ACCESS, RESOURCE SHARING, AND COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT: REPORT OF A CONFERENCE
RACHEL MILLER
Head, Acquisitions/Serials/Interlibrary Services
University of Kansas Libraries
Lawrence, KS 66045-2800
Internet: rmiller @ ukanvm.ukans.edu
The Oklahoma Conference has been sponsored by the University of Oklahoma Libraries and the University of Oklahoma Foundation since 1986. The 1995 Conference, on the theme of "Access, Resource Sharing, and Collection Development," was held March 2-3 at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Oklahoma City, with 120 participants. Sul Lee, Dean, University Libraries, University of Oklahoma, opened the conference and introduced the eight speakers, each of whom was allotted one hour to present a paper and field questions and comments from the audience. The full papers will be published in the Journal of Library Administration. Summaries of the presenta- tions follow.
Fueling the Fires of Scholarship in the '90s - - George Shipman, University Librarian, University of Oregon
Shipman began his talk with an overview of librarianship's recent achievements, drawing atten- tion especially to the creation of a solid technological platform for greatly improved access. He identified three major challenges facing libraries in the remaining years of the twentieth century.
The fast is the challenge of allocating scarce resources. Shipman stated that the library has an obligation to fight the establishment of redundant, duplicative and incomplete "bootleg" departmen- tal collections, including their cybernetic version, "maverick" data centers. Within the university, the library must establish itself as the primary central source for both print and electronic formats. This is necessary in order to optimize the institution's investment in information. Because adminis- trators may have come to believe that electronic formats will replace books and buildings, librarians must communicate to them the magnitude of the capital investment that print collections represent and emphasize the fact that not all disciplines are served well by electronic products.
The second challenge is to the profession of librarianship itself. To fulfill their role as gatekeepers and teachers in electronic classrooms and library technology centers, librarians need both subject
477
478 R. MILLER
specialization and a knowledge of technology. Curriculum change in library schools is important, as is the retrofitting of professionals through continuing education focused on developing in them a vision of the technologies that will meet the information needs of the twenty-first century.
The third challenge is advocacy to attract special and external funds as well as advocacy to sup- port the library's regular institutional budget. Shipman concluded by saying that it is the library director's responsibility to stimulate creative discourse among the staff, to mold staff ideas, and to use the resulting rhetoric and substance to package and sell the library's mix of services.
Collection Development in the Access Age: All You Thought It Would Be and More. t - - Connie McCarthy, Associate University Librarian, Duke University
McCarthy set the stage for her overview of new collection development approaches with a quo- tation from O. B. Hardison of the Folger Shakespeare Library: "We are coming to the end of the culture of the book . . . . Modem culture is taking shapes more various and more complicated than the book-centered culture it is succeeding" [1]. McCarthy launched into an overview of new approaches to collection development.
She said that librarians first must scan the environment and become aware of the issues of the day, such as the access versus ownership debate. Resources are restricted; "growth by substitu- tion" is the operative phrase. Access depends on the computing infrastructure. The library is com- peting with other university programs, and has to make hard decisions about what programs it can support, based on collection assessment and university data. Flat budget strategies at Duke have included consolidation of departments, flattening of the organization, fewer staff positions, and outsourcing, all driven by the continuous improvement ideas of focusing on the customer and rethinking and reexamining the organization and its activities.
Second, collection resources, owned and not owned, are changing. Librarians and users are bom- barded with choices. Each new wave of users is more demanding and more computer literate than the last. The publishing world has become truly global. Collection resources must be reallocated toward cooperative collection development and resource sharing. In the future, the best libraries will be distinguished by the depth of access they provide to far-flung resources. Citing the work of the Task Force on a National Strategy for Managing Scientific and Technological Information of the American Association of Universities, McCarthy described three models of scientific and scholarly communication [2]. In the classical model, the goal is a comprehensive print-based library of record. In the modernized model, print still dominates, but expanded "just-in-time" access to articles on demand has become a reality. In the emergent model, the computing infra- structure enables interactive scholarly communication over the network. She then reported on the work of the Duke University Library's Electronic Access Committee, which used funds allocated to cover inflationary serials increases to begin the transition from paper subscriptions to electron- ic access and multiple document delivery strategies.
