A survey in 1974 of the 47 charter members of the OCLC network, including site visits and interviews (148) with all levels of library personnel in member libraries, showed that, of the charter members, 12 libraries reported no particular objectives for joining the OCLC network, 15 were principally interested in faster cataloging, 10 were principally interested in reducing cataloging costs, 7 in improved ILL, and 3 in miscellaneous objectives. The directors of 80% of the libraries reported their primary objectives had been met.                 (Source)

A survey reported in 1982 of the directors of 20 (19 or 95% responding) OCLC distributing networks (e.g., ILLINET, SOLINET, FEDLINK, etc.) showed thatthe 5 most commonly reported current or planned uses of members’ records supplied through OCLC reported by 14 respondents were (multiple responses allowed): union list (11 respondents), circulation control (11 respondents), subject access (10 respondents), management information (8 respondents), and interlibrary loan (6 respondents).               (Source)


A survey reported in 1972 of 2,600 U.S. colleges and universities (usable responses: 1,516) showed thatthe 4 activities common to at least half of the academic library consortia were as follows: reciprocal borrowing privileges, 78% (97 consortia); expanded interlibrary loan service, 64% (80); union catalogs or lists, 62% (78); and photocopying services, 58% (72).                  (Source)

A 1979 study at the University of North Dakota of faculty willingness to cancel journal titles and rely on interlibrary loan (3,030 periodical titles considered; responses from 32 of 47 departments) showed thatteaching faculty were willing to cancel not only periodicals they rated as marginally important but even substantial numbers of periodicals they rated as moderately important and a few they rated as essential. Specifically, of 1,721 periodical titles rated “essential,” of 832 periodical titles rated “of moderate value,” and of 418 periodical titles rated “of marginal value” by the faculty respondents, the average number of subscriptions that faculty would be willing to cancel in each group (weighted to reflect the different number of journals considered by each responding department) was 1.2% of the “essential” journal titles, 17.9% of the “of moderate value” journal titles, and 82.8% of the “of marginal value” titles.                     (Source)


A study reported in 1975 of interlibrary loan requests submitted to the Information Dissemination Service (serving the information needs of health professionals in a surrounding 9-county area) located in the Health Sciences Library of the State University of New York, Buffalo broken down into 2 samples (sample A: all requests during a 3-month period in 1972 from 4 major teaching hospitals, 1,802 interlibrary loan requests; sample B: a 10% random sample of all requests from a broad group of health professionals over a 3-year period, 1970-73, 2,280 interlibrary loan requests), showed thatthe main bibliographic sources of requests in sample B were INDEX MEDICUS (17.3% of the requests) and SUNY [online] searches (12.7% of the requests). The main patron sources of requests in sample B were physicians (67.5% of the requests) and nurses (8.2% of the requests). The 2 main channels used by patrons in sample B to submit requests were hospitals (77% of requests) and universities (13.3% of requests).                      (Source)

        Ibid…. showed thatfor both samples 3% of the journal titles satisfied “approximately 20%” of the journal requests.                 (Source)

Dr. David Kohl

 "Libraries in the digital age are experiencing the most profound transformation since ancient Mesopotamian scribes first began gathering and organizing cuneiform tablets."

Go to top