ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries In this issue: Copyright Law ................................ 1 L etter to the E ditor ........................ 8 ACRL C hapters .............................. 8 How to Participate in ACRL ........ 10 ACRL Candidates .......................... 11 News from the Field ...................... 12 People ................................................. 23 Publications ....................................... 26 Classified Advertising .................... 28 ISSN 0099-0086 COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES ews NO. 1 • JANUARY 1978 n C opyright Law and R eserve O perations — An In te rp re ta tio n By Charles Martell, Assistant to the University Librarian, University o f California‚ Berkeley E ditors note: This article represents one librar­ ia n ’s interpretation o f the new copyright law as it affects library reserve book operations and is not intended to reflect the policies o f his institu­ tion. Readers with differing interpretations are invited to send them to the editor o f College & Research Libraries News. The G eneral Revision of the Copyright Law (Public Law 94-553, 15 October 1976) will have a direct and immediate effect on all academic li­ braries when it becomes effective on January 1. Examination of the potential impact of this law on the photocopying of all copyrighted m aterials done on library premises is counseled. Interli­ brary loan and borrowing operations will be im­ pacted, and modifications in their procedures will be required. The effect of the new law on copy­ ing for classroom use and reserve operations may, however, have far greater impact. One profes­ sional colleague cautioned that the implications of the copyright law revision could revolutionize a library’s reserve operation. He went on to note that the monitoring process will require changes that libraries may find difficult to accomplish. Guidelines fo r Classroom Copying in Not-for- P r o fit E ducational In stitu tio n s, which are in­ cluded in House Report 94-1476, require close scrutiny. Literal compliance would lead to widespread alteration of current photocopying prac­ tices done in support of reserve operations. For example, the definition of brevity is stated such that individual teachers cannot legally make mul­ tiple copies of articles, stories, or essays in which the num ber of words copied exceeds 2,500. This means that the majority of articles published can­ not be copied in their entirety for distribution to students except w here approval has b een ob­ tained from the holder of the copyright. The law contains many ambiguities. In terms of day-to-day library reserve operations, these am­ biguities are especially troublesom e. Because these operations directly support ongoing teach­ ing functions of the instructional staff, it is impor­ tant that working guidelines be promulgated that reflect the changes required by the new law. The Federal R egister for W ednesday, A ugust 17, 1977, states that “we urge libraries, archives and their associations, together with legal counsel, to prepare more specific material for the guidance of staff and patrons.”1 It is equally important that the instructional staff on academic campuses be informed of changes in their obligations and be p repared to modify past practices in o rd e r to comply with the law when it becomes effective. One issue that cannot be ignored is the degree to which the Guidelines must be followed. Legal judgment suggests that since they are not part of the law, they do not carry the force of law. One interpretation that has been advanced is that the academic com m unity should establish separate News issue (A) of College & Research Libraries, vol. 39, no. 1 2 procedures th at conform to th e in te n t of the fair use provisions as distinct from the Guidelines. In effect, this process would bypass the Guidelines. In a prizew inning article, D e G ennaro offers excellent advice to librarians: “It is im portant that librarians exercise all the rights and privileges the new law gives them , uninhibited by the fear of lawsuits or by an exaggerated or m isplaced sense of fair play and ju stic e .”2 This advice is based on an acceptance of th e CONTU Guidelines, which apply to interlibrary loan operations. D e G en­ naro goes on to say, “I can foresee no real d if­ ficulties in complying with them [Section 107 and 108 and the C O N TU Guidelines], and I do not believe they will significantly affect th e way most libraries serve th e ir readers.”3 This advice does not seem appropriate in term s of reserve opera­ tions. Acceptance of the Guidelines f o r Classroom Copying will significantly affect these operations. The basic purpose of this article is to offer a guide that academ ic librarians can follow in their efforts to develop appropriate revisions in work­ ing procedures for reserve operations. The guide includes (1) th e im pact of the new law on reserve o p e r a tio n s a n d (2) a c tio n s t h a t in d iv id u a l academic com m unities might be re q u ire d to take in o rder to ensure