College and Research Libraries
Those difficulties will be with us even after
the war is over. The Union List will serve
as an invaluable aid in locating the issues of
those put> lications that have been filmed by
various libraries and agencies. It is highly
desirable that all the cooperative project's of
filming the elusive material abroad have their
results recorded in the Union List.
In the introduction we find the statement:
"It is expected to continue the publication
of this catalogue, with the prospect of a
cumulative edition when personnel and re-
sources permit a thorough bibliographical re-
vision and a more complete indexing." Here
is a hope that we all wish to see fulfilled.-
G. F. Sheph e rd~ Jr.~ head~ circulation d epart-
ment~ and in charge of microphotography~
University of North Carolina Library.
Stepping--Stones to Cooperative Cataloging
Coop erative Cataloging Manual for th e Use
of Contributing .Libraries. Library of Con-
gress. Descriptive Cataloging Division.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1944· 104p.
The Library of Congress has issued a small
Coop erative Cataloging Manual which should
help to facilitate present-day cooperative cata-
loging. At the same time it may serve as a
point of departure for a discussion of co-
operative cataloging of the future.
The Manual~ prepared principally by Helen
B. Stevens, describes the procedures of the
cooperative cataloging centered in the Li-
brary of Congress. It tells how libraries
should proceed in supplying copy for printing
but does not attempt to explain the intricate
art of cataloging. In a brief introduction
the h'istory of cooperative cataloging in the
United States is sketched , from Charles Coffin
Jewett's Plan for St er eotyping Catalogues by
Separate Titles in 1851 to the activities of the
A.L.A. Cooperative Cataloging Committee,
begun in 1932 and merged, in January 1941,
with the work of the Library of Congress.
The cooperative cataloging associated with
the Library of Congress has been concerned
chiefly with the analyzing of serial publica-
tions and. the cataloging of foreign books.
Lately the work has been expanded to in-
clude the cataloging of American doctoral
dissertations, the output of a number of uni-
versity presses, and the official publications of
some of the states of the union, while the
cooperative cataloging of the acquisitions by
· several federal libraries in Washington, be-
gun in 1902, has been .continued.
Copy for printing is thus of various types
and originates from many sources. The
Manual gives useful information as to the
manner in which copy should be prepared by
the cooperating libraries. A special section
devoted to the preparation of authority cards
is in severfll respects more instructive and
detailed than the corresponding section in the
1941 preliminary A .L.A. Catalog Rules. The
work at the Library of Congress is likewise
described, details being given as to · the re -
ceipt and revision of copy, leading finally to
the printing and distribution of catalog cards.
An appendix contains a list of the 365 li-
braries that have participated in cooperative
cataloging, a list of 615 reference books use-
ful in establishing and verifying author head-
ings, and a list of easily understandable
abbreviations that may be used aQ.vantageously
by both the Library of Congress and the
collaborating libraries. The latter feature con-
stitutes in large measure the realization of
a project that has for years been on the
agenda of the A.L.A. Division of Cataloging
and Classification.
The Manual emphasizes that with respect
to entries the A .L.A. Catalog Rules are gen-
erally to be followed, while "beyond the head-
ing, uniformity of practice is essential only
so far as filing and intelligibility of the cards
are concerned" (page I 6). Nevertheless, we
learn on page 20 that the title of the book,
including name of author, edition statement,
and imprint, "should be accurately transcribed
. . . according to L.C. cataloging rules."
Collation, series note, and full name note are
likewise to follow L.C. rules, while subject
headings should be assigned according to the
L.C. List of Subject Headings. Standardiz~
tion, thus, seems to be more thorough than
at first suggested.
This contradiction touches upon a point of
considerable importance for the future of
American cataloging. When the revolt
against overelaborate cataloging took place
at the time of the publication of the new
A .L.A. Catalog Code~ a distinct tendency
188 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES
to disregard standardization of descriptive
cataloging was felt, many a library proceed-
ing according to its own idea of rugged
individualism. It is obvious, however, that,
although the specific phrasing of a note may
be immaterial, some uniformity of book de-
scription is necessary if cards prepared by
one library are to be used profitably by others.
