“The quality of reviews of the eighth edition was frankly very low; only a handful of reviewers offered an appraisal based on detailed examination. So the plea to reviewers of the ninth edition is to assist the compiler by making accurate and realistic comments that can be taken into account for the tenth edition.” So, that is us put in our place. We did our best (95/360, also 91/172 for the seventh edition), but here we go again. Of course, we could try saying that the compiler has so obviously got it right that we can find nothing to quibble about: but he would not believe that any more than we would.
Basically, however, that is almost true enough. I am not going to criticise (much) the range of coverage or the selection and inclusion criteria: I have said before about this title that the reality of working life for many of today’s librarians is that one minute we are dealing with IT applications or E‐Lib type projects, the next considering traditional aspects of our craft, whether justifying overdue fines policies to our borrowers or how to catalogue rare and antiquarian books; I have done all three on the morning before writing this review. At this stage I do not wish to fall into a detailed philosophical argument with another of my reviewers, but suffice it to say that I believe the inclusion of proper names in dictionaries to be not only justified but in many respects necessary. If I nit‐pick about names in this edition it is because I would like more: some of the giants appear under their relevant subjects (Dewey Decimal Classification and Dewey Medal, Bliss Bibliographic Classification, Cutter Author Numbers, but no Sears Subject Headings) with just enough very brief personal information (usually only dates) to make sense of why a subject is eponymous. But the founding fathers (and mothers) of the profession perhaps deserve a little more recognition: Matthew Evans is not mentioned under New Library, People’s Network, LIC or MLAC, and the entry for the BORGES Project could (and should) explain the pun.
Of course, I am suggesting a potentially significant increase in the content with all that entails in terms of price and balance: I will complain loudly enough if I think anything significant has been taken out to make room for them ‐ and that is a slippery slope: the John Rylands Library is included but not the Brotherton Library across the Pennines; where do you stop? Then again, that kind of argument can run on, almost out of control, and once started on that track, who else could or should be included? Major publishers (at least those specialist to our field)? Professional journals? only abstracting titles are included and, again, where would we stop?
Limits have to be set and I do not disagree with the criteria set for this work. It is logical to include all the E‐Lib projects by name, although how many will prove of permanent value is a matter for debate: but not in this context by the compiler who selects his criteria and must then apply them consistently. As usual, on the positive side, there is so much of value to be found here: I have already used this volume to follow up some consortia for my own purposes (and expect to see the Ayrshire Libraries Forum in the tenth edition), all very much helped by the quotation of Web site addresses in profusion: that really does open up a wider world and gives this volume extra life as a physical gateway to our increasingly virtual profession.
There is so much that is positive that I almost hesitate to point out any negative aspects. One problem with the criteria and the nature of the entries is that they can go out of date rather quickly, although the Web site addresses obviously help to alleviate that problem. To be parochial for a moment, for examples, the Scottish coverage is quite adequate, but the Scottish Publishers Association, Readiscovery and Scottish Authors projects could be included. The Scottish Science Library entry might need amendment or possibly subsumed now with the National Library of Scotland, SCURL has expanded since the entry was compiled and Project Scone is missing (although BUBL and CAIRNS are both included).
Now, with new funding streams currently being assessed, a lot more acronyms will soon be appearing; the Centre for Digital Library Research at Strathclyde University will also merit an entry in the next edition.
Major professional issues are reflected in many of the entries, although some could benefit from more detailed or focussed attention. “Lifelong learning” attracts a very tame comment and there is no entry under “Learning centre” (nor “Cybercentre” for that matter, although various other “cybers” are here); under “Community information” there is no indication of the proliferation of local authority Web sites or of their role within open government (which has no entry, although there is quite a good one under “Freedom of information”).
We could go on, probably rather unfairly. If I make these observations about things missing or seeming to me to need amendment, I do so in the awareness that it is vastly outweighed by the value of the information that is included, its relevance and its accuracy. As ever, this latest edition is full of concise fact, informative, easy to consult and with all those Web site (even postal) addresses, opening up a vast professional network. This must by now be at about the limit of the physical size and acceptable cost of the volume: some of my comments suggest that the next leap would be into an electronic publication. I would think very carefully before taking that step: there are plenty of entries here for the printed book without actually saying how convenient and user friendly it still is.
This edition has 1,100 new entries and revision for more than 2,000 organisations, showing how far this new edition keeps up to date, offering more than 9,600 terms, abbreviations and acronyms across the whole range of our professional concerns from the antiquarian to the latest high‐tech ‐ all in a single, handy volume which makes this continue to be an indispensable professional aid.
