Book Catalogs: A Survey of the Literature on Costs.
ResearchPublished 1971
ResearchPublished 1971
Compares costs of producing a library catalog in book form rather than as a card file, assuming availability of appropriate computer service and a machine-readable data base. One of the few clearcut facts that consistently emerged in this survey of over 50 sources is that phototypesetting is cheaper, as well as more readable, than computer printout. Only 14 articles, 5 reports, and 3 books provided any cost data; the 12 selected for extensive analysis were not fully comparable, and most were incomplete. It seems clear, however, that book catalogs are economically sound only when widely distributed. Unlike card catalogs, additional copies cost little. However, book catalogs cannot be kept as current. Either new editions must constantly reprint old material, or a basic volume must be followed by supplements that quickly become inconvenient to search. An annotated reference list is appended. 26 pp. (MW)
This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.