This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 11 October 2014, At: 00:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Hospital LibrarianshipPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/whos20

Assembling Selection Criteria and Writinga Collection Development Policy for aVariety of Older Medical BooksMary C. Schleicher aa Cleveland Clinic Alumni Library , Cleveland Clinic Foundation ,Cleveland, Ohio, USAPublished online: 30 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Mary C. Schleicher (2010) Assembling Selection Criteria and Writing a CollectionDevelopment Policy for a Variety of Older Medical Books, Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 10:3,251-264, DOI: 10.1080/15323269.2010.491424

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15323269.2010.491424

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 10:251–264, 2010Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1532-3269 print/1532-3277 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15323269.2010.491424

Assembling Selection Criteria and Writinga Collection Development Policy for a Variety

of Older Medical Books

MARY C. SCHLEICHERCleveland Clinic Alumni Library, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Faced with a room full of older medical books, the Cleveland Cliniclibrary staff needed to come up with guidelines to help free up spaceand decide what to do with the books. Without a written collectiondevelopment policy, there were no selection criteria to help themdecide the fate of these older medical books. A literature reviewwas done to find the support for a unique set of criteria for thebooks. A run-through of the criteria was presented to the staff anda collection development policy incorporating the new criteria waswritten.

KEYWORDS book appraisal, book selection, deselection, librarycollection development, medical libraries, special collections

INTRODUCTION

Prior to the library’s move 10 years ago these older books were kept inanother area of the hospital, accessible only by library staff who wouldretrieve them upon request. When the library relocated, these items even-tually followed and were moved to a storage area within the new libraryspace awaiting evaluation and incorporation into the current collection. Astime passed and the need for expansion in the new library space grew, itbecame necessary to move these books and develop criteria for selecting ordeselecting the materials. The objectives of the project were

Received 2 February, 2010; accepted 15 April, 2010.Address correspondence to Mary C. Schleicher, Medical Librarian, Cleveland Clinic

Alumni Library, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave. NA30, Cleveland, OH 44195,USA. E-mail: schleim@ccf.org

251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

252 M. C. Schleicher

1. To evaluate and provide selection criteria for this group of older medicalbooks;

2. To explain the evaluation process and the rationale for the chosen criteria;and

3. To provide a written collection development policy that is aimed at guid-ing current and future staff to make decisions about the fate of thesebooks. Should they be kept, or withdrawn? Where will they go once thatdecision is made?

Following these objectives, the first part of this paper will discuss howthese books differ from the general collection and why they warrant theirown collection development policy; the evaluation process and criteria used;and a review of the literature that supports that reasoning. The second partof the paper provides the collection development policy itself.

Due to the large number of books, approximately 60 to 70 boxes, it wasnever a goal to evaluate all of them. The goal was to provide the selectioncriteria and get the collection development policy in writing to serve as aguide to those who will work with this special collection, either now or inthe future.

BACKGROUND

The literature strongly suggests that the percentage of libraries with a writ-ten collection development policy is in the minority (1–3). Many authorshave weighed in on the advantages of having a policy in writing. The mainreasons given are the written policy

● Provides a “framework” within which to exercise one’s judgement; a“reference point” to lessen ambiguity by informing everyone about the“nature and scope of the collection,” and the standards for selection anddeselection (4, 5).

● “Supports the library’s mission and philosophical framework” and setsforth “recommended procedures” for all to follow (6).

● Reduces the bias or influence of a single selector (4).● “Defines the purpose” and “specifies the goals” of the department (7).● Provides “clarity” and “sharpens the focus” to all the previously unwritten,

but assumed activity of collection development activity and strategy (7, 8).● Provides consistency or continuity to the activities of a collection develop-

ment over time and staff changes (8).● Is an “educational or teaching tool that defines the scope of the collection,

a benchmark against which to evaluate the collection,” and a communica-tion method to explain the reasoning for selection of materials (2, 9).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Selection Criteria for Older Medical Books 253

Given all the benefits that a written policy provides, why don’t morelibraries have one? A written policy takes time and a collaborative com-mitment by the staff to address ongoing issues of collection management.One author advocates writing a policy that isn’t “cumbersome,” can bereadily updated, and even adapted to address different collections (8),whereas others take the similar view that “collection development policiesevolve” (2).

