Bemused, as we are so much these days, by the blinking cursor, poor indexing and screaming hype, it was joy indeed to review a book which embodies all that is good in quality publishing. And particularly so as the book is about that endangered species, the evaluative review. This series, first titled Library Science Review, appeared in 1985 and was conceived as a comprehensive annual reviewing service for library literature. It ceased publication in 1989, but in response to continued demand the publishers decided to try again. I sincerely hope they succeed. The library and information profession, of all professions, ought to have its own literature under good bibliographical control.
Library and Information Science Annual sets itself five goals. Its first is to review all English‐language monograph and reference books in library science in a given year. In fact, this first in the resumed series, covers two years, 1996 and 1997. Reviews of 352 books and CD‐ROMs are given. The entries include full bibliographical details including system requirements for CD‐ROMs. Reviews are generally half a page (a column) in length, descriptive and critical. Thus Bob Usherwood brings to his Rediscovering Public Library Management “both scholarship and practical management experience to this refreshing and interesting theoretical work” though “it would have been helpful if the author had cited more concrete examples of the concepts and solutions he discusses”. Graham Cornish “achieves clarity in explanation” although “legal and technical language appears where it is necessary” in his Copyright. Other comments are: “The authors have done an admirable job of exploring this issue, but the format does not lend itself to reference use”; “It is difficult to define the audience for whom this work was published, but one would venture to say …”; and “a deliberately one‐sided view”. The Library Association Yearbook 1997‐98, you will be pleased to learn, has “features that any directory ought to have in the twenty‐first century”! It is sobering for this reviewer, who frequently criticises books for their US bias, to read how many British books are criticised for their UK bias! Each review carries the reviewer’s name (over 150 reviewers are listed with their institutional affiliation) and I am filled with admiration for the quality of these reviews. Readers of Reference Reviews will experience a strong sense of déjà vu and I recognised a few titles that I have reviewed myself. There are many more, though, that I will order as a result of browsing this work.
The reviews are organised under 36 subject headings, some of which are further divided. The arrangement is fully displayed in the contents pages and there is a subject index to the entries at the end of the book. There is a good international representation with many UK publishers such as the Library Association, British Library, Gower/Ashgate, Routledge, LISU (Loughborough University) and UKOLN (University of Bath).
The second goal of the book is to evaluate all pertinent English‐language periodicals. Part II is a review of 73 periodicals in similar fashion to the books and CD‐ROMs, but just alphabetically under the three headings: National, Regional and Subject. A more detailed subject approach is catered for by the periodical titles sharing a subject index with the books/CD‐ROMs reviews ‐ a useful combination. Again there is good UK representation. From MCB University Press we have Library Review (“Editing is solid, and most of the titles are well worth reading”); New Library World (Internet and CD‐ROM access noted, but not Librarians’ World); The Bottom Line (“The journal’s strength is that it has a unique focus” but the reviewer questions its value); Interlending & Document Supply (“easy to read … and the contents combine scholarship with practical themes of interest”); and Library Management (“Empirical experience and scholarly research are preferred to scholarly speculation”). No Reference Reviews though! Also featured are Art Libraries Journal; Journal of Library and Information Science (criticised for its narrow national focus); The Book Collector (“The book reviews section … should be expanded”); and the excellent LOGOS (“not burdened by the academic weightiness of footnotes”). Some of the reviews are based on a small number of issues, but overall an excellent section. The titles are picked up in the combined Books/CD‐ROMs/Journals title index. No claim is made for comprehensiveness and further titles will feature in the next issue.
The third goal is “To highlight research trends in library science by providing abstracts of significant doctoral dissertations”. This is partially achieved in Part III which covers the years 1988‐1996. There are no abstracts and no “highlighting”, just a straightforward listing in author order of some 850 dissertations on library and information studies with full titles and awarding bodies. A separate subject arrangement follows giving just author and titles. The subject grouping differs from that for books and CD‐ROMs (why?) and is outlined in the contents pages. The list seems to be derived from Dissertations Abstracts International, though a few others are included. “Doctoral dissertations are cloaked by fragmented and sluggish bibliographic announcements and distribution channels” quote the section’s compilers and we must applaud their achievement here. There is no editorial comment or evaluation, but at least the titles are usually adequate descriptors. The range of subjects is wide, but I was impressed how many were highly relevant. From Bradford (UK) comes“Information Scientists and Librarians as a Market for Viewdata in the UK”; from Delaware comes “The Use of Print Versus Online Sources to Answer Ready Reference Questions in the Social Sciences”; and the CNAA contributes “The English Public Library as an Agent for Social Stability”. Dissertations as a resource are neglected by library practitioners and I look for more development of this genre in future issues.
I have said enough to indicate the value of this work. The fourth and fifth goals have yet to be achieved. The goal “to report on the production and distribution of knowledge in library science through essays …” is planned for next year, and some projected titles are given; while the “attempt to create, over time, a permanent record of the intellectual activity in library and information science skills and to impose bibliographic control over the literature” will succeed if we buy enough copies! Having reviewed The Year in Reference (Gale Research, RR 94/148) which has since folded, and having scanned numerous journals for entries for a bibliography of library history which has never appeared, I am very sensitive of the fragility of the bibliographic control of library literature. This excellently compiled and physically produced work deserves our support.
