library approval plans: a selected, annotated bibliography

Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 11, pp. 3-34, 1987 0364-6408/87 $3.00 + .OO Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1987 Pergamon Journals Ltd.

LIBRARY APPROVAL PLANS: A SELECTED, ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

GARY J. ROSS1

Humanities Librarian/Cataloger

Main Library

Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

Mansfield, PA 16933

(Revised July 1986)

This bibliography was begun while I was on sabbatical leave from Mansjield University of Pennsylvania during the Fall semester 1984. For ten weeks during this period I interned with the Acquisitions Department of Pattee Library, Penn- sylvania State University at University Park. I wish to acknowledge the contributions to this work of Carol Chamberlain, Head of Acquisitions, for sharing her broad knowledge of acquisitions and for guiding my research on approval plans; and of Joyce Ogburn, Assistant Acquisitions Librarian (Science and Technology) for editorial assistance. I also wish to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft of this work who identified several additional items suitable for inclusion in the bibliography.

INTRODUCTION

This bibliography contains references to material on library approval plans in general as well as to studies that have attempted to evaluate approval plans. The material was collected from several sources. Two published bibliographies were checked: Rose Mary Magrill’s Library Technical Services (Greenwood Press, 1977) and Collection Development and Acqui- sitions, 1970-1980: an Annotated, Critical Bibliography (Scarecrow Press, 1982) compiled by Irene P. Godden, Karen W. Fachan, and Patricia A. Smith. In addition, Library Literature was checked back through 1967. And finally, the references contained in the materials cited in this bibliography comprised together the fourth source of information.

The title of this paper states that the scope of the bibliography is selected. One category of material is excluded: the news-type article that might report, for example, on the progress of a particular library’s approval plan. Apart from this one type of material, the bib-

3

4 G. .I. ROSS

liography may be considered comprehensive in its listing of books, book chapters, journal articles, and ERIC documents published or written in large majority in North America but with a few British publications included as well.

The ~r~gement of the bibliography is chronologic~. Just as in Magrill’s bib~ography, the arrangement of material here is from earliest to latest chronologically and serves to doc- ument the evolution of experiments and experiences on the part of academic libraries with the approval plan. The coverage of the bibliography essentially extends back through 1967. This date marks one of the first published references to what was then termed “mass buying plans,” that later became known as “blanket plans” or “approval plans.”

The antecedents of today’s approval plan go back to the post-World War II Cooperative Acquisitions Project for Wartime Publications, the Farmington Plan, and the Library of Con- gress’ National Program for Acquisitions and Cataloging to name a few [See entries 30, 3 1, and 571. The bibliography includes one reference to a pre-1967 item that was judged useful in illustrating the development of the approval concept [See entry 11.

It seems to have taken until the early 1970’s for the important distinction between a blanket plan and an approval plan to be codified in the literature. The blanket plan, of course, refers to an arrangement with a vendor or publisher to supply everything current (or most everything within certain limits) and sometimes retrospective on a particular subject with the library usually not having return privileges for material it subsequently does not want to keep. The approval plan, however, supplies current imprints according to a pre-determined “profile” that the library negotiates with a vendor or publisher based upon the library’s specific needs. In academic libraries the profile would have its origin in the library’s collection development policies and guidelines, or, if no such documents existed, it would be defined by the college or university’s various curricular needs as outlined in a current course catalog. So in a very real sense the development of an approval plan profile helps to focus the library’s attention, perhaps as never before so sharply, on its informational support mission within its parent ~stitution. Unlike the blanket order plan, the approval plan would allow return for credit of material deemed unsuitable.

Approval plans have been both scorned and praised by librarians. That the issue was one of great importance to librarians of the late 1960’s and 1970’s is sufficiently evident in the proceedings of four major international conferences organized and specifically devoted to approval plans held in 1968, 1969, 1971, and 1979 [See entries 5, 12,28,56]. One of the first controversies had to do with the fundament~ issue of who was to be ultimately responsible for selecting books for libraries. The lines were clearly drawn. Was it to be the librarians and faculty members who understood the needs of their institutions or was it to be the commercial vendors who were said to have no real understanding of the teaching or instructional support mission of the university and whose only interest was in selling books? [See entries 17 and 18 particularly]. It was a very real philosophical difference of opinion. Other controversy was situated more in the realm of practicality. Proponents of approval plans cited the speed and efficiency with which the plans were able to bring in needed material as opposed to traditional and costly title-by-title selection and acquisition methods. The fact that making a judgement about a book with it in hand was considered to be a far superior method than selecting from trade bibliographies, publisher’s information, or reviews in journals was another point cited by proponents of approval plans. Opponents put forth exactly the opposite points of view. In their opinion, approval plans ~~g~~ bring in material that is needed, although some would heartily disagree from the philosophical point of view described earlier, but the concern was for the material that the plans did not seem to be able to provide. Opponents also put into question the cost savings that might result from discontinuing the

Library Approval Plans 5

clerical routines of typing and sending out purchase orders to vendors or publishers. They argued that any savings obtained would probably be offset by the internal bibliographic control and display for selection procedures necessary for the proper functioning of the plans [See entries 8, 9, and 10 particularly].

Despite some of the very real problems associated with approval plans, especially with those that started operation in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, opinion has been generally positive over the years. This may be due in part to the fact that through the 1970’s and into the 1980’s libraries have sought to undertake quantitative studies to evaluate their plans so that a successful study gave rise to vindication of the approval plan concept [See entries 25, 27, 51, 58, and 651. This is not to say, however, that the studies have all been positive by any means [See entries 21, 37, and 401. Then too, the bankruptcy of the Richard Abel Company in 1974 caused many librarians to focus a great deal of attention on the entire concept of approval buying, [see entry 431 and this renewed scrutiny [see entry 441 appeared to result in a better understanding of the dynamics of a well run place. Moreover, there has been in the work of Reidelbach and Shirk [see entries 66, 67, 71, 751 an attempt to research on a national level not only individual library’s experiences with approval plans but to elicit information from approval plan vendors about their programs, all in an effort to aid in the overall successful implementation of approval plans in libraries wishing to go this route in their acquisitions programs.

The popularity of approval plans has not been affected by the fluctuations in funding for library acquisitions during this period. When budgets were low, the library had to be more vigilant in acquiring materials that adhered rigidly to the current curricular needs as defined in the profile. In fact, under these circumstances the profile would have had to be fine-tuned in order to assure high precision in selection. On the other hand, when budgets were high, the approval plan was able to bring in easily and efficiently most of the current imprints in most subjects.

The literature consistently emphasized that the single most important aspect of an approval plan is the profile. No library can maintain a successful plan without an adequate profile that reflects its current information needs and is continuously open to modification as budgetary or curricular changes dictate. The major approval plan vendors have become very sophisticated in the design of what one firm calls its “subject stations” and another calls its “subject thesaurus,” both of which may be likened in general to Library of Congress subject headings, although the comparison ought not to be taken too far. A heavy initial investment of time is required in pre-planning that leads to the development of the profile with the guid- ance of the approval vendor representative and after the plan is operational for several months it is often necessary to adjust the profile. It is not surprising, therefore, that the approval plan concept became in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s a tool of collection management and development rather than simply one of acquisitions. Evidence of this is found in the conference name of the most recent approval plan conference (1979) that was termed Fourth Interna- tional Conference on Approval Plans and Collection Development.

No single experience with library approval plans provides the definitive evaluation of this acquisitions technique. In some libraries at certain points in time the plans have worked suc- cessfully while at others at different times they have failed. Perhaps the key is the human factor. The evidence seems to support the general statement that an approval plan has the best chance of success when there exists an understanding of the dynamics of approval buying on the part of both librarians and faculty, when there is sufficient pre- and post-implementation planning and coordination, and when there exists a positive and mutually supportive relationship between the approval plan representative and the library.

ASISJ AARL ABBW AL ALJ BDB CLJ CB CM CRL CRLN JAL JD JL JLA JLH LAPT LAR LJ

LQ LR LRTS LT MLAB MPLQ NCL OLAB OLR PW SEL SL SR TE TLJ TSN

G. J. ROSS1

ABBREVIATIONS OF JOURNAL TITLES

American Society of Information Science Journal Australian Academic and Research Libraries AB Bookman’s Weekly American Libraries Australian Library Journal Bulletin de Documentation Bibliographique Canadian Library Journal Collection Building Collection Management College & Research Libraries College & Research Libraries News Journal of Academic Librarianship Journal of Documentation Journal of Librarianship Journal of Library Automation Journal of Library History Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory Library Association Record Library Journal Library Quarterly Library Review Library Resources & Technical Services Library Trends Medical Library Association Bulletin Mountain-Plains Library Quarterly North Carolina Libraries Ohio Library Association Bulletin Ontario Library Review Publisher’s Weekly Southeastern Librarian School Libraries Serials Review Technicalities Texas Library Journal Technical Services Newsletter

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Henshaw, Francis H. and Kurth, William H. “Dealer Rating System at LC,” LRTS, 1 (Summer, 1957), 131-136.

The authors describe a method used at the Library of Congress to evaluate the performance of its blanket order dealers. The factors that were considered in the evaluation and the number of points assigned to each factor were: “( 1) Coverage (O-45 points) - the degree of coverage achieved considering the relative size of the book production, involving the


number of supplementary selections necessary by LC (and dealer response to these supplementary selections), adequacy in supplying required multiple copies on blanket order, and frequency and condition of shipments, (2) Quality (O-25 points) - The general level of the supplied materials conforming to the provisions of the blanket order; also, the number and type of publications which were subject to return because they are contrary to the provisions of the blanket order, (3) Understanding (O-15 points) - Clearness and intelligi- bility of dealer’s correspondence and reports; promptness in replying to LC requests and correspondence, and general understanding, as evidenced by the type of questions asked concerning the purchasing program, and (4) Invoices (lo-15 points)- Acceptability of invoices; including citation of order numbers for rapid identification of supplied materials, notation as to issue of bibliography from which material was supplied and whether requests for special handling on payments are acceptably prepared.” The total possible points for this part was 100. The analysis of price was as follows. “Score one of the following three: (1) Discount on domestic prices (64-80 points), (2) Domestic prices (60 points), (3) Service charge on domestic prices (O-48 points). Score one of the following two: (1) LC pays postage (0 points), (2) Dealer pays postage (20 points).” Total possible points for the last two parts was 100. As a result of this rating system 2 scores, each based on a total of 100 possible points, were calculated for each blanket order dealer.

2. Dougherty, Richard M. and McKinney, Abigail. “Ten Years of Progress in Acquisitions: 1956-66,” LRTS, 1 l(3) (Summer, 1967) 289-301.

The section “The Nature and Scope of Acquisitions” (pp. 291-293) refers to mass buying plans made necessary because of federal legislation of the 1950’s and the first half of the 1960’s that provided great increases in funding for the acquisition of library materials. The Latin American Cooperative Acquisitions Project, the Greenaway Plans, and the jobber approval plans offered by Richard Able, Stacey’s, and B. H. Blackwell, Ltd. are mentioned as new developments.

3. Dahl-Hansen, Abigail and Dougherty, Richard M. “Acquisitions in 1967,” LRTS, 12(2) (Spring, 1968) 177-185.

Blanket or mass buying plans like the National Program for Acquisitions and Catalog- ing and Public Law 480 are discussed (pp. 178-179). Publisher standing order plans and approval plans are discussed (pp. 179-180) in terms of their increasing use by all types of libraries.

4. Morrison, Perry D., et al. “A Symposium on Approval Order Plans and the Book Selec- , tion Res~nsibilities of Librarians, ” LRTS, 12(2) (Spring, 1968) 133-145. [Revised text of material presented to a workshop of the College Division of the Pacific Northwest Library Association at its Conference in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, August 23, 19671.