Another reason many institutions never get around to writing a collec-tion development policy is that the assumption is made, mistakenly, thatthe entire responsibility for the policy belongs to one person. The literatureoverwhelmingly states that the process of creating and implementing a col-lection policy should be “developed with the advice and involvement of allparties concerned” (4). Especially when dealing with special collections, orany area outside one’s expertise, one must ask for the input of others includ-ing, possibly, “faculty and outside appraisers to aid in the identification ofsignificant materials” (6).

The librarian must search for “relevant information” from a variety ofsources: the collection itself, former and current staff, donors, other libraries,and various publications (2). Each of these interactions then enlightens boththe librarian and the contributing person by strengthening the channels ofcommunication.

The involvement of the staff is necessary as it is their “responsibility . . .

but also their duty to act as custodians of the collection” (10). This is onereason why the author made a brief presentation to the library staff near theend of the project. An outline of the project objectives was handed out, and10 books from storage were evaluated and the selection criteria applied tothem in an effort to demonstrate how this information would aid the staffin decision making. The library staff did indeed offer excellent suggestionsand feedback at the conclusion of the presentation.

An Eclectic Special Collection

The library staff viewed the books in storage differently from the books inthe general collection for one or more several distinct reasons:

1. They are already considered historic work, and/or the author is well-known in the medical world because of a classic work;

2. The former cataloger felt the library should always keep the first editionof a work in case it became a classic;

3. They are resources such as an atlas or a work with extensive pictures thatwouldn’t change over time, e.g., an anatomy atlas; and

4. Finally, any book that was written by or included contributors from theCleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

254 M. C. Schleicher

Now that there was a concrete starting point, the author had to find evidencein the literature to support the writing of a collection development policybased on these reasons.

METHODS

A Literature Review

As to the first of these reasons, the literature supports preserving medi-cal classics. Keeping “representative samples” is advocated because pastresearch helps to inform future research; also, close attention should bepaid to the “documentation of the purpose and aim of retention” so it’s notlost from one generation or institution to the next (11). Echoing that state-ment, others claim that librarians are charged with maintaining “the recordof that chain of development, for future scholars” (5).

To address the second reason, the current library director was asked ifshe agreed with keeping all first editions. She said she didn’t feel that thatcriterion alone should warrant inclusion in this library’s collection of books.Therefore, this criterion was dropped from the evaluation process and willnot be addressed in the final set of selection criteria. Richards and McClurespeak to this point directly by asking, “Did the item enter the collection fora specific purpose . . . which no longer exists?” If so, “it will now assume adifferent priority in the preservation queue” (5).

Keeping atlases or works with extensive illustrations has valid supportin the literature:

The visual record, too, is of great importance in the health sciences liter-ature . . . in the form of plates, portraits, photomicrographs, radiographs,and other material. Visual representations constitute an integral part ofthe literature of medicine, and each may indeed be worth a thousandwords because they may form, alone or in sequence, the very essence ofan article. Only in art is the visual as important to the scholarly record. (5)

Each of these items will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and a decisionfor retention or withdrawal will depend on how well it meets the othercriteria.

Keeping books authored by CCF staff or acknowledged as having CCFcontributors is also given support and validity in the literature. A librarywould be negligent if it didn’t “protect actual publications in its collectionthat were significant to our bibliographic heritage” (10).

One reason for writing a policy for these books now is that, due tobudget cuts, it is a good time to see if any of these books can fill gapsin the general collection. We also need to be able to participate in andfulfill our obligations to OhioLINK, a statewide resource-sharing consortium

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Selection Criteria for Older Medical Books 255

among 88 college and university libraries. Evaluating these books will allowus to identify whether we have a copy of a book that few or no otherlibraries have. Also, these 60+ boxes of books have taken up an entirestorage room in the library, and deciding whether or not to keep them (andfollow through!) will free up this space.

