LISA and the comprehensive control of library and information science literature

Library 65’ Information Science Abstracts is emerging from its formative period. In developing from Library Science Abstracts, the new service has faced many problems. A very important one was the need to double the number of abstracts published. This aim was achieved during the first year. Richard Heinzkill’s article on the 1969 issues1 suggests that a further look is necessary at LISA’s coverage of periodical literature. I do not agree with some of the specific points he makes, but his last sentence, querying whether sufficient resources are available, is one of the most valuable comments made so far in the growing literature on LISA. In what follows, I offer the views of one member of LISA’s production team. They are not necessarily shared by the Publications Committee of the Library Association or by its Manager of Publications. The problems of resources and funding for a small-scale information service are acute. From the user’s point of view, obviously, a small publication should have a low price. From the production viewpoint, a high degree of staff-time is necessary to maintain currency and coverage with all the concomitant problems of high costs, and such hazards as illnesses and holidays. Subscriptions represent LISA’s sole source of income. No subsidy is received from members of the Library Association, from Aslib or from any other source. The income derived from subscriptions determines the number of abstracts that can be published and the number of staff employed. Our profession is a small one and this is reflected in the size of the LISA operation. Perhaps we produce an inordinate amount of literature and it is worthwhile considering how much primary material an abstracting service in our field should cover. The yearly number of citations relating to information science and