Third, McCarthy argued, librarians need to rethink the role of the library and of the bibliographer. In 2010, she speculated, most users will be remote. Most books and all serials will be digitized. The library will be a gateway to electronic information, but it will also perform an archival function by providing access to special and esoteric collections. Bibliographers will become resource specialists and work in cross-functional teams, selecting and evaluating local and remote resources, developing resource-sharing agreements, assisting users, creating specialized databases and networked resources, raising funds, writing grants, and taking responsibility for all aspects of providing access to resources. Teams of resource specialists will make budgeting decisions. Bibliographers may also be shared by consortia. Quoting Dan Hazen, McCarthy said that collection development policies will become "hypertext information maps," dynamic and linked to the electronic network [3].
Access, Resource Sharing, and Collection Development 479
Redesigning Research Libraries: First Steps Toward the 21st Century - - Charles Hamaker, Assistant Dean for Collection Development, Louisiana State University
Hamaker opened his presentation with several quotations from Dan Hazen's article, "Collection Development Policies in the Information Age" [4]. Agreeing with Hazen's assessment that tradi- tionally conceived collection development policies are of little use in selection today, Hamaker said that librarians' assumptions are being challenged in major ways. The mission and goals of the academy itself are changing. Universities continually shift their resources without officially chang- ing their priorities or creating new programs. To demonstrate the importance of testing assump- tions, Hamaker described recent research at Louisiana State University, which set out to replicate the results obtained by Paul Metz at Virginia Tech [5]. Metz suggested that circulation in particular subject areas would remain stable over time unless the institution was undergoing dramatic change in its acquisitions or its curriculum. To test this, Hamaker compared Louisiana State University library circulation data in 1987/1988 and 1993/1994, and found that 21 Library of Congress classi- fication areas changed by more than 15%. Though Hamaker attributed this result in part to increased numbers of graduate students, he believed that its principal cause was change in the nature of research in certain fields. He argued that libraries should reconsider their assumptions about who is using what materials. Circulation statistics such as these should be used both in fund- ing requests and in collection development policy decisions.
Hamaker also provided a progress report on Louisiana State's efforts to redesign its serials col- lections. Faculty are no longer asked to review lists of rifles for possible cancellation; instead, they are asked to report the rifles they use, distinguishing between those they believe should be avail- able locally and those for which remote access could be sufficient. As an example of the results of this approach, Hamaker reported that of 287 chemistry subscriptions, 18% were identified as acceptable for document delivery, one-third were of interest to only one individual, and 35 appar- ently were not used by any faculty member. This exercise led to providing faculty with free arti- cles from any cancelled journals, through UnCover, beginning in July 1993. Faculty satisfaction with the service has been generally high and expenditures far lower than those for subscriptions to the cancelled journals. Louisiana State is now considering campus-wide free access to UnCover through a gateway. Hamaker emphasized that a key to the project's success has been the personal contact between faculty and their liaisons in the library.
Recognizing document delivery as a "Kleenex" or "throw-away" approach to collection devel- opment, Hamaker also reported on Louisiana State's efforts to identify its core collections and to focus cataloging, processing, and preservation activities on these core collections. He concluded by citing resource sharing and networking efforts occurring at the state level among public and academic libraries in Louisiana and other states.
Delivery of Documents and More: A View of Trends Affecting Libraries and Publishers - - Rebecca Lenzini, President, CARL Corporation
Lenzini described three trends in document delivery. The first is the sheer growth in the number of requests. The British Library Document Supply Center fills 3.1 million requests annually. UnCover has filled a total of 265,000 to date, and is experiencing a doubling pattern from month to month and from year to year, with use distributed very widely over a large number of journals. About 19% of UnCover articles are now scanned and retained, with publisher permission. Lenzini described the composition of the database by subject and listed the top 10 titles and publishers. Commenting on the rise in copyright fees, she stated that UnCover's direct payments to publishers are currently 2.5 times greater than payments to the Copyright Clearance Center. She expressed the opinion that publishers will not recoup cancellation losses through per-article use copyright fees.