RESULTS

Evaluation Criteria

The literature review found support for the many reasons these books wereoriginally kept. Now the criteria had to be assembled that would addressthese points and could be realistically applied. One criterion worth men-tioning that does not apply to this collection is checking circulation recordsto indicate usage. This criterion was mentioned frequently in several piecesof literature, but this particular set of books has been sitting in a storageroom for many years. Many of the records are suppressed, meaning theirbibliographic information is still intact and accessible by the staff, but therecord doesn’t appear in the public catalog. Therefore circulations figureswould be irrelevant because the books haven’t circulated at all since they’vebeen in storage in the new library. Another point to make is that since thebooks have been in storage, the library’s scope has grown to include mate-rials that support the curriculum of the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College ofMedicine of Case Western Reserve University, whose inaugural class beganin 2004. The criteria are as follows:

1. Is the book currently in the CCF catalog? This addresses the issue of imme-diate access for our patrons. If there is a copy in circulation and one instorage, the book in better condition would circulate. Is the storage bookan earlier edition of a book that is in circulation? Even though there arebooks in the general circulation that are 10 years or older, as all of thestorage books are, the issue of currency still needs to be addressed. Themost current, updated edition would take precedence.

2. Does the book have any CCF authors or contributors? There is literaturethat provides rationale for including this criterion:● Historical association and preserving “bibliographic heritage” (10);● “Reputation, credentials, or authoritativeness of author” (12);● Books with “significant provenance or evidence of association” should

be kept (6).3. What is the OhioLINK availability? If an institution doesn’t have a

particular book, a patron may check the OhioLINK catalog and ordera copy, if available, from another institution and have it delivered tohis own library. Many items only circulate within the institution that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

256 M. C. Schleicher

owns the resource, and designate it “local use only”; some are reserveitems that don’t circulate at all and are designated “library use only.” Ifanother institution can borrow the item, it is listed as “available.” Whenevaluating the books, the distinction was made between how manycopies circulated, or were actually available, and how many were “libraryuse” or “local use only.” One author writes, “If this is the only copy inthe state or in the United States, it should be kept.” But if there are justa few available copies, weigh all the criteria and, “if possible, err on theside of caution” (13).● If OCLC’s WorldCat has ewer than five copies, or if there is only one

copy “in the geographic region,” it should be deemed scarce and beretained (6);

● Check on the availability of a book “through consortial agreements” andif your library is in possession of something with limited availability,keep it so access is maintained (5).

4. What is the dollar value/appraisal of the book? Perhaps the biggest chal-lenge was finding a Web site that had comprehensive coverage of oldermedical books in its inventory. Doody’s Core Titles was searched initially,and although reputable and well known, its emphasis is on the newestand latest resources. A list of Web sites was found from a “Selections &Acquisitions” library school class the author had taken, and all of thesewere checked. The site AddALL.com proved to be just what was neededfor this project. It is a “used and out of print” book searching site thatacts as a federated search engine. It looks at over 40 US and Europeanbookstores that represent 20,000 book dealers. It’s easy to use and letsthe user sort the output by title, author, price or dealer. The Web site’saddress is http://used.addall.com.

Although the books to be evaluated aren’t really a “special collection” inthe true library sense, they are books that require special considerations, andthe literature for special collections suggests including the dollar value of thebook as an evaluation criterion. Some suggest finding a “market value” toidentify those resources that may be at risk for theft (6), and establishing a“monetary value” is necessary when developing a special collection (7). Thedecision to circulate or not may depend on the dollar value of a particularitem. This would have an impact on its accessibility. It is also a necessarypiece of information to have if the library decides to sell some of the books.

Although not a criterion per se, the OCLC number was added to thespreadsheet on the advice of the cataloging librarian. This will act as aneffective finding aid if the spreadsheet is used in the future, as it will pointexactly to which resource is being referred. Sometimes, unfortunately, thereare many entries for the same book in OhioLINK, so all numbers thatreferred to the same resource were recorded. The literature also advocatesthis “cost-effective” method for locating and verifying resources (9).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Selection Criteria for Older Medical Books 257

Also worth mentioning is the “Notes” section on the spreadsheet, whichwas used to denote any CCF contributors in a book; whether an item isprofusely illustrated or photographed, as an atlas, which would require acloser look; whether a name of historical relevance is mentioned or cited ina book; whether the book appears in Morton’s Medical Bibliography (14).One book reviewer called Morton’s “the most useful single bibliographicguide or directory of important writings that mark the history and progressof medicine and all its branches” (15). Others include as one of their selec-tion criterion “whether the work is a title from Garrison-Morton” (2). Somestate that any book mentioned in Morton’s Medical Bibliography should beretained by the institution (5), whereas yet another calls it “essentially a listof ‘greatest hits’ ” (7).