Perry Morrison relates the circumstances that led libraries to turn to blanket or approval plans and describes some of the plans that were offered. He suggests severa advantages and disadvantages of these plans and concludes that “they [approval plans] are basically beneficial and here to stay if our acquisitions rates continue to climb and our costs to mount.” LeRoy Charles Merritt reacts to Morrison’s paper in “Are We Selecting or Col- lecting?” and states that the true issue is whether approval plans produce quality collections rather than efficiency in ordering procedures. Morrison and he “are in essential

8 G. J. ROSS.1

agreement that either a professor or a librarian can do a better job of selection with the book in hand from, say a PW annotation, a blurb or a review. Approval plans do have great potential- but only as long as the power to reject remains firm and arrangements with dealers are placed under continuous review.” Rev. Joseph P. Browne, C.S.C. reacts in “Can Blanket Orders Help the Small College Library?” and states his personal opposition to blanket order plans for the small college library because book selection, he feels, is the one truly professional library activity that librarians perform. Browne envisages a standardization of collections particularly in newly-developing institutions that rely on blanket orders. He recognizes the savings in time, the discounts offered, and the ability of a blanket plan to strengthen one or more specific subjects or in the opposite case to acquire comprehensively in an already strong subject that would support doctoral level research. Browne contends that to be truly effective the blanket or approval plan must fit the needs of the institution and that libraries must be able to return those items which do not support curricular needs. Stanfey A. Shepard reacts in “Approval Books on a Small Budget?” by stating that approval plans may make a worthwhile contribution if the program can fit into the library budget. He suggests that the library look at the amount it is spending in various subject areas and compare this with the estimated costs of books in these areas. If the library is spending at least or more than the amount on all books published in a year on a given subject then it should consider an approval plan for that subject.

5. Spyers-Duran, Peter, ed. Approval and Gathering Plans in Academic Libraries. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1969, pp. ii., 142.

Contains the proceedings of the First International Seminar on Approval and Gather- ing Plans in Large and Medium-Size Academic Libraries that was held at Western Michi- gan University, November 14, 1968. Each speaker’s paper and the questions and answers following the delivery of each paper are transcribed. Richard Loreck (“Approval Plans Can Be Successful”) discusses the operation of the English language approval plan at the Uni- versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Loreck includes statistics on budgets and return rates and provides information about how the savings gained through use of the approval plan was allocated to antiquarian buying. Hendrik Edefman (“The Joint University Libraries and Blanket Orders”) describes the administrative structure of the Joint University Libraries that are associated in a cooperative venture of Peabody College, Scarritt College, and Van- derbilt University. He relates reasons for not participating in approval plans due to the organizational structure of the Libraries, the impossibility of being assured of a stable book budget from year to year, and the need to develop the collections retrospectively in addition to buying current imprints. Argues that “. . . no library should start comprehensive blanket order programs unless its retrospective holdings are already significant and its book budget is at least $500,000. In case of a library with weak retrospective holdings while sup- posedly supporting rapidly growing graduate programs, the book budget should be $700,000.” Edelman warns against a trend that is “. . . stimulated by the development of European blanket orders. The creaming off of the European market by American suppliers or, for that matter European discounters could be a dangerous trend and eventually curtail the activities of the existing booktrade.” Howard A. Sullivan (“How to Make a Patchwork Quilt into a Blanket: the Agony of Transition”) discusses the transition to a comprehensive blanket order program at Wayne State University. He states that a library comes to the point of instituting a blanket order program through a progression of circumstances and that “. . . a comprehensive blanket order plan is the culmination of a series


of adjustments a growing academic library makes in its acquisitions procedures as it endeav- ors to carry out its responsibilities to its parent institution.” Wugh C. Atkinson (“Faculty Reaction to New Approval Plan at the Ohio State University”) describes two methods employed to gauge faculty reaction to what was called the “Current Imprints Plan.” a blanket order program for English language monographs with the Richard Abel Co. The first evaluation method consisted of a questionnaire [included as Table I] sent to 77 colleges or departments at Ohio State. The second method consisted of copies of Publisher’s Week/j for a week in November 1966 and a week in November 1967 that were sent to a selected group of departments at Ohio State, on which the chairman or the Library Committee was asked to check those titles that ought to be included in the Libraries’ collections. The Acqui- sitions Department then checked whether the titles had been ordered and received [Table II contains the results of this survey]. “It is recommended if they wish to enter into blanket order plans that such is done with full communication with the various faculties and with plans for some form of evaluation after the first year or so. I would recommend two years since it takes almost six months before the plan can actually become fully underway.” ~rankly~ IT Bright (“Blanket Orders with Foreign Dealers”) discusses the history of blanket order programs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and some of the problems and concerns associated with these programs. A dealer’s panel presentation consisting of represen- tatives of Bro-Dart (George Bonsall), Harrassowitz (Nut Darn), Abel Co. (Richard Abel), and Stechert-Hafner (Ralph Lessing) includes information on these dealers’ blanket order plans. Frank Wan&n concludes with a summ~y of the speakers’ comments. Appendix I- Specifications for Current Imprints Plan (The Ohio State University); Appendix II- Gathering Plan for University of Wisconsin-Madison; Appendix III-Books-Coming-into- Print [Bro-dart’s program]; Appendix IV-Memorandum on our Approval Plan (Otto Har- rassowitz); Appendix V-Description of Services of Richard Abel & Company; Appendix VI -Latin American Cooperative Acquisitions Program (Stechert-Hafner, Inc.); Appen- dix VII -Blanket Order Program for French Acquisitions [BOPFA] (Stechert-Hafner, Inc.); Appendix VIII - Michigan State University, Blanket Order Number 1063, 11 Febru- ary 1969, with Stechert-Hafner, Inc.; Appendix IX-Foreign Fiction Service (Stechert- Hafner, Inc.); Appendix X-“Who is Who” [speakers, their affiliations, and addresses]; Appendix XI-Participants [in the seminar].

Review: Rosenberg, B. LJ, 95, (July 1.5, 1970) 2237.

6. Maher, Kathleen, et al, How Good Is Your Approval Plan, a Vendor Performance Study? Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Libraries, 1969 (Unpublished).

7. Dahl-Hansen, Abigail and Dougherty, Richard. “Acquisition Trends- 1968,” LRTS, 13(3), (Summer, 1969) 373-379.

The section “Approval Plans” (p_ 376) reports on this “relatively new innovation gain- ing support through the library profession by providing the most reliable selection tool in the trade- the book itself.” This very positive review of approval plans discusses the savings in clerical routines and accounting procedures that result from these plans and describes the “[t}hree basic principles _ . . to be found in all approval plans: free return of any or all titles, coverage limited to current imprints, and the absolute necessity of an acquisitions policy which a bookman can interpret.” It is concluded that “lilt can be predicted that approval methods will be employed more frequently and may even change the vener- ated routine of title by title selection.”

10 G. .I. ROSS1

8. Thorn, Ian W. “Some Administrative Aspects of Blanket Ordering,” LRTS, 13(3), (Sum- mer, 1969) 338-342.

“Explores the consequences [of an approval plan] as a method of procurement . . . and deal[s] with the logistical, not with the intellectual implications of blanket ordering.” Argues that “[o]n balance, the acquisitions department will require more man-hours to process a given number of titles received on blanket order than it would if these same titles were ordered conventionally.”

9. Rebuldela, Harriet K. “Some Administrative Aspects of Blanket Ordering: a Response,” LRTS, 13(3), (Summer, 1969) 342-345.

Rebuldela argues against Ian Thorn’s conclusion that blanket orders require more clerical work to process than conventionally ordered titles. Her argument stems from the distinction she makes between blanket orders, which usually are not subject to return and do not come with multipart slips; and approval plans, which do offer return privileges and come with multipart forms which can be used as an “interim control” measure before cataloging takes place. She also states that the job of displaying approval books for faculty and library subject specialists need not be a problem if “handled routinely and systematically.”

10. Thorn, Ian W. “Some Administrative Aspects of Blanket Ordering: Rejoinder to a Response,” LRTS, 13(3), (Summer, 1969) 345-346.

Thorn appreciates Rebuldela’s distinction between blanket ordering and approval plans, although he feels that “a library with a large number of approval and blanket order plans . . . will still have to contend with a very significant number of slipless books.” He further agrees with Rebuldela’s suggestion that for books arriving without slips a “searcher- made” printed form could be xeroxed in the number of copies required and that the arrangement of the process and proof files by title instead of by main entry (which is often not available when the book arrives) could streamline the acquisitions process. He does not feel that all screeners of approval books will cooperate, “particularly in a large system,” so that this would remain a problem unless as a result of a “Draconian decree . . . the catalog department . . . takes unilateral action in order to clear the shelves for the next incoming shipment. ”

11. Lane, David 0. Approval and Blanket Order AcquisitCms Plans. [Prepared for the Insti- tute on Acquisitions Procedures in Academic Libraries sponsored by the University Library, University of California, San Diego, August 25-September 5, 1969.1 [12 P.] [ERIC ED 043 3421.

As part of a study on decision-making in the selection of science books for academic libraries, a survey of 66 medium-size academic libraries (of which 46 responded) was undertaken to learn about experiences with approval plans. Most of the responses were positive toward approval plans and “the majority of the faculty . . . [were] favorably impressed.”

12. Spyers-Duran, Peter and Gore, Daniel, eds. Advances in Understanding Approval and Gathering Plans in Academic Libraries. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, 1970, pp. vi, 220.


Contains the proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Approval and Gath- ering Plans in Large and Medium-Size Academic Libraries that was held at Western Michi- gan University, October 30-3 1, 1969. Each speaker’s paper and the questions and answers following the delivery of each paper are transcribed. Daniel Gore (“Understanding Approval Plans: a Critical Essay”) draws upon the publish literature and the speaker8 addresses at this Seminar to paint a broad view of the practice and theory of approval plans. Among the points he makes, he interestingly compares the operation of an approval plan to the routine placement of subscriptions to journals. In the latter case the library agrees to accept the decision of the publisher in regard to the content of each issue of the journal, Is this really any different than creating an approval plan covering the publisher’s monographic offerings? He argues that the use of computers in approval programs is irrele- vant because that which is important is the intellectual process on the part of both the library and the approval plan vendor in which the set of books the library wishes is defined and upon which the vendor may act to effectively provide the desired result. Gore argues for the use of approval plans as opposed to other methods of book selection because the approval dealer is able to “. . . bring consistency, regularity, refinement, and formality to a procedure that is otherwise likely to be conducted in a haphazard, if well-intentioned manner.” Richard W. Boss (“Automation and Approval Plans”) discusses the dilemma at his university where blanket orders cannot be entered into an otherwise automated system for the production of purchase orders. He mentions three approval plan vendors that are able to interface their computer with that of the library to produce a totally automated acquisitions process: the Richard Abel Company, Bro-dart, and Baker & Taylor’s BATAB. Urges the Seminar participants to “. . . urge vendors to find a way to determine that critical point at which we can merge our automation technology and blanket ordering. . . .” For an annotation of Roscoe Rouse’s article “Automation Stops Here: a Case for Man- Made Book Collections” see entry 17.1 Thomas C. Harris (“Book Purchasing or Book Selection: a Study of Values”) argues that the faculty should have primary responsibility for book selection in order to build a quality library collection and states that “[mlany library practices such as approval plans or gathering plans . . . are an escape from the painstaking tasks of selection and the dilemma that a program originating in the Univer- sity Library presents. Careful selection imposes many problems not associated with approval plans, but it yields a better product.” Eleanor Her&g (“Approval Plans, Special Collections and Kindred Matters”) discusses the receipt of books through an approval plan that “. . . belong in special collections, defined in a broad sense.” Types of material mentioned include limited editions, autographed copies, private press books, portfolios of litho- graphs and other prints, reference books, museum catalogs, and music. In an attempt to devise a system whereby a library would be able to purchase multiple copies of a book for multiple locations via an approval plan, W. Donald Ferris (“Automated Selection of Dupli- cate Titles Through Approval Plans”) proposes the development of subject area codes similar to the ISBN. Each book would be assigned one or more subject codes which would allow an automated approach to approval plan operation directly through publishers. Jean W. Bayer (“Selective Duplication and Approval Plans”) “. . . discuss[es] the various means by which titles are selected for duplication, mention[sJ some of the types of material chosen, [states] the implications of such duplication for various parts of the library, and sug- gest[s] that an approval plan is not the complete answer to easy duplication.” Hugh C. Atkinson (“Faculty Appraisal of an Established Approval Plan”) reports the results of inter- viewing “fifteen or sixteen” faculty for about one hour each in regard to their perceptions about the approval plans at Ohio State University. Concludes that “. . . in general I believe