that faculty are entirely aware of th eir obligations and are cognizant of th e im­ pact that the new law will have on course prepa­ ration and educational outcomes. I m p a c t o f N e w L a w o n R e s e r v e O p e r a t i o n s In o rd e r to develop appropriate working pro ­ c e d u re s, a ca d em ic lib ra rie s w ill, in m any in ­ stances, be re q u ire d to obtain legal counsel from other cam pus adm inistrative units. This counsel, in conjunction w ith the pragmatic advice of e du­ cational a d m in istra to rs, will h e lp to p lace th e p ro b le m o f r e s e r v e o p e ra tio n s in an o v e rall, academic com m unity context. The institution can th en begin form ulating policies pertaining to d e ­ grees o f com pliance necessary to conform with the le tte r of th e law while still fulfilling its educa­ tional mission. The e ntire issue of th e “requisite degree of com pliance to the new law” will proba­ bly rem ain unresolved until test cases are tried in the federal courts. Eventually, all cam pus groups affected by the new law, especially th e faculty reflecting th e ir in­ dividual d e p a rtm e n ta l concerns, should b e in ­ cluded in th e consultative process. C ertainly it seems unwise for librarians to conclude th at the copyright law revision p re sen ts a narrow -range set o f issues th at can be lim ited to in-house li­ brary debate. To make th e m ost effective use o f legal counsel and campus administrators, librarians should pro­ vide these officers w ith (1) estim ates as to the na­ tu re of th e problem s confronting reserve opera­ tions, (2) specific areas in w h ic h in te r p r e tiv e guidance is n eeded, and (3) suggested guidelines that libraries and instructional staff m ight use in order to comply with the law. This will furnish the background information so necessary to cam ­ pus officials, as th ey try to m ake th e m ost in­ formed policy decisions. The Guidelines f o r Classroom C opying in Not- fo r-P ro fit E d u cational In stitu tio n s, i f followed, will re q u ire academ ic libraries to m ake substan­ tive changes in the quantity of m aterials accepted for reserve status. A narrow in terpretation of the new law would suggest that, until dem onstrated otherw ise, these Guidelines provide th e rules that should be followed in preparing in-house working procedures. I t should b e n oted, how ever, that the Guidelines are not addressed to reserve o per­ ations, unless one considers these operations as “simple” extensions of the face-to-face classroom process. L iteral compliance with th e law and the G uidelines w ould re q u ire th a t c e rta in specific steps be taken. S i n g l e C o p y i n g f o r T e a c h e r s L ib raries will b e able to a ccept from in stru c ­ tional staff or make single copies of item s for re ­ serve u n d e r th e following conditions: 1. The copy is m ade at th e re q u est of the indi­ vidual teacher for his or h e r scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class. 2. The copy is or becom es th e p ro p e rty o f the individual teacher. 3. So long as th e am ount and substantiality of the po rtion used, in relation to th e copyrighted work as a whole, does n o t exceed th e follow­ ing limits: for single copies this should not ex­ ceed a single article from any one issue of a journal; a ch ap ter from a book; a short story or News items for inclusion in C& RL News should be sent to John V. Crowley, Assistant Director of Libraries, Milne L i­ brary, State University College. Oneonta, NY 138 20. Adver­ tising {including classified ads) should be sent to Leona Swiech, Advertising Office, American Library Association, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 6 0 6 1 1 . Production and circulation matters are handled by ALA Central Production Unit, at the above address. News editor: John V. Crowley, Assistant Director of Libraries, Milne Library, State University College Oneonta, NY 13820. Associate news editor, William B. Weiss, Assistant Librarian, Cataloging Department, Milne Library, State University Col­ lege, Oneonta, NY 13820. Editor: Richard D. Johnson, Milne Library, State University College, Oneonta, NY 138 20. Pres­ ident, ACRL: Eldred R. Smith. Executive Secretary, ACRL Julie A. Carroll Virgo. College & Research Libraries is published by the Association of College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, 17 times yearly— 6 bimonthly journal is­ sues and 11 m o n th ly (c o m b in in g J u ly-A u g u st) News issues— at 120 1 -0 5 B lu ff St., Fulton, MO 6 5 2 5 1 . Subscrip­ tion, $ 2 5 .0 0 a year, or to members of the division, $ 1 2 .50, included in dues. Second-class postage paid a t Fulton, Missouri 652 5 1 . © American Library Association 1978. All material in this journal subject to copyright by the American Library Associa­ tion may be photocopied for the noncommercial purpose of scientific or educational advancement. 