480 R. MILLER
A second trend in document delivery is that it has become part and parcel of collection devel- opment. The core issue that libraries now grapple with is whether document delivery should be mediated or unmediated. Unmediated document delivery is more complex. Lenzini reported that in a pilot project carried out at Colorado State University in the spring of 1994, faculty and stu- dents received free access to UnCover from terminals in the library. Titles that the library owned were blocked, as were articles priced at more than 25 dollars. The average number of articles requested during the Spring semester was 6.7, and the highest number requested by one individ- ual was 24 articles. Interestingly, interlibrary loan use did not decline during the project but instead, rose 25%.
The third trend is the movement toward electronic publishing and electronic distribution. By now everyone agrees that this shift will occur, Lenzini stated. However, observers disagree on when and how it will occur. According to Ann Schaffner, the move will be slow and will depend on authors' confidence in the stability of electronic journals and in public acknowledgement [6]. Karen Hunter sees print and electronic publishing coexisting in parallel over the next 10 years [7]. Overall costs will not decline, though costs per use might, and pricing will be the single biggest challenge for publishers. Publishers seek tight control over copyrights. They are attracted to the site license concept and are looking for ways to achieve both security and public access. Andrew Odlyzko believes the coming changes may be abrupt. He sees rapid growth in both tech- nical capabilities and in the amount of electronic literature, and predicts a shrinking role for pub- lishers and libraries but a strong role for review journals that add value to information [8]. Another view comes from the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM). Intent in crossing the divide from print to electronic publishing, this scholarly society has developed a model for the future of scientific publishing [9]. Noting that the number of articles is increasing while jour- nal usage and subscriptions decline, the ACM anticipates "write only" journals. Authors will post articles on servers and ACM members will be able to subscribe to particular databases and sub- databases of articles.
As a final trend, Lenzini pointed out the growing voice of the author and the growing tension between authors and publishers, which poses the question "Do authors need publishers?" Concluding on a personal note, she mentioned that this presentation was the first that she had pre- pared using more electronic sources than traditional sources and that in doing so she had become aware firsthand that the electronic version of an article may be incomplete (e.g., lacking charts) yet ~a r no indication of any omissions.
l'he Current National Copyright Debate and Its Relationship to Access, Resource Sharing, and Collection Development - - Ann Okerson, Director of the Office of Academic and Scientific ?ublishing, Association of Research Libraries
Describing copyright as a key issue for the 1990s, Okerson said her presentation would focus on :wo of its aspects: the work underway to define intellectual property in the National Information infrastructure (NII), and recent fair use cases before the courts. The question "Will users be able to ~eruse electronic media as easily as they do books?" is being discussed at all levels. Copyright is lttracting new interest throughout the publishing, film, and music industries. However, she noted, x~ok publishing constitutes only about 10% of the copyright market and scholarly publishing less hart 1%.
As background, Okerson explained that the 1976 Copyright Act confers five rights on the ~wner of a copyright: (1) reproduction, (2) distribution, (3) adaptation (the right to prepare ierivative works), (4) performance, and (5) display. At the same time, certain sections of the law imit these rights (for example, Section 107 on fair use and Section 108 on archival preservation
Access, Resource Sharing, and Collection Development 481
and interlibrary loan) as long as the copyright owner's revenues are not undermined. The law aims for a delicate balancing act: to protect the rights of owners but also promote the progress of science and the useful arts. To examine intellectual property in the electronic environment, the Clinton administration created the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF). This working group, also known as the Lehman Commission, is expected to issue its report in the spring of 1995. A draft, the so-called Green Paper, has been issued for comment. Though it states that only minor changes are needed in the 1976 Copyright Act, many observers think it tilts the balance in favor of copyright owners in two areas: (1) by stating that any information alighting in a computer is "fixed in a tangible means of expression" (i.e., each transfer between computers constitutes a copy), and by propos- ing that transmission be defined as a new right of copyright owners; and (2) by refusing to ex- tend the right of first sale, which now exists with print, to electronic media, thus limiting the browsing and borrowing activities that are key to libraries. The concept of fair use, which might provide a bridge between owners and libraries, is controversial in the electronic environment. The Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office is hosting a series of meetings to examine and develop guidelines for fair use, but many disagreements exist and it will take time to achieve consensus.
