Search results

An assessment is needed of the factors that contribute to the cost of obtaining material on interlibrary loan. The main internal library resource involved is staff time, which must be used effectively as well as efficiently. The internal costs per loan at the British Library Lending Division are less than at other libraries, which would not benefit from competing with the Lending Division, though groups of libraries might supply ‘easier’ requests among themselves, through on‐line union lists or core collections of periodicals. Interlibrary loan systems should also be able to provide an urgent service for special cases, but it is not easy to reconcile the demands and the actual needs of users. Despite economic arguments for free distribution of information, some level of charging is a useful means of regulating interloan demand. Document delivery can be effected by acquisition for stock, referral to another library, or interlibrary loan, and costs and benefits vary for each method. It is concluded that libraries should be able to operate a cost‐effective interlending service by concentrating on items that users really need and by assessing carefully when interloans are most beneficial. At the same time, it is necessary to assess the effects of new procedures and technologies at local level on the scholarly and scientific communication system as a whole.

Non‐mediated, patron‐initiated inter‐library loan recently became a new component of OhioLINK, a consortium of Ohio academic libraries in both the public and private sectors ranging from major research institutions to community colleges. “Inter‐institutional lending” is used in this article to denote the process by which Miami University Libraries' patrons request items from other OhioLINK libraries. Pre‐implementation speculation, post‐implementation experiences, and control mechanisms showcase how “inter‐institutional lending” is leading to Ohio's dream of a virtual library.

Attention is given to some of the arguments for and against the use of computer‐based networks and services in the United States of America, to likely effects of the new US copyright law, and to the costs of interlibrary lending. The ability of the Federal Republic of Germany to satisfy international loan requests is examined, as is the use of the ISBN in union catalogue construction and its role in interlibrary /ending. The possibility of establishing a central loan collection in New Zealand is considered, and statistics of interlibrary lending in France are presented.

The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss the results from a survey on interlibrary loan (ILL) in Norwegian public libraries. Work processes within ILL have changed significantly in Norway in recent years, and new challenges have emerged. County libraries, public libraries and The Norwegian Library Association’s Special Interest Group saw the need for a survey to understand how these changes were affecting ILL-work in the public libraries in Norway. The library community as a whole needed updated information to respond to the present challenges in ILL.

In March 2014, Sentio Research Norway conducted a survey on ILL among Norwegian public libraries. The survey was commissioned by the county libraries in Norway. In total, 425 questionnaires were sent to all the main libraries. There are 428 main public libraries, but three of them were without staff at the time of the survey. Further, 336 answers provided a response rate of 79 per cent. The survey had 48 questions.

An interesting result from the survey is that 53 per cent of the public libraries want no restrictions on what to borrow, while 45 per cent believed there should be some restrictions on lending. This shows a difference in the attitudes to lending compared to borrowing library material. However, 58 per cent of the libraries have not implemented restrictions on what to lend on interlibrary loan. One of four had restrictions on lending new literature. The public libraries were, in general, highly interested in better access to curriculum literature from universities and colleges. To some extent, they wanted better access to new literature, e-books and nonfiction (the category was named “special subjects and topics” in the survey). The survey shows that most libraries still prefer to order interlibrary loans for their users rather than encourage users to order themselves.

This study is the first systematic survey of ILL in Norwegian public libraries.

A study of 1,696 loan requests satisfied by the British Library Lending Division showed that approximately 3% are for journals that used to be taken by the borrowing library but are not now being acquired. In the light of a survey of the way librarians in the UK make decisions on journal subscriptions and cancellations it appears that they very rarely replace subscriptions by interlibrary borrowing.

There have been many signs of a growing interest in the idea of a national lending library for the humanities. The manifestations of this interest include two articles, by D. J. Urquhart and D. J. Foskett, directly on the subject; an article by S. P. L. Filon on the new book‐buying policy of the National Central Library; and the review by I. P. Gibb of the report on the operation of the United States Farmington Plan.

This paper aims to explore current trends in e‐book lending in US academic libraries and describes the Kindle pilot for interlibrary loan at Eastern Washington University. It also seeks to examine previous e‐reader pilots at the University of Nebraska‐Omaha, and the Douglas County Library e‐book purchasing program.

The author surveys US libraries on e‐book lending practices and conducts a Kindle pilot program.

E‐book licensing agreements need to be re‐evaluated and interlibrary loan staff should be included in those negotiations.

This paper offers practical solutions for library e‐book lending.

In retrospect, the process of merging the National Central Library with the National Lending Library for Science and Technology might appear to have moved with clockwork precision and with little dissent. Logic and far‐sighted planning might now seem to have been inexorable.

This paper aims to describe and promote the interlibrary loan and document delivery services between North American and Japanese academic libraries. An overview of the overseeing bodies, the North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources and the Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery Committee, is also described.

A descriptive approach is taken to explain the library‐focused programs supported by the North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources.

Access to Japanese language resources is increasingly higher in demand. The National Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources has fully supported libraries by providing interlibrary loan/document services between Japan and North America.

This paper provides step‐by‐step instructions for interlibrary loan practitioners whose libraries participate in the Global ILL Framework (GIF) program.

Advances the idea that interlibrary lending is the Cinderella of the library service. Shows that it is support staff that frequently perform the tasks associated with interlibrary loan. Argues that a professional librarian should guide this service. Explores the varied roles of the professional interlibrary loan librarian within the context of the US library scene, showing that interlibrary loan service, properly carried out, is both a challenge and stimulus to the professional librarian and an important factor in the satisfaction of user needs.