3 short poem, w hether or not from a collective work; and a chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon, or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper. 4. Copying shall not: (a.) substitute for the purchase of books, pub­ lishers’ reprints, or periodicals; (b.) be directed by higher authority; (c.) be repeated with respect to the same item by the same teacher from term to term. 5. L ib ra rie s m u st display at th e place w here photocopy orders are accepted and include on its order form a warning of copyright in ac­ cordance w ith re q u ire m e n ts e stab lish e d by regulation. T he R egister of C opyrights will issue a regulation on warnings. 6. The reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright. The preceding conditions differ from traditional reserve operations in the following areas: 1. No notice of copyright is now required on the photocopied work. 2. No warnings are now displayed at the place w here photocopy orders are accepted nor are they included on the photocopy order forms. 3. The same item is frequently, if not usually, used by the same teacher from term to term. This practice would have to be discontinued. 4. Frequently, the amounts and substantiality of the portion used exceed the new limits, e.g., more than one article from an issue and the compilation of photocopied “readers.” 5. The question of ownership is not currently an issue b u t will be in term s of the new law. 6. The stress in the new law on the isolated and u n re la te d rep ro d u c tio n o f a single copy or phonorecord of the same related materials on separate occasions does not appear to blend well with the systematic and rationalized pur­ pose of the reserve book operation. These last two areas deserve scrutiny from the point of legal interpretation. That is, under what conditions would the teacher be assum ed to have o w n e rsh ip o f th e p h o to c o p ie d m a te ria l? Can ownership be attributed to the teacher if an indi­ vidual library, at the direction of th e teacher, photocopies the desired item, pays for the photo­ copying, stores it, and never returns the item to the teacher who originally re q u este d it for re­ serve? A question of considerable interest arises from Section 108(g), “The rights of reproduction and distribution u nder this section extend to the iso­ lated and unrelated reproduction of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate occasions … ” Can an organized reserve opera­ tion consider th e photocopying of articles, chap­ ters from books, etc., to b e isolated and u n re ­ lated? It seems that if the faculty do not utilize the same photocopied item from term to term , or w henever they teach the course, or request that a photocopy be made of the same work, and if library reserve units make every attem pt to have the faculty m em ber initiate reserve activity, and libraries rem ove themselves from any ownership position, th en the sense of “isolated and unre­ lated” m ight be correct as an interpretation of the lib ra ry role. L ib ra rie s will n e e d in te rp re tiv e guidance here. M u l t i p l e C o p i e s f o r C l a s s r o o m U s e Section 108(g)(1) states: The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section extend to the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate oc­ casions, b u t do not extend to cases w here the li­ brary or archives, or its employee— (1) is aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of m ultiple copies o r p h o n o re c o rd s o f th e sam e m a te ria l, w hether made on one occasion or over a pe­ riod of tim e, and w hether intended for aggre­ gate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual m em bers of a group …” W ould legal judgm ent state that library reserve units can accept m ultiple copies of an item in ac­ cord with the Guidelines and still m eet the terms stated above? Again, specific operational guidance is needed. Assuming m ultiple copies are permissible and libraries can accept and/or make m ultiple copies at the direction of instructional staff for reserve operations, the Guidelines offer explicit guidance and limits on th e extent of copying perm itted. T hree tests are required: brevity, spontaneity, and cumulative effect. These tests signify impor­ tant changes in the length of m aterial that can be photocopied and the circumstances under which libraries can accept multiple copies. The conditions for multiple copying include all those c ite d in th e p re c e d in g section, “ Single Copying for T eachers” (except condition num ber 3 beginning “So long as the amount and substan­ tiality … ”), as well as the three tests mentioned above. Some of the more im portant Guidelines are discussed below: 1. L ib ra rie s c an n o t a ccep t m u ltip le copies of journal articles in excess of 2,500 words (3-5 pages p e r copy). This means that most articles cannot b e copied in their entirety. 2. Copying of portions of a m onograph cannot e x ce ed “ 1,000 w ords o r 10% o f th e work, whichever is less, b ut in any event a minimum of 500 words.” 