12 G. J. ROSS1

the faculties approved of approval plans, but there is a continuing body bf scholars who ideologically and practicahy dislike such plans.” A dealer’s panel (“New Trends and Needed Improvements in Approval Services”) moderated by Hendrik Edetman includes Knut Darn (Harrassowitz), Marcel Blancheteau (Aux Amateurs de Livres), John Walsdorf (Black- well’s), Fred Gullette (Richard Abel & Co.), Arthur Brody (Bro-dart), and Harold Roth (Baker & Taylor). A transcription of the question and answer period follows. Arthur T. Humlin provides a summary of all the speakers’ remarks. Addendum I-Richard Abel & Company, Inc., Description of Services; Addendum II-Aux Amateurs de Livres, Blan- ket Order, Approval Plan; Addendum III-The Baker & Taylor Company, Collection Analysis Coordinates for University and College Library New-Book Service; Addendum IV-B. H. Blackwell, Blanket Order Book Selection Service; Addendum V-Bro-Dart, Inc., Books-Coming-Into-Print; Addendum VI -Otto Harrassowitz, Harrassowitz Approval Program; Addendum VII - Porter-Libros [Dealer specialiiing in Spanish language publications. No descriptive material on services available]; Addendum VIII-Four Continent Book Corp [Descriptive statement of services available]; Addendum IX- Worldwide Books, Inc., The Worldwide Professional Selection Standing Order Service for Foreign Art Books; Addendum X-Alexander Broude, Specimen of Blanket Order for Music Publications; Addendum XI: Swets & Zeitlinger, Blanket Order Program; Adden- dum XII - Midwest Library Service; Addendum XIII - Stechert-Hafner, Program A - Latin American Cooperative Acquisitions Program, Program B - Foreign Fiction Service, Pro- gram C-Blanket Order Programs for French Acquisition (BOPFA); Addendum XIV- Seminar Program; Addendum XV-About the Speakers and Panelists; Addendum XVI - Registration List.

Reviews: Rosenberg, B. LJ, 96, (May 15, 1971) 1688-1689. Schaafsma, Carol. LRTS, 15, (Fall, 1971) 557-558. Zundel, A. Ben Khemis. BDB, 18, (March, 1973) 232-238.

13. Lyle, Guy R. The Librarian Speaking: interviews with University Librarians. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1970, pp. ix, 206.

WiZliam P. Keflam, Director of University Libraries, University of Georgia, talks about Georgia’s approval plans with Richard Abel & Co. and Otto Harrassowitz (pp. 74-75). The points covered include terms of these approval plans, the screening process of materials received on approval, coverage of the plans, and the effect of approval plans on the allocation of acquisitions funds to the academic departments. Robert G. Vesper, Director of Libraries, UCLA, asserts that approval plans have been developed at the same time as the subject bibliographer programs at major research libraries (pp. 175-176). The bibliographers monitor the current materials that come on approval. This is a much faster and more efficient process than title-by-title selection and frees the bibliographer to work on retrospective collection building.

Reviews: Forth, W. D. CRL, 32, (July, 1971) 323-324, Hamlin, A. T. LJ, 95, (July, 1970) 2435. Harvard-Williams, P. LAS, 73, (July, 1971) 144. Marshall, J. D. JLH, 6, (April, 1971) 183-184.

14. Dudley, Norman. “The Blanket Order,” LT, 18, (January, 1970) 318327.

Reports on the answers given by 52 of the 79 member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries to a questionnaire about blanket order or approval plan practices. Forty- four libraries indicated that they used a blanket order or approval plan and that in general the advantages of such programs outweighed the disadv~tages. The author stresses


that libraries must monitor carefully the dealers’ selections and that approval plans should not be allowed to become the sole means of acquiring library materials.

15. Fristoe, Ashby J. and Myers, Rose E. “Acquisitions in 1969.” LRTS, 14(2), (Spring, 1970) 165-173.

The section “Blanket Orders and Approvals Plans” (pp. 168-169) refers to the First Inter- national Seminar on Approval and Gathering Plans in Large and Medium-Size Libraries at which “. . . the consensus . . . was that approval plans are successful, should be as inclu- sive as possible, should be used only by libraries having ample budgets, and are generally favorably received by faculty members.” In a Summer 1969 LRTS article Norman Stevens cautioned against “. . . technicians concerned more with how to buy material cheaply and catalog it quickly than with the value and usefulness of the material.” The opinion is reflected elsewhere at this time in the literature in the view held by some that approval plans are anti-intellectual because they bring in material that hasn’t been pre-selected by a faculty member who knows the good and bad literature in his discipline, or by a subject spe- cialist librarian who can fill in gaps in current collecting and retrospectively.

16. Wedgeworth, Robert. “Foreign Blanket Orders: Precedent and Practice,” LRTS, 14(2), (Spring, 1970) 258-268.

The results of a survey of foreign book dealers that offer blanket order programs to U.S. libraries are reported. A brief history of foreign acquisitions to the U.S. under the Far- mington Plan and the Library of Congress’ National Program for Acquisitions and Cataloging is included. Wedgeworth concludes that “blanket orders appear to be decep- tive in their complexity . . . clearly, a rational approach to the various methods for achiev- ing acquisitions goals is imperative. Until further research regarding blanket orders is made available we can do no more than make educated guesses as to the relative merit of the blanket order method.” Included is a list of the foreign book dealers that participated in the study.

17. Rouse, Roscoe. “Automation Stops Here: a Case for Man-Made Book Collections,” CRL, 31, (May 1970) 147-154. [This paper was also read at and appears in the proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Approval and Gathering Plans in Large and Medium-Size Academic Libraries, October 3 1, 1969.1

Reports on the Oklahoma State University Library’s four-month unsuccessful experience with an approval plan. From the beginning the plan did not bring in the types of materials expected by the library but did bring in many unwanted items which at one point required the return of fifty percent of approval materials. The system of librarian and faculty title-by-title selection was successful because the librarians working in public service areas knew what the faculty and students needed and selected accordingly. Rouse states that “a complex operation can be automated if it is consistent and standardized. Book selection is neither.”

18. “Letters [to the Editor of College & Research Libraries in response to Roscoe Rouse’s article ‘Automation Stops Here’,” CRL, 31, (May, 1970) 147-1541. CRL, 31, (Septem- ber, 1970) 341-348.

14 G. J. ROSS1

E. M. Grieder, Associate Director, Stanford University Libraries, outlines Stanford’s approval and blanket order plans which numbered seventeen. He also describes how the library curators and other selection personnel work with these plans to assure correct coverage. Harriet Rebuldela, Head, Bibliographic Department, University of Colorado Libraries, states that “[PIart of the onus for the failure of the program expressed by Mr. Rouse should not be put on the dealer.” She argues that “[flour months is not enough time to test any approval program,” and that a close working relationship must be built up with an approval dealer in order to solve problems that may arise. Jasper G. &had, Associate College Librarian, San Fernando State College, Northridge, Ca., sums up his arguments in favor of approval plans by stating that “the real point that Mr. Rouse missed is that no single source will satisfy the current needs of an academic library.” A. F. Schnaitter, USOE Doc- toral Fellow, Indiana University Graduate Library School, suggests a solution to the problem of establishing a correct bibliographic entry for approval materials by filing proof slips by LCCN and incoming books could then be matched with the correct proof slip. Mr. Rouse responds very briefly to each of the writers.

19. Meyer, Betty J. and Demos, John T. “Acquisition Policy for University Libraries: Selec- tion or Collection,” LRTS, 14, (Summer, 1970) 395-399.

Discusses the approval programs at the Ohio State University. Suggests that the distinction between selection and collection “. . . often blurs as book budgets become large enough to satisfy most needs,” and that in such a case an approval plan is the most effective means to acquire current imprints by allowing bibliographers to concentrate on retrospective buying. The selection aspect does remain part of the approval program and aims to encourage classroom faculty to participate in the review process for approval receipts.

20. Wilden-Hart, Marion. “The Long-Term Effects of Approval Plans,” LRTS, 14(3), (Sum- mer 1970) 400-406.

Reviews the types of approval plans that are generally available to libraries and poses questions related to the effectiveness of these plans. Argues that approval plans allow bibliographers to direct their time to purchasing other than the “core” materials that approval plans bring in. Suggests that if libraries would agree to cooperative acquisitions programs and if jobbers would keep computer records of the subject profiles of libraries of various types across the country, then “approval plans [could] lead to the development of the total resources of the country. . . .”

21. Evans, G. Edward. “Book Selection and Book Collection Usage in Academic Libraries,” LQ, 40(3), (July, 1970) 297-308. [Based upon the author’s doctoral dissertation “The Influence of Book Selection Agents Upon Book Collection Usage in Academic Librar- ies,” University of Illinois, 1969.1

“This article summarizes the results of a study undertaken to determine what differences, if any, exist in the use of books selected by different methods (librarian, faculty, blanket- order approval plans) in academic libraries.” The study concludes that “[tlhere is a statistically significant difference in the pattern of use of current imprint English-language monographs that is associated with different methods of acquisition.” The method that produced the greatest use was librarian selection, followed by faculty selection in second place, and approval plan selection in last place.


22. Taggart, W. R. “Blanket Ordering-a Positive Approach,” CLJ, 27(4), (July/August, 1970) 286-289.

The author begins by mentio~ng the disfavor into which blanket or approval plans were falling in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, especially as evidenced at the Second Interna- tional Seminar on Approval and Gathering Plans in Academic Libraries held in Kalama- zoo, Michigan, October 31, 1969. It is emphasized that care must be taken in setting up an approval or blanket plan and that library bibliographers must be involved, as well as the faculty, in this process. Taggart states that up to a 10% return rate is “within the bounds of respectability, and a return ratio as low as 3 to 4 percent is approac~~ the opti- mum . . .” but “it is in the best interest of participating libraries to strive for a return fig- ure not greater than about 4 percent.” It is argued that the approval or blanket plan must be monitored carefully and if it is, it will result in economy and efficiency for the library.

23. Steele, Colin. “Blanket Orders and the Bibliographer in the Large Research Library,” JL, 2(4), (October, 1970) 272-280.

“ . . . [Dlescribefs] the predominantly American practices of blanket orders and area/ subject bibliographers and . . . how they have affected the structure and nature of acquisitions in the large research library.” Bibliographers are often responsible for setting up blanket or approval programs, particularly those whose responsibilities are by area rather than by subject. The example of the University of California at Los Angeles is used to dem- onstrate that the 11 bibliographers are divided by area specialities such as African, Ger- manic, Hebraica and Judaica, and so on, and that they are responsible for monitoring the blanket or approval programs in addition to buying retrospectively and acquiring some of the more difficult to obtain current material.