If, for example, some libraries use a full
collation statement while others list only the
last page of the main group of pages, how is
one to interpret the collation symbols appear-
ing on any given card? The Library of Con-
gress realizes this; although it pays lip
service to the new individualism, it is hard-
boiled when it gets down to cases.
For the cooperating libraries which have
to follow the L.C. rules the situation is not
so simple. The rules have been in a constant
flux, and their latest version is not easily
verifiable, if at all. Caught in the maelstrom
of conflicting opinions, the A.L.A., having
for three years delayed action, has not yet
decided whether it wants to sponsor a de-
scriptive catal0ging code, pending the next
move of the Library of Congress. Plainly,
what is needed is standardization of descrip-
tive cataloging by as many libraries as pos-
sible, as soon as possible and preferably in as
simple a form as possible.
This becomes more obvious the more we
consider the results of coop~rative cataloging
to date. Cooperative cataloging has been a
noble experiment but, it must be admitted,
not an entirely successful one. Two facts
stand out clearly. The output has been far
too small and the cost far too high. During
the ten-year period from July 1933 through
June i943 only about sixty thousand titles
were cooperatively cataloged, or about six
thousand titles a year, figures that in the
words of the Librarian of Congress "are far
from impressive." 1
Cost
As to the cost, a study made by John R.
Russell in •19372 reveals that the administra-
tive and editorial expenditures involved in
preparing for the press the 19,473 titles cata-
1 An.nu.al Report of the Librarian of Congress for
the FtScal Year ended June 30, 1943. Washington
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1944, p. 46-47. '
2 Russell, John R. Report on the Work of the Co-
operative Cataloging Committee." Catalogers' and
Classifiers' Yearbook, No. 7 (r g38), p. 69-74.
ll;f A RCHJ 1945
loged under the project of the A.L.A.. Co-
operative Cataloging Committee from 1933
through 1936 amounted to $30,621, or $1.57
per title. In other words, it cost more ·to
initiate and prepare for printing copy for a
single title than it ordinarily does to catalog
a title. In spite of all good efforts, the
cooperative cataloging project failed to be-
come self-supporting.
Clearly, anything that · can be done to de-
crease the cost of editing the copy should be
done. The M apualJ we hope, will help
somewhat in eliminating costly correspondence
concerning points that should be clear to
every cooperating library, but still more would
be accomplished if we could remedy the weak-
ness the Manual reveals: the absence of clear-
cut cataloging rules.
Although lack of uniform rules for de-
scriptive cataloging militates against com-
munal cataloging, it does not necessarily
follow that, having agreed on certain funda-
mental rules for descriptive cataloging, we
could not allow a fair .degree of freedom in
applying these rules. The resulting minor
variations would probably not cause more
trouble than the variations we have been ac-
customed to accept on L.C. cards seen through
the press by different revisers. If this is
correct, we might in the future conceivably
dispense with central revision of cooperative
cataloging copy, except possibly for the head-
ings. Since, according to Mr. Russell's study,
the revision of the 19,473 titles produced
during the period 1933-36 cost $r9,19I, or
almost $1 a title, very considerable savings
should be possible if revision could be largely
eliminated.
Going a step further, we might ask: If
libraries can accept certain rules for copy
contributed ·to the cooperative cataloging
project, why can they not use th~se same
rules for materials cataloged for their own
libraries? If they would do that, it should
be possible to have locally produced catalog
cards universally used in other libraries pro-
vided they were made available through an
exchange pool.