DISCUSSION

To Keep, or Not to Keep?

A final column was added to the spreadsheet called “fate of book/rationale,”which was done for the staff presentation the author made near the end ofthe project. (A sample of the spreadsheet can be seen at the end of thepaper.) During a short presentation, the criteria were applied to several ofthe books to see if they guided the staff toward a decision on their ultimatedisposition. Sometimes a definitive decision could be made readily afteranswering the criteria. For example, the library will keep any book that hasa CCF author or contributor, as there is a CCF Library “archives” collectionjust for that purpose. Any book that has no OhioLINK availability wouldbe kept. Many of the books enter the gray, indecisive zone because thereare several alternatives to choose from, but the answer depends on someexternal source. An example is if the library has an old book with historicalvalue that had no CCF authors and has circulating copies in OhioLINK.The Cleveland Clinic Library would then contact another library that has amedical historical book section. If they agree to take it then the process isfinished, but if they decline, another alternative would have to be pursued,such as contacting a medical book dealer to determine its actual value.Would the dealer accept it? Should the library try to sell it online on a sitesuch as AddALL.com?

The presentation made to the library staff yielded some excellent con-crete suggestions to try before attempting to sell the books. One was tocheck with the National Library of Medicine to make sure they have a copyof the book. They also have a Web page under their History of Medicinesection entitled “Donating historical materials to the National Library ofMedicine” at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/about/donate.html. This is a realpossibility for some of these books. Another suggestion was to contactthe Allen Memorial Medical Library of Cleveland Health Sciences Library,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

258 M. C. Schleicher

at Case Western Reserve University, which is less than a mile away fromthe Cleveland Clinic Library. The Allen Memorial contains historical medi-cal books and artifacts. It contains the Dittrick Medical History Center, anArchives and a Rare Book Collection. The Web site for Allen Memorial ishttp://www.case.edu/chsl/allen.htm. One supporting author claims, “Itemsthat are determined to be rare or of great historical value but cannot be keptin the collection should be offered to another library that keeps a historicalcollection” (13).

Another suggestion was to check with our own Center for Medical Artand Photography. They had expressed interest in the past about some ofthe atlases or pictorial books that the library couldn’t keep. This suggestioncame about when the author chose Pernkopf’s Atlas of Topographical andApplied Human Anatomy to demonstrate the nascent criteria. The intricateillustrations were unlike any others, and the library director explained thehistory of this well-known and controversial atlas. The “models” used for thedrawings were most likely victims of the Holocaust. The atlas is currentlybeing kept in the collection for library use only.

The library director recalled a book dealer, Bruce Fye, who hadexpressed interest in appraising books for the library in the past. This sug-gestion came about when a book by pioneering heart surgeon MichaelDeBakey showed an extremely high value on the AddALL Web site. Thehigher prices shown on the site were indeed for signed copies, but the“cheapest” copy was not signed and it had a selling price of $1600. Fye isa physician who also runs his own “antiquarian medical books” Web siteat http://www.fyebooks.com. He specializes in books by William Osler andHarvey Cushing (two medical “greats”), and three of the books evaluatedfor this project were authored by Cushing. One of the books he wrote wasabout the life of Osler. Another of Cushing’s books, Intracranial Tumors, islisted in Morton’s because it reveals Cushing’s surgical techniques, which ledto a significant decrease in deaths from brain surgery. If an accurate dollarfigure is needed for books such as these, Fye may be the library’s “go-to”appraiser.