24. Melcher, Daniel. Mefcher on ~c~~~~~o~. Chicago: American Library Association, 1971, pp. viii, 169.

The chapter titled “Approval and Gathering Plans” (pp. 109-l 16) outlines in a general way the operation of these methods of acquiring books for libraries. The distinction is made between approval plans, in which there occurs selection on the part of the library with the possibility of returning unwanted books, and gathering plans, which attempt to acquire every item on a particular subject or list of subjects. Melcher argues that the greatest benefit has been for libraries because approval plan suppliers have “risen to their new responsibilities” to supply accurately and quickly the books that libraries desire. In turn, “the library staff comes ultimately to respect the supplier’s judgment as highly as its own. . . .”

Reviews: Cotton, G. B. LR, 23, (Spring, 1972), 196-197. Fanie, L. ALJ, 21, (March, 1972), 78. Hansen, C. B. S_L, 21, (Winter, 1972), 65. Rimber, R. T. fD, 28, (March, 1972), 86-87. Miller, R. C. LQ, 41, (October, 1971), 332-333. Sullivan, H. A. CRL, 33, (March, 1972), 154-155. Zundel, A. Ben Khemis. BDB, 16, (November, 1971), 955-956.

25. Roth, Dana L. “Comments on ‘Book Selection and Book Circulation Usage in Academic Libraries’ [entry 211,” LQ, 41(2), (April, 1971), 195.

Points out the diffic~ty of comparing the effectiveness of different book selection methods by the 2 test because “. . . a theoretical frequency cannot be derived for book circulation as it can for coin tossing, throws of a die, etc. . . .” As a result of this problem, support may be given “. . . to the contrary conclusion, namely, that book selection agents

16 G. J. ROSS1

[i.e. approval plan vendors] are as effective, within statistically insignificant limits, as either faculty or librarians.”

26. Fristoe, Ashby .I. and Myers, Rose E. “Acquisitions in 1970,” LRTS, 15(2), (Sp~ng, 1971), 132-142.

The section “Approval Plans and Blanket Orders” contains a review of the approval plan literature of 1970. That which caused the most controversy was Roscoe Rouse’s article that appeared in the May 1970 issue of College & Research Libraries, Rouse argued from basically the same standpoint that Norman Stevens did in his 1969 article that automaton or technical skills in acquiring library materials, which form the basis for approval plan techniques, are at odds with the intellectual process of traditional book selection methods.

27. Axford, H. William. “The Economics of a Domestic Approval Plan,” CRL, 32, (Sep- tember, 1971), 368-375. [Paper was originally delivered at the Third International Semi- nar on Approval and Gathering Plans in Large and Medium-Size Libraries, February 17-19, 1971, West Palm Beach, Florida.]

Reports the results of “. . . a study of the efficiency and effectiveness of domestic blanket approval plans as compared with traditional acquisitions procedures based upon a unit cost study carried out at four libraries in the state university system at Florida [during 1968-19691” and concludes “[tlhe study . . . clearly demonstrates its [i.e. the approval plan’s] efficiency and effectiveness.”

28. Spyers-Duran, Peter and Gore, Daniel, eds. Economics of Approval Plans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972, pp. x, 134.

Contains the proceedings of the Third Internation~ Seminar on Approval and Gather- ing Plans in Large and Medium-Size Academic Libraries that was held at West Palm Beach, Florida, February 17-19, 1971. “The papers published here constitute, by and large, original research in this area. The importance of these contributions can hardly be over-estimated, since they will no doubt mold and influence collection development practices in the current imprint area” (Preface). For an annotation of H. William Axford’s article, “Economics of Approval Plans,” see entry 27. It was origin~ly delivered at this Seminar and later appeared in College & Research Libraries with the title “The Economics of a Domestic Approval Plan.” Daniel Gore (“Adopting an Approval Plan for a College Library: the Macalester College Experience”) relates the process by which the faculty were induced to accept a “profile plan” which involved the receipt of notification slips from the jobber based upon a comprehensive profile of the library’s acquisitions needs. David 0. Lane (“Total Effect of Approval Plans on the Nation’s Academic Libraries”‘) reports the results of a survey of 77 academic library members of the Association of Research Libraries conducted in the spring of 1970 to which 59 (76.6%) responded. The major aim of the survey was to determine whether “. . . the major academic research libraries of North America, by utilizing the services of a small number of jobbers and dealers, are building book collections that are too similar in both strengths and weaknesses.” The results of the survey revealed that, of the 54 libraries that answered a question posed to elicit opinion on the above hypothesis, I1 agreed, two had no comment and 41 disagreed. Among the reasons that Mark M. Gormley (“Why Approval Plans Fail”) offers for the failure of approval plans are ill-prepared staff, back-logs of books received on approval awaiting cataloging, no one


person responsible for mediating disagreements among librarians or faculty over acceptance or rejection of titles, an inadequate profile, and failure to decide how to handle standing orders. LeMoyne W. Anderson (“Internal Systems for Handling Approval Plans: a Case Study”) reports the results of a case study conducted at Colorado State University. “The purpose of this study was to gather and examine data on the relationships between the various components of an internal system for handling approval materials and the effectiveness of the operation.” A step-by-step description of the handling of approval plan books from arrival in the library up to the point of sending those titles selected to the catalog department is included. Statistics on titles retained and rejected, on titles for which LC copy was found each month for six months after receipt of an item, and on a cost study of the searching phase of processing are provided. Harriet K. Rebuldela (“Review of Approval Plan Methods”) describes “. . . three major plans that offer broad coverage of domestic English-language titles of interest to academic libraries. They are Baker and Taylor’s Uni- versity and College New Books Service, Bro-Dart’s Books Coming Into Print Program, and Richard Abel’s Approval Plan.” Discussion is focused on coverage, cataloging services, con- tinuation orders, lag time, and prebound paperbacks. Midwest Library Service’s College and University Library New Books Selection and Catalog Card Service through which the library receives proof slips in the categories specified by the library are described. Also discussed are “. . . some of the factors that must be considered in the selection of a plan.” Knut Dorn (“European Discounts”) describes the situation in the Federal Republic of Ger- many in regard to the legal fixed retail price and the discounts granted to bookdealers by German publishers. The pricing and service policies of Harrassowitz’s approval plans are discussed. An edited transcription of a dealer’s panel moderated by Hugh C. Atkinson includes remarks by Dean Spain (Baker & Taylor), Jack Walsdorf (Blackwell’s), Knut Dorn (Harrassowitz), Tom Martin (Richard Abel Co.), Nelson Bennion (Bro-Dart), Douglas McCIeary and Alexander Broude (Alexander Broude), and Ralph Lessing (Stechert- Hafner). Richard E. Chapin provides a summary statement. Appendix 1 -The Program; Appendix 2-The Participants [in the Seminar].

Reviews: Kosa, G. A. ALJ, 22, (May, 1973), 169. McCullough, K. LQ, 43, (July, 1973), 265-266. Paulus, D. L. LRTS, 17, (September, 1973), 257-258. Rosenberg, B. L{, 98, (March 1, 1973), 718. Rouse, R. CRL, 34, (September, 1973), 284. Taggart, W. R. CLJ, 30, (January, 1973), 72+.

29. DeVolder, Arthur. Approval Plans: a Survey. 1972. [15 P.] [ERIC ED 072 8101.

The results of a survey of 24 responding academic libraries out of 31 to a questionnaire concerning experiences with approval plans. These libraries were located in the Midwest, Southwest, and Mountain states. As a result of the information obtained, the author’s library at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, began an approval plan and after seven months operation it appeared to be successful.

30. Raney, Leon. “An Investigation into the Adaptability of a Domestic Approval Plan to the Existing Pattern of Book Selection in a Medium-size Academic Library.” Doctoral dissertation, Graduate Library School, Indiana University, 1972. [xii, 355 P.]

Reports on the results of a study that sought to prove for or against the following hypothesis. “It is possible to program one of the leading approval plans in such a way that it would automatically supply within specific categories a high percentage of titles acquired through conventional selection techniques utilized in a medium-size academic library, and

18 G. J. ROSS

at the same time, screen out a high percentage of those titles which are not purchased at the library.” The study was limited to current U.S. and Canadian imprint as well as Oxford and Cambridge University Presses in the following subjects: business, music, political science, history, life sciences (including general biology, botany, zoology, and ecology), economics, English and American literature, mathematics, and education. The Richard Abel Co. was the cooperating vendor in the study in which the participating library’s profile was the basis for producing a simulated selection of approval materials. Chapter II offers an “ Historical Background of Library Approval Plans.” Among the conclusions of the stud; were: “[(l)] . . . that the approval system took essentially the same action as the library (either positive or negative) on 82 percent of the 4,559 titles treated, . . . [and that] slightly more than 82 percent of the test titles acquired at the library were pre-selected by the approval system based on the profile developed in the study, . . . [(Z)] . . . that a high percentage of titles pre-selected by the approval system would have been judged appropriate by faculty members and/or librarians, . . . [(3)] . . . that the rate of agreement between approval plan pre-selections and actual selections , I) . could be expected to vary consid- erably from one discipline to another, . . . [(4)] . . . that the [approval] system would have covered approximately 93 percent of the 1971 imprint titles acquired through conventional selection and acquisitions procedures, . . . [(S)] . , . that the time lag in acquiring new domestic publications could be reduced substantially, . . . and [(6)] . . . that the approval system would have provided a greater bibliographic base from which to make selections than was available to faculty members and librarians at the time.”

31. DeVolder, Arthur L. “Approval Plans-Bounty or Bedlam?” PW, 202(l), (July 3, 1972) 18-20.

Reviews briefly the history of the approval plan concept that is traced back to the 1930’s with E. M. McClelland of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. Other forerunners of the present day approval plan were the programs set up by Leta A. Adams at the Cleveland Public Library in the 1930’s, the Book on Trial program developed by William B. Ready of the Marquette University Library in 1957, and beginning in 1961, the plans created by the Richard Abel Company. Discusses the experiences of the Zimmerman Library at the University of New Mexico with approval plans with the Richard Abel Company [cf. entry 291. After initial opposition from some segments of the faculty, academic departments “became intrigued” by the idea and agreed to take part in the plan. Initial difficulties were: (I) the receipt of duplicate serials, (2) the uncertainty of when to expect an approval book to be received caused some titles to be firm ordered and were received before the approval book eventually arrived, and (3) the fact that interdisciplina~ subjects were rejected by the academic departments not wanting to have them charged to their accounts. The plan was discontinued and reworked by allocating $100,000 for current domestic books, $155,000 for serials, $20,000 for standing orders, $15,000 for contingencies, and $45,000 for departmental use for retrospective purchases. The Abel Co. was again chosen as the vendor. In this second plan the responsibility for selection was to reside with the library bibliographers, subject librarians, and any interested faculty member. At the time of writing, the second plan had just been instituted so that no conclusions could be reached as to its success or failure.

32. DeVolder, Arthur L. “Why Continue an Approval Plan?” MPLQ, 17, (Summer, 1972), 1 l-16.


Reviews the issue of approval plans by stating that “. . . this paper is presented to alert all interested faculty in the new trends in academic libraries that will have some effect on library collections.” Reports on the experiences with approval plans at the Zimmerman Library of the University of New Mexico.

33. McCullough, Kathleen. “Approval Plans: Vendor Responsibility and Library Research: a Literature Survey and Discussion,” CRL, 33(5), (September, 1972), 368-381.