Weaknesses
The Library of Congress has for a num-
ber of years operated a service through which
cards contained in the union catalog have .
been made available to other libraries by
189
photostating. This service, temporarily sus-
pended because of the war, · had, however,
certain Qbvious weaknesses:
I. A separate charge was made for all search-
ing for copy in the union catalog irrespec-
tive of whether o.r not the searching
resulted in the location of a usable card.
2. Many of the entries in the union catalog
were unsatisfactory since it was found that
in I938 "not over 40 per cent of the entries
• . • [were] of any appreciable use to
catalogers."3
3· The cost of a complete set of cards . con-
sisting of positive photostats was expensive
(about thirty-five cents for five cards, in-
cluding searching charge) . .
It would seem that these weaknesses could
in ,a large measure be overcome:
I. If a second copy of each card submitted by
a contributing library were interfiled in the
Card Division's master file with the Li-
brary of Congress's own card, a separate
search--costly and frequently without re-
sult-would be eliminated, since the card
would be located in the process of the
ordinary checking of L.C. card orders.
2. If adherence to ·uniform rules were made a
prerequisite for including a local card in
the master . file, the cards supplied would be
certain to . be of a generally acceptable
standard.
3· If the most economical process of multiple
card reproduction were used rather than
photostating, which is expensive except
when a single negative is all that is needed,
it should be possible t(') cut the cost con-
siderably. Until inexpensive facsimile
reproduction on satisfactory card stock is
available, mimeographing may be the
answer. The University of Texas has esti-
mated that mimeographing costs amount
· to about seven and one-half cents for five
cards,' while the University of California
has found the expense to be in the neighbor-
hood of ten ceqts. Allowing for somewhat
higher rates at the Library of Congress and
a small f fee covering administrative ex-
penses and filing, it would seem that the
present cost of supplying a set of five cards
could be cut in half.
If a system of this nature, modified to meet
3 Library of Congress. Cooperative Work of Card
Division, Union Catalog, Cooperative Cataloging and
Classification Service and A.L.A. Cooperative Catalog-
ing Committee. Thir d Circular. June I938. Washing-
ton, I938, p. 25.-This publication, although a fore-
runner of the Cooperative Cataloging Manual, is not
mentioned in the Manual.
4 Coney, Donald [and others]. Report of a Survey
af the Indiana University Library. Chicago, A.L.A.,
I940, p. 96.
the specific requirements of the Library of
Congress and the collaborating libraries, were
adopted, the output of cards would increase
and the cost decrease-the two ·objectives
before us. , It would seem, then, that we
would be well on the way to abolishing the
present indefensible duplication of cataloging.
Cards Supplied by L.C.
Briefly, the Library of Congress would
supply three types of cards: its own cards;
cooperatively prepared printed cards of wide
interest, for which stocks would be kept in
the Library of Congress ; and mimeographed
or otherwise duplicated cards, produced from
unrevised exchange cards of more limited
interest submitted to the Library of Congress
by a group of libraries agreeing to follow
certain specifications. In the case of exchange
cards emanating from libraries willing to
print and keep in stock a sizable supply of
cards, orders for such cards might, after
having been checke'd at the Library of Con-
gress, be forwarded to the card-producing
library to be filled. This system, obviously,
wemld fit in well with the recording aspect
of the Metcalf-Boyd-MacLeish· plan of di-
vision of fields of acquisition but could be
adopted should this plan fail to materialize . .
It is quite likely, however, that eventually .
we shall have to do more drastic things than
to expand the present cooperative cataloging
program and to arrange for the exchange of
locally produced cards. There is no reason
we should not, simultaneously with meeting
the immediate demands, work seriously
towards doing on a national basis what Mr.
