- Email: [email protected]
The national supply of serials — centralization versus decentralization
I
UNION
collection
management
resources
LISTS & A U T O M A T I O N I
The National Supply of Serials Centralization Versus Decentralization Maurice B. Line In nearly every country in the world inter-library lending is almost totally decentralized. The reasons for this are largely historical: as will be argued, it is difficult to find any other good reasons. It is, however, not difficult to make a post facturn rationalization to justify decentralization. The main argument is that in most countries there are lots of libraries with lots of books and journals, and all that has to be done to extend provision beyond the local library's stock is to provide access to other libraries, usually by means of union catalogues. In theory, this should be cheap, fast, and effective. In fact, as the everyday experience of librarians testifies, it is none of these things. Rather than try to justify what exists, it is more sensible to look at objectives and then examine the best way of attaining them. The objective of an inter-library loan system is to supplement local resources to the fullest extent possible by the rapid supply of materials from elsewhere as rapidly and economically as possible. From this objective three main criteria can be derived: satisfaction rate (percentage of requests supplied), speed of supply, and cost. To these two more criteria may be added. The first is ease of use: the easier the system is to use, the less time (and therefore money) it takes to use it, and the more likely it is to be used effectively. The second subsidiary criteria is ease of monitoring: it should be possible to identify successes, failures and trends, and to adjust the system accordingly. Without some regular feedback it is very difficult to ensure that the system keeps in line with needs. With these criteria in mind, let us look at decentralized systems. First of all, they are not very good at supplying either heavily wanted materials or little wanted materials. Heavily wanted materials are likely to be in use in the library from which they are requested, so that several locations often have to be tried before an application is successful. Materials that are very little used may not have been acquired by any library in the country, and so may not be available at all. Supply tends to be slow, partly because of the need to try several locations before many requests are satisfied, partly because a local library must gear its service to local needs, not to the needs of libraries elsewhere, and if there is any pressure or conflict inter-library lending takes second (or lower) place. Decentralized systems are not easy to use, because they involve the consultation of union catalogs and the distribution of requests among a number of sources, which may even require different request forms. Such systems are virtually impossible to monitor, since so many libraries are
Maurice B. Line is Director General of the British Library Lending Division in Boston Spa. He prepared this article as a reaction to the ALA/RTSD Union Lists of Serials Workshop held in San Francisco, 1981.
involved in supplying, and some categories of material that are in quite regular demand may never be identified because the demand is so scattered. It might, however, be thought that decentralized systems were at least cheap. This is not so. If one takes into account the total cost of constructing, maintaining and using union catalogs, it is very high, and the fact that many of the costs are hidden does not make it less so. Not only that, but the cost to supplying libraries is also quite high. A number of estimates have been made of the total costs of inter-library lending and borrowing in the U.S., and they are not low. If the costs of union catalogs were added, they would be much higher. (How many union catalogs are there in the U.S., and how much do they cost? The figure must be astronomical.) It is of course possible, at least in theory, to extend the provision of little used materials by cooperative acquisition schemes, but these are difficult and expensive to administer, and they do of course require extra money. If such schemes are used, the cost of them too should be added to interlibrary lending costs. Some of the disadvantages listed above can be reduced by the use of automation. The construction of union catalogs, for example, can be greatly facilitated, and access to locations, and the switching of requests between locations; can be much faster. However, automation in itself does nothing to extend provision and little if anything to reduce costs. There is another problem with decentralized systems. While they should in theory distribute demand among many supplying libraries, in practice it tends to be concentrated on a relatively small number of large research libraries. This has certainly happened in the U.S. As a result some of the libraries involved have imposed inter-library borrowing charges in an attempt either to recover all their costs or to deter requests altogether. If concentration on a limited number of libraries was planned, it might have something to be said for it, but a system which is supposed to spread requests widely and ends up by concentrating them on a few libraries, with a very long tail of requests scattered among very many, seems about the worst possible solution. The obvious alternative to decentralization is centralization. A central collection with comprehensive coverage can (again in theory) achieve high satisfaction rates, fast speed of supply (because its system can be geared entirely to interlibrary supply), and low unit costs because of great economies of scale. It is very easy to use, and monitoring of demand is simple. Its service can be continuously adjusted to demand and responsive to trends that are detected. Union catalogs are either entirely unnecessary, or are relegated to a supporting role, in which case they can be greatly reduced in size and complexity. Speed of supply is incidentally almost entirely unrelated to distance: with modern air services, it takes