Contains a brief history of mostly domestic approval plans, discusses vendor performance and the problems with approval plans, and suggests areas for further study. The areas for further study are: (1) the relationship of approval plans to the on-going acquisitions program, (2) in-library costs for books not received and the costs of monitoring the program, (3) the total cost of the approval program and the cost by subject, (4) the role of the computer in reducing complicated technical details of an approval program, (5) a comparison of the efficiency of the vendor’s announcement media, and (6) selection of materials.

34. Dobbyn, Margaret. “Approval Plan Purchasing in Perspective,” CJ?L, 33(6), (Novem- ber , 1972), 480-484.

Argues that approval plans are costly and result in acquiring many materials that prove to be unnecessary. The greater reliance upon approval plans is seen as the result of the expansion of colleges and universities during a period of affluence. Little regard can be given to the information needs or values of these institutions through a program of approval plan purchasing. Dobbyn argues that not all libraries need comprehensive coverage and that “the university community has available to it on request through interlibrary loan facilities much more than is presently in the individual library locally.”

35. Gamble, Lynne. “Blanket Ordering and the University of Texas at Austin Library,” TLJ, 48, (November, 1972), 230-232.

In an attempt to catch up on purchases of current publications the University of Texas instituted two blanket order plans. The first was a domestic plan with Baker & Taylor that was publisher-based. The second was for foreign materials based upon subjects that were desired. These programs included the cooperation of the library’s bibliographers who checked the content of the receipts, assigned library locations, and examined the marked bibliographies sent by some of the foreign dealers. The results were generally positive. Several qualifications are mentioned: (1) blanket ordering (even when based on predetermined parameters) is likely to bring in “fringe items,” (2) dealer limitations should be kept in mind, (3) and “. . . [it] takes almost six months for a blanket order program to become fully operative. . , .”

36. McCullough, Kathleen. Evaluation of an Approval Plan: Vendor and Publisher Perfor- mance. [Prepared for presentation at the American Library Association Midwinter Meet- ing, Chicago, January 1974.) [14 e.] [ERIC ED 088 4611.

“A study was done at the Purdue University Libraries to identify publishers of interest to Purdue, to characterize the subject areas by type of publisher after library selection, and to evaluate the performance of commercial and university presses. The majority of the doc- ument consists of tabular compilations of the data collected in the study. The first table

20 G. .I. ROSS1

ranks 184 publishers who furnished Purdue with four or more books in a six-month period according to the total number of books received (categorized as approval plan books, books ordered by departments, and additional copies of approval plan books ordered). Table II shows the subject areas of the books catalogued during a six-month period which were received from either commercial or university publishers. Tables III and IV compare the totals of books received with the claims made, the claimed books received and the claim- ing time for commercial and university publishers.“- JG.

37. Evans, G. Edward and Argyres, Claudia White. “Approval Plans and Collection Devel- opment in Academic Libraries,” LRTS, 18(l), (Winter, 1974), 35-50.

Follows up on the study by Evans (entry 21), this time in “five other academic libraries, three college and two university . . .” and “. . . tends to support the findings of the first study,” [i.e. entry 211. In addition, “. . . [t]he statistical analysis by discipline also tends to support the confining of approval plans to non-scientific fields . . .” because “. , . the approval plan was consistently the least successful of the three methods of selection,” [i.e. librarian, faculty, or approval selection]. And finally “. . . [alpproval plans, even when carefully monitored, do bring in more nonused material than do other methods of acquisition.”

38. Bruer, J. Michael. “Acquisitions in 1973,” LRTS, H(3), (Summer, 1974), 239-247.

Approval plans are mentioned in the context of a new emphasis on collection development as a result of the cuts in federal funding for libraries. Approval plans must be reevalu- ated in the context of reduced funding.

39. McCullough, Kathleen. Approval Plans and Departmental Fair Share. 1975 [31 0.1 [ERIC ED 111 3401.

“Some university academic departments contend that they do not receive a fair share of approval-plan books. The study attempts to measure the proportion of books for each departmental subject in general publishing and to compare those ratios to their proportion in approval plan receipts. It also sought to determine whether, and to what extent, book receipts that are low in some areas are also proportionately higher in cost. The study compares both books and costs for 47 Purdue academic departments in three ways: (1) general publishing (Publishers Weekly figures), (2) publishing after selection for academic level (Baker and Taylor data), and (3) specific approval-plan receipts (Purdue). Results indicate that approval-plan selection closely follows proportions in general publishing and that some departments with small shares of books may require disproportionately larger shares of the book budget.“-Author/JY.

40. Moline, Gloria. An Evaluation of Approval Plan Performance: the Acquisition of Titles in Political Science. San Jose, CA: Department of Librarianship, San Jose State Univer- sity, 1975. [v, 110 P.] (Studies in Librarianship, No. 1).

Reports the results of a study undertaken to test “the hypothesis that approval plans supply all current titles expected by the academic library in the area of political science and related subjects.” The study was not designed to analyze the performance of specific jobbers, “instead it measured the combined effectiveness of all pertinent plans in effect at the library.” The vendors involved in the study were Richard Abel & Co., Abrams Inc., Baker


& Taylor Co., Bro-Dart-Stacey, Collier Macmill~, Prentice-Hall, and Scarecrow Press. Titles used in the sample were books: (1) with imprints of 1971 and 1972, published in the U.S. but some Canadian and British academic presses that distributed in the U.S. were included; (2) at the college level; (3) in English, (4) that were not textbooks or reprints; and (5) priced at under $50.00. The study sample was based upon Library of Congress proof slips received by the San Jose State University Library during 1972. Of the approximately 5000 proof slips representing books in political science and related areas, 907 were chosen to fit the approval plan profiles. The results were that 61.4% of these titles were actually received on approval. A breakdown by type of publisher revealed “. . . that 53.4 percent of expected trade publications were supplied, while 86.2 percent of expected academic press publications were provided.” The hypothesis was rejected and “. . . the study concluded that monitoring of approval plan performance on an ongoing basis is essential to accurate evaluation and improved service.”

41. Bruer, J. Michael. “Resources in 1974,” LRTS, 19(3), (Summer, 1975), 226-241.

Although there is no individual section devoted to approval plans in the portion titled “Selection and Acquisitions” (pp. 230-231), the article by Evans and Argyres [cf. entry 361 is reviewed and criticized because “. . . the authors offer no general recommendations regarding the desirability of utilizing approval plans, and the basis of their conclusions rests on the question of whether or not a title is used-a factor of relatively minor impact in the case of academic libraries . . .” Again the subject of collection development is brought up in the context of a new emphasis on resource allocation and access to and sharing of collections among libraries due to budget decreases. The part that approval plans might play in this new environment is not altogether clear since one is not sure “_ . . whether an approval plan is a means of selection, a method of acquisition, an approach to collection development, or even whether it is all or none of the above.”

42. DeVilbiss, Mary Lee. “The Approval-Built Collection in the Medium-Sized Academic Library,” CR.& 36(6), (November, 1975), 487-492.

Reports on a year-long study that compared the results of an approval-built collection with that of a collection built in the traditional manner using faculty and librarian selections. The study was based upon 1974 imprints in biological sciences, economics, agriculture, and literature, and involved two approval vendors. Vendor 1 supplied books in biological sciences and economics and vendor 2 supplied agriculture and literature books. Problems were encountered with vendor 2 so that this part of the study was cancelled during the study period. Based upon the results of titles supplied by vendor 1 the conclusions reached were: (1) “. , . that there are significant differences between the collection which will result from approval buying and the collection which will result from traditional select and order procedures, given current vendor service,” but that (2) “. . . approval buying could, given adequate vendor service, bring in a considerable amount of needed material nearly automatically.”

43. Maddox, Jane. “On My Mind . . . Approval Plans - Viable?” JAL, l(6), (January, f976), 22.

Published about one year after the demise of the Richard Abel Co., the author specu- lates as to the dearth of new ideas in regard to approval plans. Among questions she would

22 G. J. ROSS1

like to have answered in relation to approval plans in general are: (1) What materials will be coming on the approval plan? (2) Will this title be coming “‘on approval’?” and, (3) How much should I pay for an approval plan? Advocates discussion within the profession on these and other questions “. . . [i]f the approval plan is to remain a viable selection and acquisition tool.”

44. McCullough, Kathleen; Posey, Edwin D. and Pickett, Doyle C. Approval Plans and Aca- demic Libraries: an Interpretive Survey. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1977. [x, 154 p.].

This volume reports on a comprehensive survey designed and undertaken by three indi- viduals, each of whom was involved with and viewed approval plans from a different perspective. McCullough’s perspective was that of an acquisitions librarian, Posey’s was that of a selection librarian, and Pickett’s was that of an approval plan vendor (Baker & Tay- lor Co.). One-hundred forty-four questionnaires were sent in October 1975 to a group com- posed of ARL members that were affiliated with universities and colleges, non-ARL institutions that had schools of engineering, and selected four-year institutions that were non-ARL members. One-hundred one questionnaires (70.1%) were returned and of those responding 80 (79.2%) had or had had experience with approval plans. The questionnaire is reprinted with page references to the response tallies and discussion of each question. Comments related to individual questions and those of a general nature are reproduced in full. Each of the survey designers sums up his reactions to the responses and to approval plans in general in individual articles. A bibliography on approval plans covering the 1950’s through 1975 completes the volume.

Reviews: Axford, H. W. LQ, 48, (July, 1978), 344-345. Evans, G. E. JAL, 4, (July, 1978), 164-165. Knight, V. E. LR, 27, (Summer, 1978), 105. Landenberger, P. SR, 3, (October, 1977), 47. MacKenzie, A. G. JD, 34, (June, 1978), 173-174. Rosenberg, B. LJ, 103, (March 15, 1978), 625. Spyers-Duran, P. CRL, 38, (November, 1977), 548-549. Tag- gart, W. R. CLJ, 35, (June, 1978), 233.

45. Carpentier, Louise, “Plans Globaux d’Approvisionnement,” [“Gathering Plans”], In: Choix et Acquisition des Documents au Quebec, v. 1, Principes et Applications, pp. 183-196. [Choice and Acquisition of Materials in Quebec, v. 1, Principles and Applica- tions]. Montreal: Association pour 1’Avancement des Sciences et des Techniques de la Documentation, 1977.

Defines the various terms used to describe approval or blanket order plans, describes the type of planning needed in order to implement an approval program, how to choose a vendor, and the advantages and disadvantages of an approval plan. Provides a selective list of both European and North American approval vendors.

46. “Exemples de Contrats de Commandes Globales d’Approvisionnement, [Examples of Order Contracts for Gathering Plans”], In: Chock et Acquisition des Documents au Que- bet, v. 1, Principes et Applications, pp. 265-279. Montreal: Association Pour PAvance- ment des Sciences et des Techniques de la Documentation, 1977.

This is Appendix III of entry 45, and contains rather detailed extracts of two approval plan contracts involving two English-speaking Canadian university libraries and one vendor. These contracts show the type of subject, form and other qualifiers that might be used


in developing a profile. On/y theflrsf three paragraph that introduce the extracts are in French, the rest is in ~~g~is~.

47. Myrick, William J., Jr. “The Use of Approval Plans by Large Academic Libraries in Times of Fiscal Stringency: a Brief Report,” LAPT, l(2), (April, 1977), 83-87.

Based upon a [1977?] questionnaire sent to each of the academic library members of the Association of Research Libraries concerning use of approval plans as an acquisitions device. The results indicated “, . . that participation in automatic purchase plans has not significantly decreased as a result of budgetary reversals. On the contrary, it would seem that many libraries have discovered that the plans perform a function in times of financial difficulty as they do in times of economic affluence.”

48. Schenck, William A. “Acquiring Library Materials as Efficiently, Inexpensively, and Quickly as Possible: Exploring the Possibilities Within ‘The Impossible Dream’,” LAPT, l(3), (1977), 193-199.