Okerson then reviewed the October 1994 decision of the Second Circuit Court in the Texaco case (American Geophysical Union v. Texaco). The court declared that Texaco's copying was not fair use for two main reasons: (1) the use of the copied articles was "non-transformative," and (2) it undermined the publisher's revenues, because a license to copy was readily available through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC). (If the publisher had not registered with the CCC, the ruling might have been different: thus the ruling constitutes a powerful incentive to publishers to register with the CCC.) The court played down Texaco's commercial nature, an emphasis of the earlier court decision. Working through the implications of the decision will take time. The Association of Research Libraries has joined other library organizations in filing for a rehearing of the case.
Addressing the implications of these developments for libraries, Okerson commented that the distinction between paper and electronic information is blurring. Libraries need guidelines to cover interlibrary loan transmission, electronic reserves, and the incorporation of materials into World Wide Web resources. A difficulty libraries face when they seek to make the proper pay- ments to copyright owners is that mechanisms for doing so are still exceedingly primitive. What libraries need is licenses that will give users the same rights for electronic information as for print, but libraries will need to know better who their users are and the nature of the use. If libraries continue their present broad definitions of users, can they afford the licenses? But if they limit use to ID holders at their institutions, do they jeopardize their "public" status, a key concept in the copyright law? Collection managers must decide whether to choose print for security, or turn completely to use-based expenditures. These trends may bring the demise of third- and fourth-tier journals but hasten the development of not-for-profit databases. Okerson referred to Scott Bennett's description of librarians as "managers of copyright" and libraries as places where users exercise their rights under Sections 107 and 108 [10]. Describing academic campuses as hotbeds of electronic creativity expressed in such forms as databases of preprint services, multimedia works on the World Wide Web, and discussion on the Internet, Okerson called on librarians to gather and organize these creations and advise their creators. Pointing out once again that scholars represent an infinitesimal component of the copyright market, she com- pared them to steerage passengers on a ship, because their goal - - the widest possible dissemi- nation of information within a specialized audience - - is different from that of the rest of the copyright market.
482 R. MILLER
Document Delivery in the Electronic Age: Collecting and Service Implications - - Anthony Ferguson, Associate University Librarian, Columbia University
Ferguson began his presentation by posing the question: "Is commercial document delivery going to replace both ownership and intedibrary loan?" He then made three points in relation to the library's goal of bringing information and people together: (1) interlibrary loan and collabora- tive collection development are inadequate alternatives to ownership; (2) in contrast, commercial document delivery and electronic journals are acceptable alternatives; and (3) when making the decision to provide access to commercial document delivery services, librarians should involve the user community.
Faced with deciding what to get for their users, collection managers can try to predict users' needs (using such techniques as collection assessment), or they can abandon prediction and buy or borrow at the point of need. Resource sharing faces several problems: (1) knowing what other libraries have, which is far easier for monographs than for serials at the article level; (2) speed of delivery, which has improved through fax and Ariel, but is still slow due to staffing, procedural, and budget issues; and (3) the failure of cooperative collection development efforts to truly make access as good as ownership. In contrast, the commercial document delivery sector offers two advantages: (1) it is easier to know what is available through online indexes and abstracts linked to electronic full-text of journals or to document suppliers; and (2) speed is better, with such mecha- nisms as direct fax to the user; in an experiment with selected users, UnCover response time at Columbia averaged 27 hours. Regarding breadth of coverage, commercial suppliers' performance varies. Interlibrary loan can offer more breadth, but most of the time commercial suppliers' hold- ings are sufficient.
Ferguson advised collection development librarians to choose between access and ownership on the basis of local use levels and cost and to involve faculty in deciding what to own and what to access, just as they have been involved in deciding what to purchase. Then, to address the question "How easy should libraries make it for patrons to use commercial document delivery services," Ferguson presented four journal information delivery models. In the traditional model, users must go to the interlibrary loan office whenever what they need is not in the library, and library staff decide whether to obtain the document from another library or from a commercial supplier. The Colorado State University model allows the user to order anything found in UnCover that the library does not own and that is priced at 25 dollars or less. In the "vendor dream" model, users can order anything they want, whether the library owns it or not, regardless of cost. Finally, the "user dream" model permits the user to search, browse, and read indexes and full text freely and instanta- neously. Ferguson argued that though libraries currently tend to use "anti-access" thinking, the availability of full-text electronic resources is pushing libraries to abandon this mode of thought.