SERIALS REVIEW
SPRING 1982
63
little or no longer for mail to travel from New York to San Francisco than from Boston to New Haven. The main problem with a comprehensive central collection is the cost of its setting up, acquisitions and running. Before I return to this, some other reservations should be entered. A central collection of books (other than serials) that is at all comprehensive, in the sense that it acquires a high percentage of the world's output, is almost inconceivable. The cost would be colossal, and the unit cost per use would be very high because the bulk of stock would never be wanted at all. On the other hand, selection is extremely difficult, because the scatter of requests, over dates, languages and countries of publication, is very wide, and, more particularly, because it is impossible to identify from past demand what will be wanted in future. It may be possible to say that, for example, a high proportion of demand falls on scientific and technical works in English published in the last two years, but that does not help very much, partly because the number of books in this category is very large, partly because there is still a huge area of demand outside this category. There is certainly a case for a substantial central collection of books, but it is much less easy to make than a case for a central collection of serials. With serials, the situation is quite different from that of books. The number of significant serials published in the world is large but not enormous; many if not most of the journals that are published are of a very popular nature, and the demand for these on inter-library loan will be minute. Not only is the total number of significant serials finite, but demand tends to be concentrated on a relatively small proportion even of those (in the U.K., 90 percent of demand falls on fewer than 13,000 serials, though one would expect the concentration to be less in the U.S. because local libraries there tend to be larger). A national collection set up for the specific purpose of loan and photocopy can satisfy a high proportion of demand by concentrating on the most heavily requested titles. Even a quite small country could justify a core collection of, say, 5,000 serials, which could perhaps satisfy up to 70 percent of inter-library loan demand for serials. This would greatly reduce the burden on other libraries, which would then be asked to supply only the less commonly wanted items, which would be less likely to be in local use at the time of requesting. Tile argument would therefore seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a national collection of serials, especially in the U.S., where the total demand is very large indeed. This conclusion has been reached by more than one examination of the question, and more than one librarian has been k n o w n to remark that the U.S. system is slow, costly, inefficient and burdensome. If the solution is so obvious, why has it not been acted upon? There are several reasons for this. The first has already been referred to, namely the cost of setting up such a collection, acquiring serials currently, and maintaining the service mostly staff costs. Without at least five years' backruns of most serials, a collection could not begin to offer a service for some time. The most heavily requested journals are unfortunately the most expensive ones, so that even a core collection would cost a fair amount of money each year. The staff required would depend largely upon the number of requests, but the larger the volume of demand the lower the unit costs would become as the costs of accommodation and acquisition were spread over a larger number of items. Against these costs must be set the costs of decentralization: the costs of union catalogs, higher costs to local libraries of both borrowing and lending, the costs of ensuring that "last copies" of items are not lost to the country, which would require a cooperatuve retention scheme. With a very high
64
SERIALS REVIEW
SPRING 1982