Deselection, or weeding, may be seen as “the other side of selection”(16). Books targeted for deselection include those that “lack historical, ref-erence or critical value, are out of scope or represent a duplicate copy”(17). The library has an ongoing in-house book sale for weeded books thatdon’t have any significant historical or monetary value and have plenty ofOhioLINK availability. Some of the books in storage simply don’t fit thescope of the library’s collection, and this book sale is a viable option. Thehistorical books designated to go to the book sale are put on a cart and arequest is made to all the staff librarians to take a final look at them. Thepurpose of this is to take advantage of the collective experience and wisdomof the staff, who may offer new justification for retaining a title in the collec-tion. Other alternatives include donating to other libraries, or selling books

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Selection Criteria for Older Medical Books 259

on an online auction site such as eBay (18). If the library staff remains unsureof a book after applying all the criteria, it should be kept (16).

The presentation allowed a “test run” of the new criteria that providedvaluable insight into the usability and practicality for these books. Sincetheir inception in March 2009, these criteria have been used successfully toevaluate about two thirds of the books in storage. This is important because“evaluation indicates how the stated goals of the policy are being carriedout within the criteria specified” (7). Another perspective is that “a healthyorganization is one that knows itself and has access to its past” (19).

THE POLICY

The format and style for the policy loosely follows the collection devel-opment policy guidelines from the Medical College of Georgia’s Robert B.Greenblatt, M.D. Library (20) (see Box below).

CCF Collection Development Policy for Historical Medical Booksin Storage

Contents

A. Introduction & BackgroundB. Purpose StatementC. Mission StatementD. Selection Guidelines

1. Scope/coverage2. Criteria

E. Applications of the Guidelines to Decide Fate of Books

A. Introduction & BackgroundThe Cleveland Clinic Alumni Library is located in the Educationwing of the Lerner Research Institute on the main campusof the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF). It is open to allCCF staff and employees. The collection includes almost 9,300texts, over 450 print journals, and access to more than 70,000electronic journals. Other media such as CD-ROMs, DVDs andsome videotapes are available as well. The library’s homepage can be accessed at http://clevelandclinic.org/education/library. Employees, medical school staff and students may registerfor library accounts, and the Alumni Library is a participatingmember of OhioLINK and utilizes the ILLiad electronic documentdelivery system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

260 M. C. Schleicher

B. Purpose StatementThe purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the eval-uation of older medical books in a library storage area, and theirsubsequent retention or withdrawal from the collection. Since thisgroup of books is not a collection the library intends to expand orbuild upon, the acquisitions process will not be dealt with in thispolicy. The policy will:● Define why these books, currently in the storage area, require

special attention by the library staff;● Provide library staff with selection guidelines that should provide

some consistency and structure to the evaluations process, yetare flexible and amenable to change;

● Offer viable solutions on the fate of the books.

C. Mission StatementThe Cleveland Clinic Alumni Library is a liaison betweenCleveland Clinic personnel and information sources that sup-port patient care, research, and education. The Alumni Librarystaff facilitates timely access to this information in relevant for-mats from resources both within and outside the ClevelandClinic, and teaches information management skills to enablethe user to keep pace with the rapidly evolving health sci-ences literature. http://www.clevelandclinic.org/education/library/libinfo/lib-mission-staff.htm.

D. Selection Guidelines1. Scope/coverage

The books in storage are not a part of the general circulatingcollection. Generally, the books contain a variety of medicalsubjects, in text or monograph format, written for the pro-fessional, postgraduate or upper level university student. Thebooks span a range of approximately one hundred years, fromthe late 19th century to the late 20th century. Specifically, thebooks were originally maintained in storage for several reasons.They were or had:● CCF authors/contributors● Atlases or monographs with special photos or illustrations● Historical/seminal work in the field● First editions of a work (it has since been decided by the

current library director not to retain a book in the collectionbased solely on this fact)

2. Criteria1. Is the book currently in the CCF catalog?2. Are there any CCF authors or contributors to the book?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Selection Criteria for Older Medical Books 261

3. What, if any, is the OhioLINK (or WorldCat) availability?4. What is the book’s monetary value or appraisal?5. Does the book appear in important bibliographies such as

Morton’s Medical Bibliography? (Morton’s was last publishedin 1991, and there were a few books in storage that werepublished after 1991. For these books, the author went toWeb of Science’s “Cited Reference Search” to see if a resourcewas heavily cited by others.)