Ferguson concluded by stating that commercial document delivery will not totally replace either ownership or interlibrary loan, but is becoming a more important alternative because of ease-of-use and speed-of-delivery factors. To function as effective stewards of users' resources, libraries should consider shifting allocations from intedibrary loan staff as well as from serial sub- scriptions to commercial document delivery services provided directly to users. Collection devel- opment librarians should also collaborate with colleagues in other libraries to provide access to what commercial suppliers do not offer.
Collecting and Accessing "Free" Electronic Resources - - Julia Kelly, Special Projects Librarian, University of Minnesota
Kelly divided her presentation into five sections: (1) examples of free resources, (2) production and promotion, (3) location and evaluation, (4) access and control, and (5) cooperative projects. As exam-
Access, Resource Sharing, and Collection Development 483
ples of free Intemet resources, she mentioned books (such as those digitized by Project Gutenberg), journals, and newsletters (such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and others), and indexes and databases (such as CancerNet and Aids-Line). Computer programs, bulletin boards, listserv archives, multimedia resources, and combinations of these are also available free on the Internet.
Kelly pointed out that these resources are not free to produce. Typically, pioneering individuals working alone or in small groups create these resources with little or no funding, in their spare time, using borrowed equipment and space, sometimes with partial support from the institutions that employ them. Few standards from print publishing, such as peer review, are observed on the Internet. Promotion is haphazard or nonexistent.
Finding free Internet resources is time-consuming. Some finding tools exist in print form, such as the Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists, published by the Association of Research Libraries since 1991, and "Internet Resources for . . . . " a regular fea- ture of College & Research Libraries News. Electronic finding tools, when they can be found, tend to be redundant and out-of-date. However, the University of Michigan maintains the Clearing- house of Subject-Oriented Resource Guides, an up-to-date set of links to Internet searching tools and guides by subject. Another difficulty is that search engines on the Internet are still mostly rudi- mentary, but some cataloging projects are underway. The British Library's Catriona project is one example, and OCLC has also begun efforts to catalog Internet resources.
Evaluating free Internet resources is difficult. A statement of responsibility, a key source of information for print resources, may not be present. It is hard to determine the longevity and sol- vency of producers. Selection criteria should include ease of use, adequacy of instructions, and evidence of ongoing maintenance. Having selected a resource, one can subscribe in a variety of ways: by e-mail, telnet, ftp, gopher, World Wide Web, or a combination of these. The traditional technical services, such as checkin, claiming, cataloging, or shelving, may not apply, but other issues must be addressed, such as hardware and software requirements, maintenance, and how to assist users, which may include preparing guides and handouts or even modifying the resource's presentation to enhance usability.
Kelly concluded by mentioning several cooperative projects to enhance access to free Internet resources. The Committee for Inter-Institutional Cooperation (CIC) has been particularly active in organizing electronic journals. The Virtual Library of Virginia (VIVA) and Tex-Share are other examples. Collecting electronic resources on behalf of users can also involve librarians in forming new coalitions with subject experts or citizen groups.
Document Delivery for the '90s and Beyond - - Joseph Fitzsimmons, Chairman, University Microfilms Incorporated (UMI)
Fitzsimmons opened his presentation with the story of the Pony Express, which he character- ized as a document delivery experiment with lessons for today. The Pony Express promised to carry documents the 2,000 miles between Saint Joseph, Missouri and Sacramento, California, and to deliver them in 10 days, at a charge of five dollars per ounce. The riders traveled in a relay sys- tem, each for about 75 miles, with fresh horses available at 190 way stations along the route. The experiment was a success logistically but a disaster financially, and it ended after only 18 months. Its demise, Fitzsimmons said, was due to pricing, competition, and evolving technology, the same factors that affect document suppliers and their customers today.
Fitzsimmons stated that document delivery is best defined as any method for ordering and receiving complete copies of original documents. The best methods are characterized by innova- tive technology, convenient access, and quick response. Demand for instant access to complete copies is increasing and is shaping the overall information industry. Fitzsimmons mentioned
484 R. MILLER
UnCover, Dialog's SourceOne, OCLC's FastDoc, ISI's The Genuine Article and UMI's Information Store as examples of providers. Libraries are also installing in-house document deliv- ery systems such as UMI's PowerPages, which links abstracting and indexing databases with images of articles stored on CD-ROM, printing the output to laser printers or remote fax machines.