volume of demand, a central collection once established could be justified in strict economic terms, but even without such a level of demand it should be asked how much a high probability of first time satisfaction and an assurance of fast supply are worth. If they are considered to be worth very little, decentralization may as well continue, but most librarians, and certainly their users, would surely put a high value on both. That a central collection can offer a better service than decentralized systems is not merely a conclusion drawn from theoretical analysis. There is an actual working example in the British Library Lending Division. Not only does it handle 75 percent of all inter-library loan demand in the United Kingdom, but it is estimated that it may be handling about half - that is, 500,000 a year - of the world's international loan/photocopy demand. If other countries (including and especially the U.S.) sometimes find it more convenient, and faster, to use the British Library Lending Division than to use their own system, this suggests that there is something wrong with their own systems. The Lending Division aims to acquire certain categories of materials as comprehensively as possible, irrespective of subject, but excluding "low level" material, fiction, children's books, and non-book materials. Materials it does acquire include English language books (70,000 pa), report literature (200,000 pa), conference proceedings (16,000 pa), official publications of the U.K. and various international organizations, music scores (8,500 pa), and translations into English (11,000 pa). It also microfilms nearly all British doctoral theses, and acquires foreign language books on demand when other sources cannot easily be identified in the U.K. The categories listed above did not include the most important of all - serials, which account for two thirds of demand and indeed two thirds of acquisition expenditure. At present, 56,000 current titles are taken. There are also around 94,000 "dead" titles. Selection is based partly on actual demand, partly on the coverage of indexing and abstracting services, but new serial titles are watched to spot significant titles that are likely to be wanted in future. About 85 percent of all U.K. demand for serials falls on the Lending Division. Well over 90 percent of valid requests for serials are supplied from stock: the proportion for volumes published in the last two years is around 97 percent. It is impossible to give a precise figure for the unit costs of satisfying requests for serials separately from the total unit transaction cost, which is much higher because books are more expensive to supply. At a guess, the cost per serial transaction may be around L- 1.20 - say $2.25. If the cost of acquisition is added to this, the unit cost is about L- 2.20 - say $4.10. Various other costs should be added to this - accommodation, administrative overheads, acquisitions, staff, etc. - but it is unlikely that the total unit costs will exceed I~ 3.00. There is another major point. Since the British Library Lending Division's predecessor, the National Lending Library for Science and Technology, started in 1961, inter-library loan demand in the U.K. has increased by an enormous amount: the availability of a fast reliable service brought forth a huge demand that had previously been latent. There is now no way in which this demand could be redistributed if the British Library Lending Division ceased to offer a service. The demand would fall almost entirely on a very limited number of large university libraries, and they simply could not cope. In other words, the choice in the U.K. is not between a good centralized service and a good decentralized service, it is between a centralized service and a poor decentralized service Indeed, from my knowledge of systems in other countries and their performance, I would go so far as
to say that a central collection is the only sure way to guarantee a good fast service. If this is so, one should ask again the question why librarians still adhere to decentralized systems. The reasons are nearly all political or psychological. There is a vague general fear of over-centralization. There is a fear that if federal funds were put into a central collection serving the whole nation, this would be used as an excuse for reducing the budgets available to individual libraries (there is no evidence whatever that this has happened in the U.K.). There is the traditional rivalry between states and the federal government. Underlying it all is a feeling that cooperation must be a Good Thing. The truth is that librarians huddle together for warmth: cooperation has a nice warm cuddly sound, and resource sharing, though not so cuddly a phrase, sounds both harmonious and economic. You can always tell where parties of librarians have been by the trail of union catalogs they leave behind them - a kind of spoor. Perhaps somewhere in the genes of librarians there lurks an innate tendency to construct union catalogs in the same way as some species of the animal kingdom have exotic and apparently irrational habits, like the mating displays of kangaroos or the exotic nest building of some birds. Such activities are all very charming and harmless so long as they do not cost money or appear to be an alternative to real, practical, economic solutions. These are likely to be much simpler as well as cheaper and more effective - perhaps too simple to be acceptable to librarians trained in the mysteries and complexities of cataloging codes and classification schemes? The problem might be solved if we could find some substitute ritual for librarians which satisfied their pseudo-cooperative instincts without costing much money or achieving any result. Someone could then get on with implementing really useful and sensible plans. @
Expand your holdings of indexed periodicals for free with...
index to free periodicals Edited by Arnold M. Rzepecki. Index to Free Periodicals is a biannual publication which provides detailed (subject, author & title) access to the information contained in over 50 periodicals that are free to libraries.