E. Application of the Guidelines to Decide Fate of BooksRetain● CCF authors/contributors● Classic texts, historic authors, or medical “greats” in their field● Material with zero or limited OhioLINK availabilityEvaluate● Atlases or monographs with special illustrations, drawings, or

photographs● Books with very high monetary value on appraisal sites● Books that are part of a volume setDeselect● Out of scope materials● Duplicates; choose item in best condition● Items in poor physical condition such as moldy pages or broken

spines, which would preclude them from circulating safely

Table 1 is an example of the spreadsheet created for use in evaluating thespecial collection at the Cleveland Clinic Library.

CONCLUSION

Writing a collection development policy can be a daunting task.Understanding the book collection and how or why it was originallyacquired will help immensely in the assembly of selection criteria for reten-tion or deselection. In addition, a literature review provides a backbone ofsupport for the selection criteria. Once these criteria emerge, seeking inputfrom colleagues and applying the criteria to several books will give a goodindication if they are functional and appropriate for the resources beingevaluated. Scope, currency, accessibility, and even the physical space of alibrary may change over time, but a good collection development policy willably guide current and future staff to manage whatever changes come.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

TAB

LE1

Spre

adsh

eetCre

ated

for

Use

inEva

luat

ing

the

Spec

ialColle

ctio

nat

the

Cle

vela

nd

Clin

icLi

bra

ry

Titl

eA

uth

or(

s)In

CCF

cata

log?

OH

IOLI

NK

avai

labili

tyO

CLC

no.

$Val

ue/

appra

isal

Note

sFa

teofbook/

Rat

ional

e

Chirurg

iedu

Colo

n,

1960

Hen

riW

elti

No

None

InW

orldCat

,O

CLC

no.

1460

6744

$144

.70–

$148

.75

on

use

d.

addal

l.com

Text

isin

Fren

chRet

ain

due

toze

roO

-Lin

kav

aila

bili

ty

The

Blo

od

Ban

kan

dth

eTe

chniq

ue

and

Ther

apeu

tics

of

Tra

nsf

usi

ons,

1942

Rober

tA

.K

ilduffe

&M

ichae

lD

eBak

ey

No

5lib

raries

hav

e4

avai

lable

copie

san

d1

“lib

use

only

”co

py

7951

09$1

600–

$190

0on

use

d.a

ddal

l.com

G.W

.Crile

cite

das

are

fere

nce

(CCF

founder

)

Conta

ctBru

ceFy

e,book

appra

iser

due

tohig

hva

lue

on

AddA

LL;ke

epfo

rnow

Atla

sof

Topogr

aphic

alan

dA

pplie

dH

um

anAnat

om

y,vo

l.II,19

64

Eduar

dPer

nko

pf

(edite

dby

Dr.

Hel

mut

Fern

er)

No,butvo

l.I

isin

libra

ryw

ork

room

12lib

raries

hav

e10

avai

lable

copie

s,an

d3

non-c

ircu

latin

gco

pie

sofvo

l.II

9652

35$1

25–$

600

on

use

d.a

ddal

l.co

m

His

torica

l/co

ntrove

rsia

lbook

that

som

esa

yth

em

odel

sfo

rth

epai

nst

akin

gly

intric

ate

dra

win

gsw

ere

Holo

caust

vict

ims.

Hold

onto

for

now

and

put

with

vol.

I,w

hic

hw

eke

epfo

rlib

rary

use

only

;poss

ibly

hav

eap

pra

iser

eval

uat

e

262

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

Han

dat

las

der

Anat

om

ieD

esM

ensc

hen

,8t

hed

.,19

18

Wer

ner

Spal

teholz

No

1lib

rary

(CW

RU

)has

3co

pie

s,butal

lar

e“l

ibuse

only

”i.e

.,no

circ

ula

ting

copie

sav

aila

ble

3948

071

39en

trie

sin

use

d.a

ddal

l.com

,m

ost

inG

erm

an;

$15–

$76

appro

x.

