL, Nov. 1970), p. 1-44. (Part I of an Interim Report sub- mitted to OE). 9. Felix Reichmann, and Josephine M. Tharpe, Determination of an Effective System of Bibliographical Control of Microform Pub- lications (Washington: ARL, Nov. 1970), p. 45-90. (Part II of an Interim Report submitted to OE. ) 10. James P. Kottenstette, Study of the Char- acteristics of Ultramicrofiche and Its Appli- cation to Colleges and Universities (Den- ver: University of Denver, 1969), (Final Report; ED032-447). 11. --, Student Learning Characteristics: Comparing Skill Levels Demonstrated on Hardcopy and Microform Presentation (Denver: University of Denver, 1970), (Interim Report). 12. National Register of Microform Masters, 1969, (Washington: Library of Congress, 1970)' 183 p. 13. Louise Giles, A Research Project to De- termine the Student Acceptability and Learning Effectiveness of Microform Col- lections in Community Colleges: Phase I (Washington: OE, June 1970), 244 p. 14. Lester K. Born, "The Literature of Micro- reproduction, 1950-1955." American Docu- mentation 1:3 (July 1956), p. 167-87. 15. Loretta J. Kiersky, "Bibliography on Re- production of Documentary Information, 1955-1966," Special Libraries Spring issues. 16. "Current Acquisitions Trends in American Libraries." Library Trends 3:4 {April 1955). 17. "Photoduplication in Libraries." Library Trends 8:3 (Jan. 1960 ). 18. "Problems of Acquisition for Research Li- braries." Library Trends 18:3 (Jan. 1970 ). 28 I College & Research Libraries • January 1973 19. Albert J. Diaz, "Microreproduction Infor- mation Sources," Library Resources and Technical Services 11:2 (Spring 1967), p. 211-14. 20. Robert C. Sullivan, "Developments in Photoreproduction of Library Materials, 1970." Library Resources and Technical Services 15:2 (Spring 1971), (In press). 21. Marion 0. Boner, .. Acquisition of Micro- forms in Law Libraries." Law Library Journal 63:1 (Feb. 1970), p. 66-69. 22. Micrographic Weekly 1:1 (June 22, 1970), (Los Angeles: Technical Information Inc. ) . 23. Information and Records Management 5:1 (Jan. 1971), (New York: Badler Group). 24. The Journal of Micrographics 4:2 (Jan. 1971 ), (Silver Spring, Maryland: National Microfilm Association). 25. Micro-News Bulletin No. 8 (Feb. 1971 ), (Silver Spring, Maryland: National Micro- film Association). 26. International Micrographic Congress Journal No. 13 (Fourth Quarter 1970). (New York: Information and Records Manage- ment). 27. Vernon D. Tate, ed., Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Meeting and Convention (Annapolis: National Microfilm Association, 197 0 ) . ( In press ) . 28. Hubbard W. Ballou, ed., Guide to Micro- reproduction Equipment (4th ed.; Annapo- lis: National Microfilm Association, 1968), 493 p. 29. --, 1970 Supplement to the Guide to Microreproduction Equipment (Silver Spring: National Microfilm Association, 1970)' 247 p. 30. Jack Rubin, ed., International Directory of Micrographic Equipment (Saratoga: International Micrographic Congress, 1967), 519 p. 31. Donald M. Avedon, ed., Glossary of Terms for Microphotography and Reproductions Made From Micro-Images (Annapolis: Na- tional Microfilm Association, 1966). 4th rev. ed. Informational Monograph No. 2. (5th rev. ed. in press ) . 32. William R. Hawken, Copying Methods Manual (Chicago: American Library As- sociation, 1966). 375 p. (Library Tech- nology Publication No. 11). 33. American Library Association, Library Technology Program, Library Technology Reports (Chicago: American Library As- sociation). 34. Subject Guide to Microforms in Print, 1970~71 (Washington: NRC-Microcard Editions, 1970), 119 p. 35. George A. Schwegmann, Jr., "The Biblio- graphical Control of Microforms," Library Trends 8:3 (Jan. 1960), p. 380-90. 36. Edmund L. Applebaum, "Implications of the National Register of Microform Masters as Part of a National Preservation Pro- gram," Library Resources and Technical Services 9:4 (Fall 1965), p. 489-94. 37. Fred Blum, "The National Register of Microfilm Masters ( NRMM) ," Microcosm 12:1 (June 1967), p. 3. 38. U. S. Library of Congress, Union Catalog Division, Newspapers on Microfilm. 6th ed., (Washington: Library of Congress, 1967), 487 p. 39. U. S. Library of Congress, Microfilm Clear- inghouse Bulletin No. 86. June 12, 1969 (Appendix to the Library of Congress In- formation Bulletin) . 40. U. S. Library of Congress, Descriptive Cataloging Division, The National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections, 1969, and Index 1967-69 (Washington: Library of Congress, 1970), 1082 p. 41. U. S. Library of Congress, Manuscript Di- vision, News From the Center. No. 7 (Spring 1970), 46 p. 42. Philadelphia Bibliographical Center and Union Library Catalogue, Union List of Microfilms, Cumulation 1949-1959 (Ann Arbor: J. W. Edwards, 1961), Vols. I & II. 43. Eva Maude Tilton, compiler. Union List of Publications in Opaque Microform (Rev. ed.; New York: Scarecrow Press, 1965). 44. Directory of Institutional Photocopying Services (Including Selected Interlibrary Loan Policies), (Chicago: University of Chicago Library, 1969), 48 p. 45. The National Union Catalog, Pre-1956 Im- prints (London: Mansell Information/ Publishing Ltd., 1968). 46. American Library Association. Library Standards for Microfilms Committee. Micro- film Norms (Chicago: American Library Association, 1966), p. 48. 47. Stephen R. Salmon, Specifications for Li- brary of Congress Microfilming (Washing- ton: Library of Congress, 1964), p. 21. 48. U. S. Federal Council for Science and Technology. Committee on Scientific and Technical Information. Federal Microfiche Standards, 3rd ed., 1968. (PB 167-630). 49. Specifications for Microfiches (New York: American National Standards Institute Inc., 1970), 16 p. (PH5.9-1970). 50. Allen B. Veaner, The Evaluation of Micro- publications: A Handbook for Librarians (Chicago: American Library Association, Library Technology Program, 1971), 59 p. I 1 r