Abstract
Most commentators have accepted the assertion that the in-library use of books mirrors their circulation. The present authors, after challenging the logic of this assumption, describe a study of both the circulation and in-house use of 13,029 volumes (randomly chosen from a collection of 1.1 million volumes), both serials and monographs in all subject areas, over a period of 7 years. It was found that more than 30% of the monographs and 25% of the serial volumes had one kind of use but not the other, and that weeding based on lack of circulation alone would eliminate from a 1-million-volume library at least 112,000 volumes that had actually been used quite recently. Further findings are presented, all of which challenge the notion that internal use can be inferred from circulation figures.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