Quoting Sheila Waiters, Fitzsimmons listed six steps for selecting document delivery services: (1) assess your needs, (2) assess the current capabilities of in-house systems; (3) gather details on commercial suppliers and their products and services; (4) evaluate your needs against specific products and services and develop guidelines for comparison; (5) test the products and services; and (6) evaluate the products and services on the basis of fill rate, turnaround, cost, ease of pro- cessing requests, customer support, and end-user satisfaction [11]. Fitzsimmons then suggested that librarians consider three additional issues:
1. Connectivity, including Internet access and interoperability: He mentioned that UMI can take orders over the Internet and can use Ariel to supply articles with images. It is participat- ing in the Digital Dissertations Project, which provides dissertations full-text over the Internet and may be a model for publishing learned monographs in general.
2. Copyright: because in the electronic environment it is easy to copy, archive, or distribute documents without permission, electronic publishers have a responsibility to protect copy- right. UMI is addressing this through its BART (Billing and Royalty Tracking) copyright compliance system and through direct agreements with publishers and authors.
3. Cost: Libraries need to compare the costs of subscriptions with the cost of obtaining articles via interlibrary loan and via commercial suppliers. In-house CD-ROM-based image systems may reduce costs per article. Libraries can optimize cost savings by using in-house technologies for the most popular titles and outside suppliers for documents that are requested less frequently.
As an example of an institution that has combined in-house systems with outside services to provide users with innovative document delivery systems, Fitzsimmons mentioned the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He also discussed Comell University's Chemistry Online Retrieval Experiment (CORE) and the University of Michigan's Digital Library Project. He then described UMI's Advanced Document Delivery System (ADDS), a service being developed to provide remote electronic access to UMI's holdings. Initially users will be able to access the data- bases of abstracts, ASCII full-text, bit-mapped full-image articles, and ultimately the entire micro- film archives. Users will be able to obtain documents in a range of formats: abstract only, ASCII full text, full image, or a combination, all with full copyright clearance. Documents will be avail- able by either subscription or transaction pricing, but searching ADDS will be free except for telecommunications charges. The system is scheduled for full release in Fall 1995.
Fitzsimmons ended his talk with the prediction that continued technological advances will sus- tain the development of innovative document delivery services. The key to success, he added, is collaboration among publishers, electronic database producers, technology companies, researchers, and information professionals.
REFERENCES
1. Hardison, O. B. Disappearing Through the Skylight: Culture and Technology in the Twentieth Century. New York: Viking, 1989, p. 264.
2. Report of the Task Force on a National Strategy for Managing Scientific & Technological Information of the Research Libraries Project, Association of American Universities. Washington, DC: AAU Research Libraries Steering Committee, 1994, pp. 39--49.
Access, Resource Sharing, and Collection Development 485
3. Hazen, Dan. "Collection Development Policies in the Information Age," College & Research Libraries, 56 (January 1995), 29-31.
4. Ibid. 5. Metz, Paul. The Landscapes of Literatures: Use of Subject Collections in a University Library. Chicago: American
Library Association, 1983. (ACRL Publications in Librarianship, no. 43) 6. Schaffner, Ann C. "The Future of Scientific Journals: Lessons from the Past," Information Technology and Libraries,
13 (December 1994), 239-248. 7. Hunter, Karen. "The Changing Business of Scholarly Publishing," Journal of Library Administration, 19, nos. 3/4 (1993),
23-38. 8. Odlyzko, Andrew. "Tragic Loss or Good Riddance: The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholarly Journals," Journal
of Universal Computer Science, 0(0) (November 15, 1994), 3-53. (URL http://hyperg.iicm.tu-graz.ac.at) 9. Denning, Peter J. and Bernard Rous. The ACM Publishing Plan. New York: ACM Publications Board, 1994. (Available
via ftp from acm.org, in the pubs directory, file name: epub_plan.html or epub_plan.txt) 10. Bennett, Scott. "The Management of Intellectual Property," Computers in Libraries, 14 (May 1994), 18-20. 11. Walter,s, Sheila. "Commercial Document Delivery: Vendor Selection Criteria," Computers in Libraries, 14 (October