3. T here shall not be more than nine instances of such m ultiple copying for one course during one class term. 4. Not more than one short poem, article, story, essay, or two excerpts may be copied [by the individual teacher] from the same author, nor more than three from the same collective work or periodical volume during one class term. 4 5. The copying is at the instance and inspiration of the individual teacher. 6. The inspiration and decision to use the work and the moment of its use for maximum teach­ ing effectiveness are so close in time that it would b e unreasonable to expect a tim ely reply to a request for permission. As regards this last condition on spontaneity and the preceding condition on “inspiration,” are libraries effectively restrained from initiating re­ serve activities, since such activity does not leave the multiple copying at the teachers inspiration? The spontaneity question is more serious, since it m andates th a t th e individual te a c h e r should, given the time, request copyright approval from the copyright holder if m ultiple copying is re­ quired. It seems likely that it may be necessary for campuses and/or individual departm ents to send notices to their faculty each quarter/year, remind­ ing them to request copyright approval well in advance of the quarter. Libraries should also in­ clude such a rem inder on all their correspond­ ence to faculty dealing with reserve operations. Skepticism has b een voiced regarding faculty adherence to notices and reminders. One libra­ rian from a nearby institution observed: I would hazard a guess that, based on the usual faculty attitudes, large numbers of the faculty will resist any feeling of responsibility about under­ standing what appears to be bureaucratic non­ sense. They will not want to grapple with it and will simply wave their hands saying “it’s a library problem .” This is rather what they do now. It is nearly ALWAYS the library’s fault that we cannot process 50 books in ten minutes and order more copies within 24 hours. N e w L a w a n d t h e Ac a d e m i c C o m m u n i t y Librarians will need the advice of legal counsel in order to resolve or at least narrow the range of the new law’s ambiguities. Unfortunately, the in­ terpretations of lawyers may not be sufficiently definitive, and it is to be expected that many of the ambiguities will remain. It appears unlikely at this juncture that the U.S. Copyright Office will offer firm guidance to the academic community. Lewis I. Flacks, Copyright Office attorney, in an American Libraries article (May 1977), expressed surprise that some individuals and groups were expecting the Copyright Office to publish regu­ lations governing library photocopying. His ex­ planation was quite simple: the Copyright Office “has not been authorized by the statute. ”4 More recently, the Copyright Office has stated that its p ro n o u n c e m e n ts are likely to be d e clara tiv e rather than interpretative.5 This warning should be taken seriously. I remember thinking in October 1976 that soon a host of agencies, associations, and individuals will be issuing all the information necessary for libraries to thread their weary way through the new law. This has not yet occurred. It certainly would not be prudent to sit back and rely on the good faith of the faculty to abide by the new law. This would only place libraries and th e ir em ­ ployees in an extremely awkward position. The Guidelines mandate certain restrictions, which, if enforced by libraries, will necessitate important changes in the m anner in which reserve lists are handled by both the faculty and libraries. It is in­ cumbent upon every campus to begin an educa­ tional process regarding these restrictions, so that faculty will be aware of the changes necessary in their behavior. This should include an u n d e r­ standing of how libraries will handle reserve op­ erations beginning in January. For example, fac­ ulty may be required to send to the owners of copyright for permission to engage in multiple copying for classroom use. Faculty members may not react positively to suggestions directing such behavior. How th en will individual cam puses meet their legal obligation? Perhaps each campus will have to establish a unit that facilitates the flow of requests for copyright approval between faculty and publishers or authors. How students will be affected and what means should be used to inform them of significant changes are also im­ portant questions that have yet to be addressed. In any case, each campus has an important stake in these deliberations. It appears that one of the major intents of the new law is to stop systematic usage of multiple copying at educational institutions by putting the in itiatin g act in th e hands of th e in d iv id u a l teacher for face-to-face classroom instruction. The Guidelines f o r Classroom Copying in Not-for- Profit Educational Institutions III(c)(b) prohibi­ tions state, “Copying shall not be directed by higher authority.” Stress on the isolated and un­ related reproduction and distribution of photo­ copies f u r th e r p o in ts to th is c o n clu sio n . A layman’s reading of the new law leads one to be­ lieve that campuses, individual departments, and libraries need to