Int. Libr. Rev. (1972) 4,67-70

LISA and the Comprehensive Control of Library and Information Science Literature

TOM EDWARDS?

Library 65’ Information Science Abstracts is emerging from its formative period. In developing from Library Science Abstracts, the new service has faced many problems. A very important one was the need to double the number of abstracts published. This aim was achieved during the first year. Richard Heinzkill’s article on the 1969 issues1 suggests that a further look is necessary at LISA’s coverage of periodical literature. I do not agree with some of the specific points he makes, but his last sentence, querying whether sufficient resources are available, is one of the most valuable comments made so far in the growing literature on LISA. In what follows, I offer the views of one member of LISA’s production team. They are not necessarily shared by the Publications Committee of the Library Association or by its Manager of Publications.

The problems of resources and funding for a small-scale information service are acute. From the user’s point of view, obviously, a small publi- cation should have a low price. From the production viewpoint, a high degree of staff-time is necessary to maintain currency and coverage with all the concomitant problems of high costs, and such hazards as illnesses and holidays.

Subscriptions represent LISA’s sole source of income. No subsidy is received from members of the Library Association, from Aslib or from any other source. The income derived from subscriptions determines the num- ber of abstracts that can be published and the number of staff employed. Our profession is a small one and this is reflected in the size of the LISA operation. Perhaps we produce an inordinate amount of literature and it is worthwhile considering how much primary material an abstracting service in our field should cover.

The yearly number of citations relating to information science and

t Library Association, 7 Ridgmount Street, London WClE 7AF3. 1 Richard Heinzkill. An American looks at LISA. Int. Libr. Rev. 3,251~56.

68 T. EDWARDS

library science has been variously estimated at 10,000 to 12,000 items.132 It seems very unlikely that these should all be abstracted-a comprehen- sive record is the function of an indexing service. Qualitative judgements are dangerous, but from three years of day-to-day work with the litera- ture, I would guess that much of the material published in our field is not worth abstracting in an international service. LISA can largely ignore, for example, news items, bibliographies of special subject fields and infor- mal, chatty articles. I think it possible that the total number of items per year which should be preserved in the form of abstracts is about 5000. In other words, LISA should be double its present size.

It would, of course, be possible to finance this increase by raising the subscription price to an appropriate level and, at the same time, hope to retain most of the present circulation. However, there are one or two points which should be considered very carefully. First, I do not think that the market will, for the time being, stand much more than the present subscription price of El0 ($24) p er y ear. Second, I believe that it is necessary to look at how we are utilizing existing resources. There are two aspects to this; one concerned with LISA itself, the other how well we are using world-wide resources.

So far as LISA is concerned, the most costly item is the amount of staff time spent on reading the primary material and then preparing abstracts. In order to reduce the time spent on this side of the work we use authors’ abstracts, i.e. abstracts published with the original primary material, whenever possible. Problems are that the authors’ abstracts are not very often in a suitable format for straight re-printing in LISA, they are some- times of doubtful quality and there are not enough of them, especially on the library science side. I am hopeful that the recently announced UNESCO symposium on co-operation between editors ofdocumentation, library and archives journals, to be held in Paris in May, 1972,s will go a long way to solving these matters. Certainly, if arrangements can be made for high standard abstracts to be published simultaneously with the prim- ary material, LISA’s staff time can be used to increase the total number of abstracts published and to cover material which is at present largely ignored, e.g. books.

A much wider aspect of how we are using existing resources is to con- sider what other organizations besides the Library Association are invest- ing. It is thought-provoking to consider how much money a profession

1 KhytciriFigel6 (I), 1969,99-100. 2 Philip R. D. Corrigan. A model system of bibliographic organization for library science

literature. Paper given at the Conference on the Bibliographical Control of Library Science Literature, State University of New York at Albany, 19-20 April, 1968, p. 31. NotpubZished.

s Unesco’s information and documentation programme for 1971-72. UNESCO Bull. Libr. 25, 126-27.

LISA AND COMPREHENSIVE CONTROL 69

with very limited economic means is devoting to the production of abstracting services.

There are no less than three English-language abstracting services for library and information science: LISA; the American Information Science Abstracts; and the English-language version of the Russian service Referativnyi <hurnal: Informatika entitled Informatics. In addition, the French Bulletin Signalltique : Information Scientifique et Technique has an alphabetical subject index in English. These services are attempting to cover the same subject field and the same primary material. They rely on support from the same clientele.

The following quotations are separated by a gap of five years. The first is from Allan Whatley’s survey oflibrary science indexing and abstracting services, the second from a recent article by Alan Gilchrist and Alexandra Presanis.

It should not be necessary for a library to take five or six of these services to get good coverage of library science literature.1

Exhaustive coverage can still be obtained only by using the three services.2

It is clear that we are dissipating resources. I have mentioned elsewhere the attempts made to achieve co-operation

before LISA replaced Library Science Abstracts.3 Perhaps it is now time to re-consider some kind of link-up, particularly between LISA and Inform- ation Science Abstracts.

The 1966 talks between the Library Association, Aslib and Documenta- tion Abstracts, Inc. (the controlling body for the present ISA) broke down mainly through difficulties in defining the subject areas of our field. I think that these problems are not so severe now. There is less heat in the literature on information science versus library science, Library Literature has added “information science” to its sub-title and I do not feel there is much strain in incorporating information science into LISA’s subject arrangement.

What might be achieved by co-operation between the Americans and the British? LISA is certainly deficient in abstracts for monographs. I would expect co-operation to lead to the inclusion in LISA of entries for the increasing number ofvaluable American reports, as well as the release of staff-time, so that more abstracts for journal articles and for books can be included. Perhaps it would not be too daring to hope that a single

1 H. Allan Whatley, A survey of the major indexing and abstracting services for library science and documentation. The Library Association, 1966, p. 65.

2 Alan Gilchrist and Alexandra Presanis. Library and Information Science Abstracts : the first two years. Adib. Pm. 23,252.

s Tom Edwards, Library and Information Science Abstracts : a new service for librarians and documental&s. Libr. Ass. Rec. 71,41-43.

70 T. EDWARDS

English-language abstracting service might result from co-operative talks. Any efforts in this direction would, of course, be affected by the publica- tions policies of the Library Association and the Board of Documentation Abstracts.

These, then, are some preliminary thoughts on possible ways of in- creasing the bibliographical control of library and information science literature. Clearly, much further discussion is necessary and more user- producer dialogue. For example, as a producer, I was startled to read Richard Heinzkill’s advocacy of the inclusion of some &bray Review articles. The particular issues he mentions in referring to omissions from LISA1 contain articles on J. B. Priestley, Gilbert and Sullivan copyright, pocket editions and dictionaries. I cannot believe that users of LISA ex- pect to find abstracts for such articles. However, I agree that user research is required. At LISA, we are hoping to set up such a research project in the near future, possibly in co-operation with a library school.

Meanwhile, perhaps the producers should get together. A fruitful way of furthering bibliographical control in our field might be a second meet- ing of participants in the 1968 Albany Conference on the Bibliographical Control of Library Literature.293

1 Richard Heinzkill, An American looks at LISA. ht. Libr. Rev. 3,252. 2 Karl Nyren, The shoemaker’s children: a report of a Conference on the Bibliographical

Control of Library Literature held 19-20 April, 1968, at the State University of New York at Albany. Libr.J., 93,2215-17.

3 H. Allan Whatley, The bibliographical control of library science literature. Libr. WZd. 70; 19-21.