Rider has suggested we do on a regional one,
· publish "a continuously cumulative book cata-
log" that would serve at the same time as a
national union catalog and, through location
symbols, as the main catalog of individua,l
libraries.6
The first step in this direction would be
the publishing of the National Union Catalog
in convenient book form, with a typography
easier on the eye than that of the Catalog of
Books Represented by Library of Congres·s
Printed Cards. It would be a fitting memo-
rial to Mr. Jewett if, in 1951, we could
1 Rider, Fremont. "Real Cooperative Cataloging-
the Concrete ApP.roach." Library Quarterly I 3 :99-I I 2,
,April I943· We need not think that the potentialities
of microprint, so stimulatingly discussed in Mr. Rider's
latest book, should make us abolish the idea of the
union book catalog. ·
190 COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES
Initiate a work that wpuld constitute the
fulfilment of a vision doomed to failure a
hundred years earlier but realizable now,
thanks to a century's progress in printing
processes.-] ens Nyholm, librarian, North-
western University.
Dissertations ·of 1943"44
Doctoral Dissertations Accepted by A m'erican
Universities,1943-44· (Number II) Com-
piled for the Association of Research Li-
braries. Edited by Edward A. Henry.
New York, H. W. Wilson Co., 1944. 88p.
This new list, the eleventh in the series and
the fifth under the present editorship, again
shows thoughtful editing and increasing use-
fulness. In general arrangement it is similar
to previous lists. The seven main subject
divisions have been retained but with ' litera-
ture and art now more appropriately· headed
Humanities. A few changes have been made
in the subdivisions. Metallurgy _has been
moved from Earth Sciences to Physical Sci-
ences, and Geophysics has been added to
Earth Sciences. There is the usual author
index.
The impact of the war upon graduate
studies is reflected in the carefully prepared
preliminary tables and introductory material.
The number of dissertations presented has
again declined. This edition lists 2117, the
lowest number since 1930 and one almost 40
per cent lower than the high figure . of 1941.
A brief table showing the distribution by
large subject divisions indicates the increase
in studies in the physical sciences. Sixty-five
titles, largely in chemistry, are withheld be-
cause they are "secret war research."
The most useful of the introductory tables
will doubtless be the one showing the practice
of publication and loan of dissertations, and
the list of periodic abstracting p~blications.
Although the practices of publishing and lend-
ing are too varied to be tabulated in exact
detail, these two should prove especially ·valu-
able to librarians on the borrowing end of
interlibrary loan. Study of the table show-
ing the distribution of doctorates for the
years 1934-35 through 1943-44 by subject
and years and of the one showing their dis-
tribution for 1943-44 by university and by
subject, will reward anyone interested in the
general trends of graduate work on this level
or in the relative strength of the v~rious
graduate schools represented.
The necessity for timeliness precludes the -
possibility of indicating in the annual issues
notes regarding the actual publication of in-
dividual dissertations. It is to be hoped that
at some not too distant date, however, it will
be possible to have a cumulative index which
will not only pick up the necessarily omitted
titles b~t also show when dissertations have
been published.-] ean M acalister, reference
assistant, C9lumbia University Libraries,
New York City.
Study of the Army Medical Library
The National Medical Library: Report of a
Survey of the Army M edi~al Library Fi-
nanced by the Rockefeller Foundation and
Made under the Auspices of the American
Library Association. Keyes D. Metcalf,
] anet Doe, Thomas .P. Fleming, Mary
Louise Marshall, L. Quincy Mumford, a~d
Andrew D. Osborn. xvi, 94P· Chicago,
American· ·Librar.y A~sociation, 1944.
Though we in this country have done some
notable pioneering in the development of our
municipal libraries, we have been slow in
applying the same concepts of administration
and service to our national libraries. Indeed,
MARCH, 1945
until quite recent times ·we have scarcely
thought of ourselves as having any national
libraries. Outstanding as it has been for
many years the Library of Congress, partly
by virtue of its name, has taken a long while
to establish itself in our consciousness as the
national library of the United States. For a
similar reason, the Army Medical Library
(until about 1936 called by the still more
restrictive name, Library of the Surgeon-
General's Office), the largest medical library
in the country, was the Army Medical Li-
brary to us and not the national medical
library. The unfortunate result of all this
191