The periodicals selected for indexing represent the best in editorial and/or graphic content. Coverage is extensive. Subjects range from chemistry and medicine to art and history, from solar energy to classical music, from the high cost of health care to glass blowing, from juvenile delinquency to air pollution, and much more. The format is straightforward. Subjects, authors and titles of articles that have appeared in the periodicals during the period of coverage are arranged alphabetically. Following the title of the periodical, each citatation indicates volume, issue, date, beginning page and special features of the article. Charts, illustrations, maps, photographs, portraits, and tables are among the special features noted. While providing a major infomation base for the smaller school and public library, IFP adds a new dimension to the collections of larger libraries, all at a minimal cost. Index to Free Periodicals is an invaluable resource for libraries of every kind and size. ":..a door to volumes o f free information... "
-Library Journal
INDEX TO FREE PERIODICALS Biannual: $25/yr. Single issue: $15. Postage is extra. PIERIAN PRESS P.O. Box 1808 Ann Arbor, MI
48106
¢ SERIALS REVIEW
SPRING 1982
65
UNION
collection
management
resources
LISTS & A U T O M A T I O N I
The National Supply of Serials Centralization Versus Decentralization Maurice B. Line In nearly every country in the world inter-library lending is almost totally decentralized. The reasons for this are largely historical: as will be argued, it is difficult to find any other good reasons. It is, however, not difficult to make a post facturn rationalization to justify decentralization. The main argument is that in most countries there are lots of libraries with lots of books and journals, and all that has to be done to extend provision beyond the local library's stock is to provide access to other libraries, usually by means of union catalogues. In theory, this should be cheap, fast, and effective. In fact, as the everyday experience of librarians testifies, it is none of these things. Rather than try to justify what exists, it is more sensible to look at objectives and then examine the best way of attaining them. The objective of an inter-library loan system is to supplement local resources to the fullest extent possible by the rapid supply of materials from elsewhere as rapidly and economically as possible. From this objective three main criteria can be derived: satisfaction rate (percentage of requests supplied), speed of supply, and cost. To these two more criteria may be added. The first is ease of use: the easier the system is to use, the less time (and therefore money) it takes to use it, and the more likely it is to be used effectively. The second subsidiary criteria is ease of monitoring: it should be possible to identify successes, failures and trends, and to adjust the system accordingly. Without some regular feedback it is very difficult to ensure that the system keeps in line with needs. With these criteria in mind, let us look at decentralized systems. First of all, they are not very good at supplying either heavily wanted materials or little wanted materials. Heavily wanted materials are likely to be in use in the library from which they are requested, so that several locations often have to be tried before an application is successful. Materials that are very little used may not have been acquired by any library in the country, and so may not be available at all. Supply tends to be slow, partly because of the need to try several locations before many requests are satisfied, partly because a local library must gear its service to local needs, not to the needs of libraries elsewhere, and if there is any pressure or conflict inter-library lending takes second (or lower) place. Decentralized systems are not easy to use, because they involve the consultation of union catalogs and the distribution of requests among a number of sources, which may even require different request forms. Such systems are virtually impossible to monitor, since so many libraries are
Maurice B. Line is Director General of the British Library Lending Division in Boston Spa. He prepared this article as a reaction to the ALA/RTSD Union Lists of Serials Workshop held in San Francisco, 1981.
involved in supplying, and some categories of material that are in quite regular demand may never be identified because the demand is so scattered. It might, however, be thought that decentralized systems were at least cheap. This is not so. If one takes into account the total cost of constructing, maintaining and using union catalogs, it is very high, and the fact that many of the costs are hidden does not make it less so. Not only that, but the cost to supplying libraries is also quite high. A number of estimates have been made of the total costs of inter-library lending and borrowing in the U.S., and they are not low. If the costs of union catalogs were added, they would be much higher. (How many union catalogs are there in the U.S., and how much do they cost? The figure must be astronomical.) It is of course possible, at least in theory, to extend the provision of little used materials by cooperative acquisition schemes, but these are difficult and expensive to administer, and they do of course require extra money. If such schemes are used, the cost of them too should be added to interlibrary lending costs. Some of the disadvantages listed above can be reduced by the use of automation. The construction of union catalogs, for example, can be greatly facilitated, and access to locations, and the switching of requests between locations; can be much faster. However, automation in itself does nothing to extend provision and little if anything to reduce costs. There is another problem with decentralized systems. While they should in theory distribute demand among many supplying libraries, in practice it tends to be concentrated on a relatively small number of large research libraries. This has certainly happened in the U.S. As a result some of the libraries involved have imposed inter-library borrowing charges in an attempt either to recover all their costs or to deter requests altogether. If