Reviews the history of the approval, blanket, and gathering plan concepts and enumer- ates the advantages and disadvantages of such acquisitions programs. Suggests three additional techniques for collection development: (1) an arrangement with a local bookstore to provide materials on a greater scale than has generally been practiced, (2) “. . . an arrangement with a more specialized store that deals in selling review copies at a substan- tial discount . . .” and (3) “. _ . an arrangement with a specialty dealer capable of supplying titles of a limited and well defined nature to the library.”

49. Grieder, Theodore. Acquisitions: Where, What and How. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978 [x, 227 p.].

This volume is a very practical manual of all aspects of the acquisitions process in college and university libraries. Chapter 6, “How to Construct Approval Plans,” describes in great detail how to set up and profile an approval plan with specific examples for music and German language that include sample contracts and letters. Also included is information on how to process and keep accounts, again providing tables that illustrate the procedures.

Reviews: Biddiscombe, R. LR, 28, (Summer, 1979), 107. Coleman, J. OLAB, 49, (April, 1979), 28-30. East, M. LJ, 103, (1929). Goldwater, W. ABBE’, 63, (May 14, 1979), 3666. Kandiah, J. AARL, 10, (March, 1979), 65. Lowry, G. R. SEL, 28, (Fall, 1978), 189-190. Roberts, N. LAR, 81, (March, 1979), 137. Stanley, W. JAL, 4, (January, 1979), 455-456. Tuttle, H. W. LQ, 49, (April, 1979), 211-213. Weaver, J. E. CRL, 39, (September, 1978), 418419.

50. Grant, Joan and Perelmuter, Susan. “Vendor Performance Evaluation,” JAL, 4(5), (November, 1978), 366-367.

The University of Louisville Library conducted a study from August through Novem- ber 1977 of the approval plan performance of Ballen Booksellers International, Baker & Taylor Co., and Blackwell/North America. The three areas that were studied were: (1) speed of delivery, (2) bibliographic accuracy of slips, and (3) discount. Ballen had been sup plying university press books on approval. For the period of the study Baker & Taylor and Blackwetl agreed to send slips for all university press books that they supplied to their

24 G. J. ROSS1

approval customers. Ballen provided the fastest service initially- 198 of the 253 titles provided by all three vendors were supplied before the other two vendors-and continued to supply first through the first month. At 45 days there was little difference among the three. Bibliographic accuracy of slips was determined by checking against OCLC. Baker & Taylor and Blackwell provided slips with the greatest accuracy. The greatest cause for inaccuracy was in the author statement where main entry was incorrectly assigned under author rather than under title. In regard to discount, Baker & Taylor and Ballen allowed a flat-rate discount of 13% and 10% respectively, and neither company charged for shipping. Blackwell’s discount was variable (8-10% for university press books) but could be negotiated for individual customers if requested. A 3% charge of the invoice total for shipping was added.

5 1. Hulbert, Linda Ann and Curry, David Stewart. “Evaluation of an Approval Plan,” CRL, 39(6), (November, 1978), 485-491.

Describes a study that took place at the University of Iowa Health Sciences Library to determine the effectiveness of an approval plan as opposed to selection from journals, publishers’ fliers, and other methods to acquire books. As a result of the study, the library was able to remove 17 out of 32 journals from a list that had been read by the librarians to select books. It is concluded that “. . . the number of books received through the approval plan was more than twice the number received due to book reviews and publishers’ fliers, and the total staff effort was less for the former activity than for the latter.” [There is a letter to the editor in CRL, 40, (September, 1979), 461, by Linda Hulbert in which she outlines a subsequent study undertaken in 1978 at the State University of New York, Upstate Medical Center Library, Syracuse.]

52. Cargill, Jennifer S.; Alley, Brian. Practical Approval Plan Management. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1979. [vii, 95 p.].

This book “. . . has been written primarily to assist those academic librarians who are directly involved in planning, designing, and operating approval plans.” Practical considerations that go along with the routine operation of an approval plan are explored. Chap- ter headings are indicative of the contents: (1) Considerations of the Approval Plan Concept, (2) Public Relations, (3) Collection Development, (4) the Vendor, (5) Bids and Contracts, (6) Profiling, (7) Processing, (8) Fiscal Management, and (9) Problem Solving. A selected bibliography and index complete the volume.

Reviews: Franks, M. M. LAPT, 4(3-4), (1980), 274-275. Law, D. G. LR, 29, (Winter, 1980), 292. Rebuldela, H. K. JAL, 7, (March, 1981), 37. Schenck, W. CRL, 41, (Septem- ber, 1980), 469.

53. Curley, Arthur and Broderick, Dorothy. Building Library Collections, 6th ed. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1985.

The section “Blanket Orders and Approval Plans” (pp. 49-50) distinguishes between the terms gathering plan, blanket order, standing order, and approval plan and provides a brief historical sketch of their use in American libraries over the last 20 years. Describes also some advantages and disadvantages of blanket order and approval plans. The Farming- ton Plan and the National Program for Acquisitions and Cataloging as early examples of blanket or gathering plans are discussed on pages 174-177. The section “Approval Plans and Blanket Order Plans” (pp. 273-276) focuses on the important role that a well-developed profile plays. Bibliographies may be found on pages 80-81 and page 292.


54. Posey, Edwin D. and McCullough, Kathleen. “Approval Plans One Year Later: the Pur- due Experience with Separate School Plans,” In: Association of College and Research Libraries. New Horizons For Academic Libraries: Papers Presented at the First National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, (Boston, November 8- 11, 1978), pp. 483-489. New York: K. G. Sauer, 1979.

Reports the results of an arrangement of decentralized approval plans at Purdue LJni- versity. At the time of writing, approval plans for the following schools or departments had been in operation for approximately one year: the School of Humanities, Social Science, and Education (excluding education, and psychological sciences); the Schools of Engineering; the Departments of Biological Sciences and Mathematical Sciences in the School of Sciences; and the School of Veterinary Medicine. The reasons that librarians gave to support their decisions to participate or not in a decentralized approval program were the same as indicated elsewhere in the literature. One of the main reasons that the decentralized programs were adopted at Purdue was to attempt to solve the problem of assign- ment to a particular library of the one approval book copy. However, under a decentralized program the school and departmental libraries were apt to build strong and perhaps duplicate collections in their individual areas to the detriment of the main library’s collection unless there were procedures to offer books not wanted to other campus libraries. There was a correlation between funding level and the support of an approval plan: the higher the level of funding the more support there was for approval plans. This issue is one that is referred to either directly or indirectly in much of the literature on approval plans. As libraries gain more experience with approval plans and as the plans undergo refinement and become more sophisticated from the vendors’ side a minimum dollar amount necessary to commit to approval plans seems to be less compelling.

55. McDonald, David R.; Maxfield, Margaret W. and Friesner, Virginia G. F. “Sequential Analysis: A Methodology for Monitoring Approval Plans,” CRL, 40(4), (July, 1979), 329-334.

Describes a method of evaluating approval plans based not on a predetermined random sample of items but rather on the selection of randomly chosen sample items one at a time until a point is reached where a conclusion can be made about the effectiveness of the plan.

56. Spyers-Duran, Peter and Mann, Thomas, Jr., eds. Shaping Library Collections for the 1980’s. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1980. [xii, 235 p.].

Contains the proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Approval Plans and Collection Development that was held at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 29-31, 1979. Robert Vesper (“The Blanket Order: Some Historical Footnotes and Conjectures”) discusses the history of the use of blanket ordering programs in American libraries of the pre- and post-World War II era. Relates also the antecedents of the modern blanket order in terms of Thomas Jefferson’s habits of book collecting for his personal library which became the basis of the collections at the Library of Congress as well as in terms of the development of the collections at the British Museum. H. William Axford (“Approval Plans: an Historical Overview and Assessment of Future Value”) sketches the history of the American approval plan concept that began with the services of the Richard Abel Co. The development of the approval plan is seen both in the context of the rapid expansion of higher education that resulted in large amounts of new acquisitions money coming into

26 G. J. ROSS1

libraries and of the growing capacity of computers to organize and retrieve information about the library’s acquisitions needs, The decade of the 1980’s is marked by reduced budgets for library acquisitions but at the same time the national bibliographic networks (OCLC, WLN, RLIN) have made cooperative collection development a possibility based upon locally developed and fine-tuned approval plan profiles. Sharon Bonk and Mina B. LaCroix describe the increased use of approval plans at the State University of New York at Albany over the 1970’s’: The differing perspectives of the acquisitions librarian and the collection development librarian on approval plans is noted and the ways in which these have been accommodated at this institution are described. Robert C. Miller (“Approval Plans: Fifteen Years of Frustration and Fruition”) comments on approval plans based upon his more than 15 years of experience working with approval vendors at various colleges and universities and most recently at the University of Notre Dame. Gene L. Dewey (“The Wisconsin Experience”) describes the history of the use of blanket and approval plans at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Sylvia N. Schnaars (“The Bryn Mawr/Haverford Joint Approval Plan: Can Two Live as Cheaply as One?“) describes the development, operation, and advantages of a joint approval plan at Bryn Mawr and Haverford Colleges that has existed since 1972. Thomas W. Leonhardt (“An Approval Plan: How it Failed, How it Could Succeed: a Case Study of the Boise State University Library”) discusses several tries with approval plans that all failed primarily because of a lack of understanding of the library’s role in supporting the instructional mission of the University coupled with lack of knowledge on the part of the library staff and university faculty about how an approval plan might be able to further the instructional goals outlined in the mission statement. Stan- ley P. Hodge (“Duplicates, Delivery Time, and Claims: Three Related Factors in Approval Plan Effectiveness”) considers the question of speed of delivery of approval plan books. At Texas A & M University the emphasis is on science and technology so that current material is always in demand. Instead of firm ordering a requested title that one might expect to come on approval and result in duplication, a method was devised by the library and agreed to by the vendor whereby a title would be claimed on the approval plan when three or more libraries had cataloged it through OCLC. Pamela S. Cenzer (“Retrospective Buying Using an Approval Plan Database”) relates the situation at the University of Florida Librar- ies when in 1977 the Florida state legislature appropriated new funding for library collection development to compensate for past budget reductions. Describes the successful use of B/NA’s approval plan database for this retrospective collection development project. Dora Biblarz (“Special Emphasis Acquisitions Plans”) deals with the complexities of special- emphasis “automatic acquisitions plans” such as among others those for music scores, maps, art museum catalogs, and avant-garde poetry. Curt Holleman (“A Distinguished Press Approval Plan for Academic Libraries of Medium Size”) describes an approval plan scheme at Southern Methodist University that is based on the output of eleven “distinguished university presses” for libraries that may have as little as a $40,000 book budget excluding standing orders and periodicals. In “Special Collection, Small Presses, and Gath- ering Plans” Bonnie Good Buzzell and Rosemary L. Cullen “. . . discuss why gathering plans are particularly appropriate for a special collection [in this case the Harris Collec- tion of American Poetry and Plays at Brown University], while focusing on the collecting of small and fine press publications.” Edwin D. Posey (“The Approval Plan Experience of an Engineering Library”) “. . . describe[s] the integration of an approval plan into the acquisition procedures of the Purdue University Engineering Library.” Nancy J. Putnam (“The Impact of Series Publishing on the Domestic Approval Plan”) points out the increased number of monographic series over the course of the 1970’s and how this has