Text

isco

mple

tely

inG

erm

an;

han

d-w

ritten

note

infr

ont

re:how

much

was

pai

dfo

rbook

(in

Engl

ish);

men

tioned

inM

orton’s

Med

ical

Bib

liogr

aphy

(entry

no.43

0)

Kee

pto

circ

ula

tein

O-L

ink

The

Mig

ratio

ns

of

Ear

lyCultu

re,

1915

Gra

fton

Elli

ot

Smith

No

2lib

raries

hav

e3

copie

sav

aila

ble

7251

903

$22.

44(a

ppro

x.U

SD)

on

eBay

;$2

7.92

–$47

.95

on

use

d.

addal

l.com

on

3/10

/09

Han

dw

ritten

note

toG

.W.

Crile

infront

ofbook

Outofsc

ope;

donat

eto

anoth

erlib

rary

(chec

kw

ithN

LM)

Ophth

alm

icPat

holo

gy—

An

Atla

san

dTe

xtbook,

1952

Jonas

S.Fr

ieden

wal

d[a

nd

oth

ers]

No

4lib

raries

hav

e3

circ

ula

ting

copie

s&

1“lib

use

only

”

2O

CLC

nos.

:14

6822

30&

5661

138

Appro

x.$9

on

AddA

LLCopie

sav

aila

ble

,an

dto

ooutofdat

eto

keep

inge

ner

alco

llect

ion,so

chec

kw

ithCCF

Med

ical

Art

&Photo

grap

hy

Dep

t.to

see

ifth

eyw

antit;

ifnot,

sell

atour

book

sale

263

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4

264 M. C. Schleicher

REFERENCES

1. Hoffmann FW, Wood RJ. Library collection development policies: academic,public, and special libraries. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press; 2005.

2. Overmier J, Mueller MH. Collection development policies and practices inmedical school rare book libraries. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1984;72:150–154.

3. Pavy J. Special collections in regional academic libraries: an informal survey.Louis Libr. 2000;63:14–16.

4. Evans GE, Saponaro MZ. Developing library and information center collections.5th ed. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited; 2005.

5. Richards DT, McClure LW. Selection for preservation: considerations for thehealth sciences. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1989;77:284–292.

6. Association of College and Research Libraries. Guidelines on the selection andtransfer of materials from general collections to special collections. Coll Res LibrNews. 2008;69:630–637.

7. Hoolihan C. Collection development policies in medical rare book collection.Coll Manage. 1989;11:167–180.

8. Smyth EB. A practical approach to writing a collection development policy.Rare Books Manuscripts Librar. 1999;14:27–31.

9. Holst R, Phillips SA. The Medical Library Association guide to managing healthcare libraries. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers; 2000.

10. Pacey A. Developing selection criteria for special collections. Can Libr J.1991;48:187–194.

11. Pearson D. Medical history for tomorrow—preserving the record of today.Health Info Libr J. 2001;18:139–143.

12. Johnson P. Fundamentals of collection development and management. 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: American Library Association; 2009.

13. Shisler CM. Evaluating your nursing collection: a quick way to preserve nursinghistory in a working collection. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007;95:278–283.

14. Norman JM, Garrison FH. Morton’s medical bibliography: an annotated check-list of texts illustrating the history of medicine (Garrison and Morton). 5th ed.Aldershot, Hants, England: Scolar Press; Brookfield, VT: Gower; 1991.

15. Ash L. Book reviews and journal notes. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1971;59:643.16. Tobia RC. Comprehensive weeding of an academic health sciences collection:

the Briscoe Library experience. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:94–98.17. Lambert DK. Guide to review of library collections: preservation, storage, and

withdrawal. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: Association for Library Collections & TechnicalServices; 2002.

18. Dilevko J, Gottlieb L. Weed to achieve: a fundamental part of the public librarymission? Libr Coll Acq Tech Serv. 2003;27:73–96.

19. Craig B. Archival appraisal: theory and practice. Munich, Germany: Saur; 2004.20. Medical College of Georgia. (2008). Collection development guidelines:

Robert B. Greenblatt, M.D. Library. http://www.lib.mcg.edu/about/colldev.php(19 Feb 2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sa

skat

chew

an L

ibra

ry]

at 0

0:59

11

Oct

ober

201

4