concentration on a limited number of libraries was planned, it might have something to be said for it, but a system which is supposed to spread requests widely and ends up by concentrating them on a few libraries, with a very long tail of requests scattered among very many, seems about the worst possible solution. The obvious alternative to decentralization is centralization. A central collection with comprehensive coverage can (again in theory) achieve high satisfaction rates, fast speed of supply (because its system can be geared entirely to interlibrary supply), and low unit costs because of great economies of scale. It is very easy to use, and monitoring of demand is simple. Its service can be continuously adjusted to demand and responsive to trends that are detected. Union catalogs are either entirely unnecessary, or are relegated to a supporting role, in which case they can be greatly reduced in size and complexity. Speed of supply is incidentally almost entirely unrelated to distance: with modern air services, it takes
SERIALS REVIEW
SPRING 1982
63
little or no longer for mail to travel from New York to San Francisco than from Boston to New Haven. The main problem with a comprehensive central collection is the cost of its setting up, acquisitions and running. Before I return to this, some other reservations should be entered. A central collection of books (other than serials) that is at all comprehensive, in the sense that it acquires a high percentage of the world's output, is almost inconceivable. The cost would be colossal, and the unit cost per use would be very high because the bulk of stock would never be wanted at all. On the other hand, selection is extremely difficult, because the scatter of requests, over dates, languages and countries of publication, is very wide, and, more particularly, because it is impossible to identify from past demand what will be wanted in future. It may be possible to say that, for example, a high proportion of demand falls on scientific and technical works in English published in the last two years, but that does not help very much, partly because the number of books in this category is very large, partly because there is still a huge area of demand outside this category. There is certainly a case for a substantial central collection of books, but it is much less easy to make than a case for a central collection of serials. With serials, the situation is quite different from that of books. The number of significant serials published in the world is large but not enormous; many if not most of the journals that are published are of a very popular nature, and the demand for these on inter-library loan will be minute. Not only is the total number of significant serials finite, but demand tends to be concentrated on a relatively small proportion even of those (in the U.K., 90 percent of demand falls on fewer than 13,000 serials, though one would expect the concentration to be less in the U.S. because local libraries there tend to be larger). A national collection set up for the specific purpose of loan and photocopy can satisfy a high proportion of demand by concentrating on the most heavily requested titles. Even a quite small country could justify a core collection of, say, 5,000 serials, which could perhaps satisfy up to 70 percent of inter-library loan demand for serials. This would greatly reduce the burden on other libraries, which would then be asked to supply only the less commonly wanted items, which would be less likely to be in local use at the time of requesting. Tile argument would therefore seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a national collection of serials, especially in the U.S., where the total demand is very large indeed. This conclusion has been reached by more than one examination of the question, and more than one librarian has been k n o w n to remark that the U.S. system is slow, costly, inefficient and burdensome. If the solution is so obvious, why has it not been acted upon? There are several reasons for this. The first has already been referred to, namely the cost of setting up such a collection, acquiring serials currently, and maintaining the service mostly staff costs. Without at least five years' backruns of most serials, a collection could not begin to offer a service for some time. The most heavily requested journals are unfortunately the most expensive ones, so that even a core collection would cost a fair amount of money each year. The staff required would depend largely upon the number of requests, but the larger the volume of demand the lower the unit costs would become as the costs of accommodation and acquisition were spread over a larger number of items. Against these costs must be set the costs of decentralization: the costs of union catalogs, higher costs to local libraries of both borrowing and lending, the costs of ensuring that "last copies" of items are not lost to the country, which would require a cooperatuve retention scheme. With a very high
64
SERIALS REVIEW
SPRING 1982
volume of demand, a central collection once established could be justified in strict economic terms, but even without such a level of demand it should be asked how much a high probability of first time satisfaction and an assurance of fast supply are worth. If they are considered to be worth very little, decentralization may as well continue, but most librarians, and certainly their users, would surely put a high value on both. That a central collection can offer a better service than decentralized systems is not merely a conclusion drawn from theoretical analysis. There is an actual working example in the British Library Lending Division. Not only does it handle 75 percent of all inter-library loan demand in the United Kingdom, but it is estimated that it may be handling about half - that is, 500,000 a year - of the world's international loan/photocopy demand. If other countries (including and especially the U.S.) sometimes find it more convenient, and faster, to use the British Library Lending Division than to use their own system, this suggests that there is something wrong with their own systems. The Lending Division aims to acquire