Analyses the mainly American practices of blanket orders and bibliographers, and considers their implications for the larger English libraries. The paper indicates that research libraries are tending to become more influenced by the area approach to acquisition than the subject approach. Much will depend, however, on the Government's detailed reaction to the Dainton Committee Report for any project comparable to the American National Program for Acquisitions and Cataloguing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
UCLA Libr., 22 (I) January 1969, 4.
2.
Downs, R.P.Resources of Canadian academic and research libraries. Ottawa, 1967.
3.
University of Oxford.Report of the Committee on University Libraries. Supplement No. I to the University Gazette, XCVII, November 1966, 138.
4.
Rebuleda, H.K.Some administrative aspects of blanket ordering. A response. Lib. Resour. Tech. Serv., 13 (3) 342-345.
5.
Richard Abel & Co. Approval programme brochure.
6.
Toronto University Library.Annual report . 1967 /1968, 4.
7.
Danton, J.P.The subject specialist in national and university libraries, with special reference to book selection. Libri , 17 (I) 1967, 55.
8.
Cambridge University Reporter. XCIX (29), Friday 28th March 1969. First report of the General Board's committee on libraries, 1198.
9.
UCLA Libr., 22 (5) May 1969, 30.
10.
Thompson, J.University libraries and higher education. Libr. Ass. Rec., 66 (II) November 1964, 466-471.
11.
Haro, R.P.The bibliographer in the academic library. Lib. Resour. Tech. Serv., 13 (2) 163-169.
12.
Dainton, F.S.Report of the National Libraries Committee, Cmnd. 4028. HMSO, 1969. London and Home Counties Branch Meeting. Library Association, 9th October 1969.
