Keith Renwick, INTERNET:kdrenk@FS3.LI.UMIST.AC.UK

> PERHAPS ALBERT HENDERSON WOULD LIKE TO CITE THE STUDIES
> REFERRED TO IN HIS REPLY ABOVE. THE FACTS ARE THAT LIBRARIANS,
> WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WORKING IN THE FIELD, KNOW THAT MOST
> JOURNAL ARTICLES ARE READ BY LIBRARY USERS AND THAT THE
> LEVEL OF LIBRARY USE BY RESEARCHERS IS DECLINING.

Most of the studies are summarized in COMMUNICATION BY ENGINEERS, by
Donald W. King, published by the Council on Library Resources, Inc. in
1994. King also pointed out, in an article co-authored with Carol Tenopir,
(LIBRARY JOURNAL March 15, 1996, p. 32-35) that the long term trend has
been for researchers to use libraries more than ever.

For other studies, start with the SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CONFERENCE
convened by the Royal Society (1948). Its recommendations called for more
critical, general, and constructive reviews written by senior scientists.
At that time, the volume of research articles published was roughly ten
percent what it is today and major library collections had no photocopying
to fall back on.  I think that the classic article on poorly informed
researchers and waste is Distill or drown, by Conyers Herring, (PHYSICS
TODAY 21,9 Sept 1968 p. 27-33). Herring was president of the American
Physical Society at the time. His ideas are further developed by Johns
Hopkins psychologist William D. Garvey in COMMUNICATION: THE ESSENCE OF
SCIENCE which was published in England by Pergamon Press in 1979. A more
recent analysis of wasted research was done by a task force headed by
Walter O Spitzer, MD, et al. REDEFINING WHIPLASH AND ITS MANAGEMENT
appears as a supplement to SPINE (20,8S). It describes filtering some 400
relevant articles out of 10,000 citations. Of the 400 which were evaluated
by teams of specialists, roughly 340 were rejected as lacking scientific
merit.

King has also pointed out that the major economic burden of the journals
system is on the readers, who contribute time and other resources in the
procurement of information. Libraries are at the other end of the scale.
Scientists have asked in vain for more reviews, summaries and evaluations
that would help them prepare better proposals for laboratory and field
study. It seems to me this would call for better libraries.

I am always surprised to find a librarian in disagreement with
justifications for better library collections. What's up?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
70244.1532@compuserve.com