certain categories of materials as comprehensively as possible, irrespective of subject, but excluding "low level" material, fiction, children's books, and non-book materials. Materials it does acquire include English language books (70,000 pa), report literature (200,000 pa), conference proceedings (16,000 pa), official publications of the U.K. and various international organizations, music scores (8,500 pa), and translations into English (11,000 pa). It also microfilms nearly all British doctoral theses, and acquires foreign language books on demand when other sources cannot easily be identified in the U.K. The categories listed above did not include the most important of all - serials, which account for two thirds of demand and indeed two thirds of acquisition expenditure. At present, 56,000 current titles are taken. There are also around 94,000 "dead" titles. Selection is based partly on actual demand, partly on the coverage of indexing and abstracting services, but new serial titles are watched to spot significant titles that are likely to be wanted in future. About 85 percent of all U.K. demand for serials falls on the Lending Division. Well over 90 percent of valid requests for serials are supplied from stock: the proportion for volumes published in the last two years is around 97 percent. It is impossible to give a precise figure for the unit costs of satisfying requests for serials separately from the total unit transaction cost, which is much higher because books are more expensive to supply. At a guess, the cost per serial transaction may be around L- 1.20 - say $2.25. If the cost of acquisition is added to this, the unit cost is about L- 2.20 - say $4.10. Various other costs should be added to this - accommodation, administrative overheads, acquisitions, staff, etc. - but it is unlikely that the total unit costs will exceed I~ 3.00. There is another major point. Since the British Library Lending Division's predecessor, the National Lending Library for Science and Technology, started in 1961, inter-library loan demand in the U.K. has increased by an enormous amount: the availability of a fast reliable service brought forth a huge demand that had previously been latent. There is now no way in which this demand could be redistributed if the British Library Lending Division ceased to offer a service. The demand would fall almost entirely on a very limited number of large university libraries, and they simply could not cope. In other words, the choice in the U.K. is not between a good centralized service and a good decentralized service, it is between a centralized service and a poor decentralized service Indeed, from my knowledge of systems in other countries and their performance, I would go so far as
to say that a central collection is the only sure way to guarantee a good fast service. If this is so, one should ask again the question why librarians still adhere to decentralized systems. The reasons are nearly all political or psychological. There is a vague general fear of over-centralization. There is a fear that if federal funds were put into a central collection serving the whole nation, this would be used as an excuse for reducing the budgets available to individual libraries (there is no evidence whatever that this has happened in the U.K.). There is the traditional rivalry between states and the federal government. Underlying it all is a feeling that cooperation must be a Good Thing. The truth is that librarians huddle together for warmth: cooperation has a nice warm cuddly sound, and resource sharing, though not so cuddly a phrase, sounds both harmonious and economic. You can always tell where parties of librarians have been by the trail of union catalogs they leave behind them - a kind of spoor. Perhaps somewhere in the genes of librarians there lurks an innate tendency to construct union catalogs in the same way as some species of the animal kingdom have exotic and apparently irrational habits, like the mating displays of kangaroos or the exotic nest building of some birds. Such activities are all very charming and harmless so long as they do not cost money or appear to be an alternative to real, practical, economic solutions. These are likely to be much simpler as well as cheaper and more effective - perhaps too simple to be acceptable to librarians trained in the mysteries and complexities of cataloging codes and classification schemes? The problem might be solved if we could find some substitute ritual for librarians which satisfied their pseudo-cooperative instincts without costing much money or achieving any result. Someone could then get on with implementing really useful and sensible plans. @
Expand your holdings of indexed periodicals for free with...
index to free periodicals Edited by Arnold M. Rzepecki. Index to Free Periodicals is a biannual publication which provides detailed (subject, author & title) access to the information contained in over 50 periodicals that are free to libraries.
The periodicals selected for indexing represent the best in editorial and/or graphic content. Coverage is extensive. Subjects range from chemistry and medicine to art and history, from solar energy to classical music, from the high cost of health care to glass blowing, from juvenile delinquency to air pollution, and much more. The format is straightforward. Subjects, authors and titles of articles that have appeared in the periodicals during the period of coverage are arranged alphabetically. Following the title of the periodical, each citatation indicates volume, issue, date, beginning page and special features of the article. Charts, illustrations, maps, photographs, portraits, and tables are among the special features noted. While providing a major infomation base for the smaller school and public library, IFP adds a new dimension to the collections of larger libraries, all at a minimal cost. Index to Free Periodicals is an invaluable resource for libraries of every kind and size. ":..a door to volumes o f free information... "
-Library Journal
INDEX TO FREE PERIODICALS Biannual: $25/yr. Single issue: $15. Postage is extra. PIERIAN PRESS P.O. Box 1808 Ann Arbor, MI
48106
¢ SERIALS REVIEW
SPRING 1982
65