For a review of current literature on this subject see Kenneth John Bierman. "Automated Alternatives to Card Catalogs: The Current State of Planning and Implementation." Journal of Library Automation8, 4 (December 1975): 277-298, and Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., American Society for Information Science, 1966-.
2.
New York Public Library. Research Libraries. The Use of Microfilm in Relation to the Retrospective and Prospective Catalogs of the Research Libraries of the New York Public Library: A Report to the Council on Library Resources, New York. (New York Public Library, Research Libraries, 1972. 39 p. [ED 067 107]) Cited in Kenneth J. Bierman, "Library Automation." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Vol. 9. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Information Science, c1974. pp. 123-172.
3.
Some of the major systems in the United States are described in Herman H. Fussler. Research Libraries and Technology: a report to the Sloan Foundation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, c1973.
4.
Requirements Report: The Quadraplaner Structure for the Bibliographic Item File. Chicago: Library Data Management Project, The University of Chicago Library. May 3, 1976. p. 3.
5.
A careful assessment of current problems and needs in bibliographic tools of research libraries is contained in Fussler, op cit.
6.
An example of research on user studies of research libraries is contained in Swanson, Don R. "Requirements Study for Future Catalogs." The Library Quarterly42, 3 (July 1972): 302-315.