take definitive actions to remove themselves from the area of liability. Internal dis­ cussions with library staff members indicate con­ siderable concern about the legality or illegality of their actions in terms of the new law. Obviously, librarians will be in the strongest position if they enlist the support of their respec­ tive campus administrations for help in the pro­ cess of educating the academic community as to its obligations under the new law. It may well be, however, that campus adm inistrators are rela­ tively uninformed about the extent to which re­ serve operations support the teaching function. In such instances, the first part of the education process would begin by making these adminis­ trators aware of the problem s a n ticip ated and their extent. At one major undergraduate library, more than 300 reading lists are subm itted each semester with an average of 20 items included on each list. In the larger research libraries, the 5 existence of m ultiple branch library systems with their own reserve operations adds to the scope and complexity of these operations. Such statistics might well im press upon academic administrators the seriousness of the problem soon to confront their campuses. C o n c l u s i o n T he approach taken in this a rticle has b een purposively conservative. By exam ining the in­ te rp re ta tio n s g iven h e re and in th e sum m ary sheet following the conclusion, librarians will be able to construct a worst-possible-case scenario. This provides an im portant framework for action. At this stage one can begin to make policy deci­ sions th a t ta k e in to c o n s id e ra tio n t h a t the Guidelines do not have the force o f law. Indeed, the most significant decisions may revolve around the question, “how close does any individual in­ stitution wish to come to the minim um standards set by the G uidelines?” Many institutions may find unreasonable th e 2,500-word lim itation on the length of m ultiply copied articles. O thers may find that th e re is little justification for not allow­ ing m u ltip ly c o p ie d article s to b e u se d again when necessary. John Stedman, professor of law (emeritus) at the University of W isconsin, Madi­ son, and chairm an of the AAUP C om m ittee on Copyright Revision, states: The rules with respect to classroom copying are a different m atter. O ne engaged in classroom activ­ ities in w hich copying needs are m inim al may find them w orkable. In o th e r situations, e sp e ­ cially at higher education levels, compliance with the strict standards set forth in the guidelines may simply n ot be feasible o r co n sisten t with adequate teaching perform ance.6 Campus officials and librarians should proceed to id entify th o se su b tle levels o f com pliance. O nce this has b e e n accom plished, the cam pus and the library will be in a position to offer d e ­ finitive gu id elin es for action. T hese guidelines will allow the library staff to modify past practices as necessary, a nd it will inform th e academ ic community as to its obligations. Pam phlets, memos, and o th er forms of com­ munication are called for. It is entirely reasonable to expect th at th e education process will be a slow one. As th e new law is tested and revised national g u idelines are p rom ulgated, the indi­ vidual interpretations of the academic community will need to be reviewed. E xperience with the actual impact of the new law may alert libraries to unsuspected problems. Experience should also allay many fears. N e w C o p y r i g h t L a w — Su m m a r y S h e e t 7 This sheet encapsulates the most im portant ef­ fects of the law and the Guidelines f o r Classroom Copying, w ith emphasis on reserve operations. It applies to instructional staff, departm ental chair­ persons, and libraries. Procedures based on the fair use provisions could lead to entirely different effects. A teacher MAY N O T and by extension a library for a teacher (where applicable) MAY NOT: 1. Make m ultiple copies of a work for classroom use if it has already been copied for another class in the same institution. 2. Make multiple copies of a short poem, article, story, or essay from the same au th o r more than once in a class term or make multiple copies from the same collective work or peri­ odical issue more than th ree tim es a term. 3. M ake m u ltip le copies of works m ore than nine tim es in the same class term . 4. Make multiple copies long in advance of the actual use of those copies. 5. Make multiple copies at the suggestion or di­ rection o f another individual. 6. Make m ultiple copies for distribution that do n o t c o n ta in (in d iv id u a lly ) a n o tic e of copyright. 7. Make a copy o r copies that imply or attribute an ownership position to the library. 8. M ake copies for priv ate re se rv e files, d e ­ partm ental reserve collections, or general li­ brary units if the cumulative effect exceeds the G uidelines in the same class term . 9. Make a single copy or multiple copies of any item for use from term to term. 10. Make a copy of works to take th e place of an anthology. 