had the effect of undermining the approval plan. In “Publishers, Booksellers, Librarians: an Inquiry into a British-American Affair” John Kaiser states his concerns “. . . (1) that duplication of titles on British and American approval programs may be costing us all more than we know at the moment; (2) that there exists the possibility of cutting out or reducing the number of duplicates being handled by all if publishers would clearly indicate in each book the original place of publication and date, and if librarians and booksellers would work closely to define explicitly collecting profiles; and (3) that we all work toward a solution for finding the best way to purchase both British and American books, realiz- ing that both the realities of economics and of collection development and management goals must be considered.” John J. Walsdorf (“The Other Side of the Blanket: the Pub- lisher/Bookseller Relationship in British Blanket Orders”) “. . . outlines . . . [t]he bookseller’s commitment to gathering prepublication information on all new titles published and distributed in Great Britain and the sources and methods used by the bookseller to ensure comprehensive, critical, and accurate coverage of new British books . . . ” In “Approval Book Acquisition: Some Vendor Requirements and Practices” Donald G. Stave aims to describe and illustrate some of the more important elements in regard to vendor acquisition of new books, basing his comments on the operation of Blackwell/North America. Dimity S. Berkner (“Considerations in Selecting an Approval Plan”) recommends a three- step process that the library should follow in the initiation of an approval plan. Includes a nineteen-item checklist of features of an approval plan that the library might use in evaluating prospective approval plan vendors. Paul H. Masher (“Waiting for Godot: Rating Approval Service Vendors”) suggests a program of comparative evaluation of approval plan vendors that is used at Stanford University. Includes three tables: “A List of Criteria for Comparison of Approval Plan Services, ” “Common Problems and Disadvantages of Approval Plans,” and “What is Needed to Make a Plan Work?” Anna H. Perrault (“The Effect of Approval Plans on Faculty Participation in Collection Development in Academic Libraries”) concludes that “. . . approval plans should be the province of the librarians and bibliographers who are responsible for collection development. Approval plans offer the same advantages for faculty as for librarians. Communication between librarians and faculty can be increased by using notification forms and consultation on more specialized titles included in approval profiles. Approval plans offer excellent opportunities for faculty wishing to participate in that part of the collection development process.” Noreen S. Alldredge (“The Symbiotic Relationship of Approval Plans and Collection Development”) argues “ . . . that the relationship of approval plans and collection development efforts in libraries is frequently a symbiotic one in that mutual benefits accrue to each.” She “. . . focuses on five stages of this relationship . . . (1) the development of approval plan profiles help libraries to identify and delineate their collection development priorities; (2) approval plans generally have been started in response to the need for broadbased and/or core collections; (3) approval plans allow libraries to build individualized collections which accurately reflect the needs of each library; (4) approval plans enhance collection development efforts by providing a foundation for more thorough collection development; and (5) comprehensive collection development generally results in further refinement of approval plan profiles by which the symbiotic relationship continues.” Milton T. Woff (“Approval Plans: a Para- digm of Library Economics”) argues that approval plan vendors are providing services to libraries that no one library can economically continue to do for itself. C. David Emery (“Efficiency and Effectiveness: Approval Plans from a Management Perspective”) aims to test the validity of four assumptions about approval plans “. . . and to relate them to the overall program objectives of a fairly typical medium-sized academic library” [i.e. the Uni-

28 G. J. ROSS1

versity of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada]. William E. McGrath (“The Circulation Uncertainty Principle and the Cosmology of Collection Use”) aims to apply the concepts involved in “multidimensional scaling techniques” to approval plans in order to evaluate their effectiveness in a library collection development program. G&n T. Evans (“The Taxonomy of Instructional Programs (HEGIS) and Library Collection Approval Plans”) proposes the use of the HEGIS/LC tables that have been developed at the State University of New York Central Administration, of OCLC distribution tapes, and of other data in order “. . . to monitor the efficiency of the [approval] profile and assist in its fine tuning[.]” Richard E. Chapin provides a “Summary Statement” based upon the papers presented at this conference and reacts to the ideas contained in these papers in the context of his institution, Michigan State University. An index by Susan Stein completes the volume.

Reviews and reports: Ardern, L. L. LR, 32, (Autumn, 1983), 233-234. Cargill, J. S. “Report . . .” LAPT, 4(2), (1980), 109-111. Cations, B. AARL, 12, (September, 1981), 208-209. Evans, G. E. CM, 4, (Fall, 1982), 61-69. Groen, F. CLJ, 40, (February, 1983), 39. Rebuldela, H. K. JAL, 8, (September, 1982), 233. Schnaars, S. N. “Fourth Interna- tional Conference . . . ,” CRLN, 2, (February, 1980), 34. Thakore, M. LAPT, 5(3-4), (1981), 198-199.

57. Stueart, Robert D. “Mass Buying Programs in the Development Process,” In: Collection Development in Libraries, Robert D. Stueart; George B. Miller, Jr.; eds., pp. 203-217. Greenwich, Ct.: JAI Press, 1980 [2v.: xxiv, 602 p.].

Begins by stating that “[plrobably no twentieth-century trend in libraries has generated more heated discussion or debate than the concept of mass buying programs. That the idea has difficulty being accepted is reflected in library literature . . . where indexing sources such as Library Literature cross reference [from “Approval plans’~ to ‘Acquisitions - Order processes’.” and the Library of Congress [slubject [hleadings simply list the topic under ‘Acquisitions’.” Provides a brief history of the concept of blanket or approval buying that began immediately after World War II with the Cooperative Acquisitions Project for Wartime Publications (1945-1948) that was continued by the Farmington Plan for West European materials (1948-1972). Another area-specific program was the Latin American Cooperative Acquisitions Program (1960-1972). Materials from East and South Asia, Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East were procured beginning in 1952 and in 1954 the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act (PL 83-480) resulted in acquiring materials from non-Western countries with U.S. trade deficits. Other programs mentioned are LC’s National Program for Acquisitions and Cataloging, the Greenaway Plan, and Books on Trial. Discusses the development of the approval plan profile and cites the advantages and disadvantages of approval plans. Concludes that “. . . approval plans are not for every situation, and certainly they have suffered some drop in popularity, but they are desirable plans for many situations and are a trend that has had and will continue to have an impact on collection development for some time to come.”

58. Newborn, Dennis E. and Godden, Irene P. “Improving Approval Plan Performance: a Case Study,” LAPT, 4(2), (1980), 45-155.

Reports on two internal routines for handling approval plan materials at the Howard University Libraries that are referred to as Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 was in existence for one full year. It resulted in various problems in coverage of approval materials (because of an initial inadequate profile and late delivery of books) and in the receiving and account-


ing routines (because approval materials had to be manually entered into the automated acquisitions system). In Phase 2, Blackwell/North American was chosen as the new vendor and arrangements were made for Blackwell to supply tapes that were interfaced with Howard’s automats system. Savings of $1.61 in unit cost/title were obtained in Phase 2. Tables are provided that represent total cost by function; overall unit cost by function, Phase 1; and overall unit cost by function, Phase 2.

59. Car-gill, Jennifer and Alley, Brian. “Highlights From a National Approval Plan Survey,” TE, 1, (January, 1981), 3-5.

Reports the results of a questionn~re sent to 95 randomly selected academic libraries in January 1980 to which 71 libraries (75%) responded. The focus of the questionnaire was on the financial aspects of approval plans. Five unnamed vendors were represented. Topics covered in the questionnaire concerned discounts, contracts, effect of the total dollar amount of the contract on the size of the flat rate discounts, and opportunities for return of unwanted books. “Most respondents having plans agreed that they would not want to give up the savings they received in lower personnel costs, higher discounts, and reduced paperwork.”

60. Gregor, Jan and Fraser, Wendy Carol. “A University of Windsor Experience with an Approval Plan in Three Subjects and Three Vendors,” CLJ, 38(4), (August, 1981), 227-23 1.

Reports on the results of a year-long (1978-79) study of the performance of three approval plan vendors. Vendor A supplied books in political science, Vendor B in psychol- ogy, and Vendor C in economics. One set of conclusions of the study was that “. . . good vendors share the responsibility for communication . . .” and that there must be someone who takes the r~~~ibility for truncation between acq~~tio~ and collections librarians [selectors], between collections librarians and faculty, and between acquisitions librarians and vendors. A summary table is provided that outlines under ten categories the performance or policies of each of the three vendors: (1) profiling, (2) discount, (3) delivery, (4) returns, (5) publisher coverage, (6) response to changing needs, (7) stock/warehousing to support shipping, (8) communications, (9) notification slip service, and (10) procedures. Vendor B is probably Blackwell/No~h American and Vendor C is probably Raker BE Tay- lor Co.

61. Spyers-Duran, Peter. “Approval Plans, Publishers, and the Supreme Court,” TE, 1, (March, 1981), 12.

Argues that approval plans bring shared benefits to both libraries and publishers. The library using an approval method receives new books perhaps two or three years before other libraries that order on a title-by-title basis. The approval vendors represent to the scholarly book publishers a “. . . significant block of purchasing power . . .” and “. . . have made a direct impact on scholarly publishers.” Publishers are thus able to bring out more high-risk scholarly publications based upon these assured sales to approval vendors and libraries.

62. Frommeyer, L. Ronald. “Bidding an Approval Plan-One Year Later,” TSN, 8, (March 27, 1981), 8-10.

30 G. J. ROSS1

Describes the implementation of approval plans for U.S. and Canadian imprints (initially for 1980, then extended to 1981) with the Baker & Taylor Company. “. . . Baker & Taylor [was found] to be generally helpful and responsive . . .” and the approval program assisted “. . . selectors in the acquisition of current U.S. and Canadian imprints, provid[ed] more timely receipt and availability of these materials, and offer[ed] monetary savings in the acquisitions process.”

63. Approval Plans in ARL Libraries. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Librar- ies, 1982. [lo9 p.] [SPEC kit, no. 831.

Contents: SPEC Survey on approval plans. Responses. Approval plan vendors listing - Questions and criteria for evaluating vendors. Questions for approval vendors and Approval vendor evaluation form, University of Cincinnati. Approval plan vendors form, Brown University. Criteria for comparison of approval plan services, Stanford University-Analyses, studies, and statistics. Selected statistics, Brown University. Memos on Blanket order and approval plan evaluation and Performance of approval plans in supplying university press publications, Texas A & M University. Letter on Approval plan survey report, University of Texas at Austin. Report on the Blackwell North America English language approval plan, Temple University. Selected documents: Performance reports and data, University of Michigan. Report on approval plans, Michigan State University. Selected documents: Statistical summary sheets, Stanford University - General comments, descriptions of plans, guidelines. Dealer selection order system, University of Toronto. Pro- cedures for handling university press standing orders, Dartmouth College. Proposal to reduce approval order plans, University of Virginia. Faculty letters regarding blanket orders, Queens University. Letter regarding approval program, approval program, Flor- ida State University. Some considerations of approval plans, University of Miami. Approval plans and Library newsletter, University of Michigan. Response to SPEC Sur- vey and Extracts from an acquisitions policy, Northwestern University. Response to SPEC Survey, Ohio State University. Response to SPEC Survey, University of North Carolina.

Review: McClung, P. A. CM, 5(1/2), (Spring/Summer 1983), 118-123.

64. Stave, Don. “Art Books on Approval: Why Not?” LAPT, 7(l), (1983), 5-6.

This paper was delivered as part of a panel discussion held during the Art Libraries Soci- ety of North America Annual Conference in Boston, February 22, 1982. The author held the position of Approval Systems Coordinator at Blackwell/North America. Argues that an approval plan for a restricted subject such as art is not only possible but desirable. Presents evidence that if an art library had had approximately $35,000 to spend on art books during fiscal 1981 (July 1, 1980-June 30, 1981) then it could have purchased all 1235 art titles treated on B/NA’s approval plan. By restricting coverage by subject, format, publisher, or other categories an art library would be able to develop a profile to fit its budget. Advantages in having such a plan are: (1) timeliness, especially when considering that there are now smaller first printing runs as well as fewer subsequent printings so that waiting for reviews to appear may mean higher prices or the book not being available at all; (2) refinement of the library’s collecting policies; and (3) particularly for art books, being able to compare physical features such as the quality of reproductions and content against present library holdings.