11. Make a copy (copies) for charge in excess of costs. 12. D irect stu d e n ts to make photocopies from e ith e r an original item or a photocopy of that item for any course. 13. Make a copy of “consumable” materials, such as workbooks. A teacher MAY: 1. Make a single copy for use in scholarly re ­ search, or in teaching, or in preparation for teaching a class of the following: A chapter from a book. An article from a periodical or newspaper. A sh o rt story, sh o rt essay, o r sh o rt poem , w hether or not from a collected work. A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon, or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper. Inform ation N eeded Inform ation is b e ing g a th e red for a book about the University of Chicago G raduate Li­ b ra ry School. A nyone h a v in g in fo rm a tio n about its history, deans, faculty, and students, from its beginnings until 1951, may contact John V. R ichardson, J r., G ra d u ate L ibrary School, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47401. 6 2. Make m ultiple copies for classroom use only and not to exceed one p er student in a class of the following: A com plete poem, if it is less than 250 words and p rinted on not more than two pages. An excerpt from a longer poem , if it is less than 250 words. A com plete article, story, or essay, if it is less than 2,500 words. An excerpt from a prose work, if it is less than 1,000 w o rd s o r 10 p e r c e n t o f t h e w ork, w hichever is less. O ne chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon, or picture p e r book or periodical. A lib r a r y MAY NOT: 1. M ake (d istrib u te ) any copy o f m aterial that does not contain a notice of copyright. 2. Make a single copy of m ore than a single arti­ cle from any one issue of a journal (except for a teacher in classroom situations). A lib r a r y MAY: 1. M ake copies o f unpublished w o rks for p u r­ poses of preservation and security. 2. Make copies o f published w orks for purposes of replacem ent of damaged copies. 3. Make (request) copies o f copyrighted material in extension of the restrictions noted above if it owns th e m aterial b ut cannot provide access to it at th e time. R e f e r e n c e s 1. “W arning of C opyright for Use by Libraries and Archives: Proposed Rulemaking,” Federal R egister 42:41437-38 (W ednesday, 17 Aug. 1977). 2. Richard D e G ennaro, "C opyright, R esource Sharing, and H ard Times: A View from the F ield,” A m erican Libraries 8:432 (Sept. 1977). 3. D e G ennaro, p. 430. 4. Lewis I. Flacks, “An A ttorney’s Advice to Li­ b r a ria n s ,” A m e ric a n L ib r a r ie s 8:255 (May 1977). 5. Federal Register 42:41437-38. 6. John C. Stedman, “The New Copyright Law: Ph o to c o p y in g for E d u ca tio n a l U s e ,” AAU P Bulletin 63:10 (Feb. 1977). 7. Item s on th e “Summary Sheet” include the a u th o r’s in se rtio n s as well as m ate ria l w ith modifications and additions from “A Sweeping Revision of the Copyright Laws,” Chronicle o f Higher Education XIV:12 (11 Oct. 1976). ■■ IN D EX TO SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL PROCEEDINGS … the first multidisciplinary index that comprehensively covers proceedings and the papers published in them. T IS I’ s will give you access each year to 3,000 proceedings—more than 80,000 papers—published in book form and from the journal literature. The new tool has all the charac­ teristics necessary for quick verifications and searches o f the proceedings literature. Broad Coverage I S T P TM covers proceedings from all the major scientific and technical fields: life sciences • clinical medicine • engineering • applied sciences • physical and chemical sciences • biological, environmental, and energy sciences. Highly Current IS T P is issued monthly (cumulated semiannually) so that you’ ll learn about newly published proceedings with a minimum o f delay. And you’ ll immediately be able to get any proceedings or papers you locate which are o f special interest to your patrons. IS T P provides all the information you need to acquire proceedings from publishers or to request them through interlibrary loan. It even gives you the addresses o f first authors o f papers to simplify patrons’ reprint requests. Effectively Indexed A variety o f indexes enables you to find proceedings with only the frag­ ments o f information a patron is likely to recall. Y ou can search by title words o f proceedings, conferences and papers; by editors and authors; by the topic o f the conference; by sponsors; by meeting location; even by the organizations o f individual authors. Each o f these indexes will lead you to a main entry. There you’ ll fi nd a description o f the proceedings in an easy-to-read contents page format which includes individual papers. IS I’ s Index to Scientific & Technical Proceedings offers a new and effective answer to the problems o f locating proceedings and the papers published in them. Subscriptions, at $500 per year, will begin in 1978. Use the coupon below to place your order today. ©1977 ISI Index to Scientific & Technical Proceedings M