65. Perrault, Anna 11. “A New Dimension in Approval Plan Service,” LAPT, 7(l), (1983), 35-40.

“Presents the results of a three-month study . , . whose object was to assess the utility of the fiche service [of an approval plan vendor] to a selector for determining the status of new publications with respect to his/her library approval program at the time of review,” [i.e. at the time the book is reviewed in the journals or other sources]. Three book review tools were used in the study: the New York Times Book Review, Library Journal, and Choice. The titles appearing in each of these sources were checked against the approval vendor’s microfiche data base (apparently B/NA but not specifically identified) to determine if the titles had been profiled for the author’s library and therefore would be expected to arrive on approval. Although the numbers varied with each of the reviewing sources, it was found that “. . . (1) [t]here is a 75% or better chance that a title will be in the database at the time the review tool is mo~tored in the library, (2) [t]here is a better than 50% chance that a title will be profiled for individual libraries at the time of the initial search ([tlhis improves to better than 80% for the second search), (3) [t]he chances of a title not in the database on the initial search being found on a subsequent search are negligible with the highest probability being 6%, [and] (4) [rlesults of the study indicate minimal risk of ordering a title not found in the original search.”

66. Reidelbach, John H. and Shirk, Gary M. “Selecting an Approval Plan Vendor: a Step- by-Step Process,” LAPT, 7(2), (1983), 115-122.

“This article . . . suggests a specific, tested procedure of evaluating and selecting an initial and/or subsequent domestic approval plan vendor for a college or university library.”

67. Reidelbach, John H. and Shirk, Gary M. “Research in Process,” LAPT, 7(2), (1983), 1213-1215.

Describes the research that was conducted regarding approval plans, vendors, and the evaluation of vendors by academic libraries. In April 1982, a 60 item questionnaire “Approval Plan Vendor Data Request” was sent to the following domestic approval plan dealers: Ambassador, Baker & Taylor, BaIlen, Blackwell/North America, Coutts, Midwest, Scholarly Book Center, and Yankee Book Peddler. The questionnaire elicited from these vendors information regarding their approval program services. This information was compiled into a go-page first draft that the vendors had an opportunity to verify and update if necessary. In September 1982, an 1 l-page, 40-item “Approval Plan Vendor Evaluation Questionnaire” was sent to 31 academic libraries in the 8-state Mount~n Plains Library Association. This questionnaire elicited information about the libraries’ experiences with the approval vendors above, and was also sent to the vendors for their review. The goal of this project was to conduct a nationwide study.

68. Sewell, Robert G. “Managing European Automatic Acquisitions,” LRTS, 27(4), (October/December, 1983), 397-405.

Points out the weaknesses of automatic acquisitions programs for European materials as described by Erwin Welsch of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They are: (1) “ . . . books are expensive and return is difficult; [(2)] they do not include non-trade materials such as government publication or those of research institutes which are precisely the ones that are difficult to obtain, [(3)] unless specified and a means of avoiding duplica-

32 G. J. ROSS1

tion with serial orders can be found, they do not include books in series; since most Euro- pean scholarly books are part of a series, this is a serious omission, [(4)] the duplication problem is becoming more severe as publishing becomes multinational and an increasing number of publishers open offices in other countries,” Sewell argues that “. . . returns are not an overwhelming problem and not unique to approval plans . . . , that European vendors . . . regularly include research institute publications on the blanket order program . . . , that there are ways of specifying serials orders to avoid duplication, and that librarians should attempt to identify . . . multinational publishers and inform the foreign vendor not to send any books from publishers that release books in the United States.” Argues that a good European approval plan should be designed based upon a precise analysis of institutional needs which may then lead to the development of an accurate and well- defined approval profile. Faculty members other than librarians should be encouraged to assist in defining the approval profile and to take part in the review of materials that are received as ways to involve them in the collection development process.

69. Lee, Sul H., ed. Issues in Acquisitions: Programs & Evaluation. Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1984 [x, 133 p.].

Contains the proceedings of a conference “Issues in Acquisitions: Programs & Evalua- tion” held on March 19-20, 1984, at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma under the sponsorship of the University of Oklahoma Libraries and the University of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc. Five of the seven papers delivered at this conference dealt with approval plans. Gary A4. Shirk (“Evaluating Approval Plan Vendor Performance: Toward a Rationale and Model”) “ . . . develops a rationale for an approval plan vendor performance evaluation model based upon observations of the special relationships between library and vendor that approval plans create . . . . A five-stage evaluation process is suggested which begins prior to vendor selection, incorporates extensive feedback, and extends to the potential termination of the approval agreement.” Stanley P. Hodge (“Evaluating the Role and Effectiveness of Approval Plans for Library Collection Development”) describes five types of approval plan evaluations that were conducted at Texas A & M Libraries: (1) an American Book Pub- lishing Record (ABPR) study, (2) an interlibrary loan study, (3) a university press publications study, (4) a conference proceedings study, (5) and a staff requirements study. Sara Ramser Beck (“Librarian-Faculty Role in Collection Development With Approval Pro- grams”) discusses the operation of a domestic approval plan with Baker & Taylor at Wash- ington University and describes the opportunities for collaboration between library bibliographers and faculty in the management of the approval plan. In “Coping With Library Needs: the Approval Vendor’s Response/Responsibility” Dana L. Afessi outlines the various responsibilities on the part of both the approval plan vendor and the library that are necessary to insure the success of an approval program. Baker & Taylor’s Gloria Frye and Marcia Romanansky (“The Approval Plan-the Core of an Academic Wholesaler’s Business”) outline the operation of an approval plan from the vendor’s perspective. A bibliography by Rodney M. Hersberger completes the volume.

Review: Schmidt, K. AL, 16, (April, 1985), 249-250.

70. Magrill, Rose Mary and Hickey, Doralyn J. Acquisitions Management and Collection Development in Libraries. Chicago: American Library Association, 1984.

Chapter Seven (“Vendor-Controlled Order Plans,” pp. 95-109) begins with definitions of the terms standing order, blanket order, approval plan, and gathering plan. An historical


sketch of the use of such programs in American libraries is presented and their strengths and weaknesses are discussed. Information is provided about choosing, establishing and administering, and evaluating an approval plan. The acquisition of foreign materials through vendor-originated plans and the early plans set up to purchase foreign materials such as the Farmington Plan are also discussed. A bibliography completes the chapter.

71. Mann, Sallie. “Approval Plans as a Method of Collection Development,” NCL, 43, (Spring, 1985), 12-14. [Partial text of a paper presented at the North Carolina Library Association, Resources and Technical Services Section mini-conference held in Whisper- ing Pines, September 1984.1

Discusses the divided opinion in the literature in regard to the efficacy of approval plans and asserts that plans “. . . with carefully constructed profiles, limited and and [sic] closely defined, can serve as a viable method of collection development if they are constantly monitored to assure that the profile reflects the needs of the institution and if selection is done systematically and conscientiously with the user in mind.”

72. Reidelbach, John H. and Shirk, Gary M. “Selecting an Approval Plan II: Comparative Vendor Data,” LAPT, 8(3), (1984), 157-202.

“This article is the second of three which are intended to reduce time, cost and risk of selecting a domestic approval plan vendor for a college or university library.” [See entry 66 for the first article. See also entry 67 which describes the research methodology for this project.] “The authors compare data collected from eight major United States approval vendors covering nine areas: company background, employee background, customer service, profile and title selection, profile maintenance, materials/forms/slips/returns handling, financial practices, statistical reporting and miscellaneous data.” After editing each vendor’s responses on the “Approval Plan Vendor Data Request” the authors sent to each vendor in September 1983 its own summarized responses and “. . . asked for confirmation of the data’s accuracy, and, in some cases, asked the vendor to clarify or expend [sic] on specific issues.” The complete results of the survey are contained in the Appendix, pp. 160-202.

73. Hall, Blame H. Collection Assessment Manual for College and University Libraries. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1985.

The section “Assessing Approval Programs” (pp. 81-84) deals with “. . . assessing the suitability of the subject profiles periodically to ensure that the library is receiving materials appropriate to its needs.” Information is provided about Baker & Taylor’s various management reports. Bibliographies are provided in Appendix A.

74. Kevil, L. Hunter. “The Approval Plan of Smaller Scope,” LAPT, 9(l), (1985), 13-20.

“There are two premises fundamental to this paper. The first is that approval programs are underutilized by academic libraries generally and by college libraries in particular . . . . The second premise is that while existing approval plans are not perfect and many college libraries have experienced various obstacles in starting up a plan, the root difficulty under- lying the low incidence of approval use stems from imperfect perceptions of what an approval plan can and cannot do, from lack of knowledge of how to make the plan work and derive maximum benefit from it.” Argues against approval plan critics Guy Lyle (5%e

34 G. J. ROSS1

Administration of the College Library, 4th ed. N.Y.: Wilson, 1974, pp. 189-190) and Bob Santos (“Materials Selection at a Small College Library,” LJ Special Report #II. Collec- tion Management. N.Y.: Bowker, 1979, p. 13). According to Kevil, an adequate profile is the key to a successful approval program and should be constructed by keeping in mind decisions that need to be made “. . . with respect to three fundamental axes: (1) the publisher/subject axis, (2) the core/nice-to-get axis, and (3) the book/notification slip axis.”

75. Reidelbach, John H. and Shirk, Gary M. “Selecting an Approval Plan III . . . ,” LAPT, 9(3), (1985), 177-260.

“This article is the third of three concerning the evaluation and selection of an approval plan vendor for a college or university library. [See entries 66, 67, 72.1 The authors report the experiences of more than 100 academic librarians with one or more of eight U.S. approval plan dealers. Through the use of a questionnaire distributed nationwide, approval plan data was gathered in nine sections: approval plan background, profile establish- ment/maintenance, plan coverage, notification/selection/profile exclusion forms, shipments/returns, management reports, vendor contact, vendor/library communication, and miscellaneous.” Appendix A contains the cover letter and questionnaire that was sent to acquisitions and collection development librarians. Appendix B contains the unedited (for the most part) responses to the questionnaire. Appendix C contains statistical data.

76. Walter, Mary D. “Approval Program Timing Study: Baker & Taylor vs. Blackwell North America,” CB, 7, (Spring, 1985), 14-18.

Reports the results of a 30-week controlled study of 14 subjects taken from the approval plan subject profile descriptor lists of Baker & Taylor and BNA. Conducted by the Col- lection Development Department of the California State University, Los Angeles Library “ . . . the purpose of the study was to compare the length of time it takes for each dealer to supply current American imprints to the library after publication. . . . [Olther factors, such as number of titles supplied under the same set of subject guidelines, discount, charges for postage and handling, etc., were also considered.”

77. Schmidt, Karen. “Capturing the Mainstream: an Examination of Publisher-Based and Subject-Based Approval Plans in Academic Libraries,” In: Association of College and Research Libraries. Energies for Transition: Proceedings of the Fourth National Con- ference of the Association of College and Research Libraries, (Baltimore, Maryland, April 9-12, 1986), pp. 93-95. Ed. by Danuta A. Nitecki. Chicago: Association of Col- lege and Research Libraries, American Library Association, 1986.

“The author compares the viability of subject- and publisher-based plans for academic libraries in both domestic and international markets, and presents the case for the over- riding success of the publisher-based plan for domestic publications, and subject-based plan for international markets.” The University of Illinois-Urbana Library provided the setting for this study.