438/ LRTS 37(4) Wright, Demaos, and Cybilski


other half from print sources. To facilitate
database review, subject headings were
selected from the Library of Congress
Subject Headings yielding a list of about
forty major subject areas (e.g., agriculture,
rural, country, farm, etc.) for searching.
Including variations and subheadings, al-
most 800 unique subject terms were
searched. Hundreds of corporate names
were also searched, including Corell Uni-
versity, the New York State Agricultural
Experiment Station, and New York state
government and agricultural association
name headings.
 Selected subject headings and date par-
ameters were searched In the Corell and
the New York State Library online catalogs
and the databases of the Research Librar-
ies Information Network and the OCLC
Online Computer Library Center, Inc. Be-
cause several subject headings could be
assigned to each record, there was inevi-
table duplication in the records retrieved
from each online source. In addition, there
was overlap between the different online
systems we used. We found, however, that
there were unique citations in each source,
which necessitated searching all online
sources to ensure comprehensiveness.
Electronic databases and the National
Union Catalog proved useful as verifica-
tion tools for tides incompletely cited in
print bibliographies and lists.
 Relevant online records were down-
 loaded to disk and transferred to ProCite
 (version 1.4), a sophisticated database
 management program specifically de-
 signed to handle bibliographic references.
 One important feature of ProCite is its
 compatibility with Biblio-Links, a refor-
 matting program that transfers records
 downloaded from online database systems
 directly into a ProCite database. Other fea.
 tures of ProCite software include variable
 field and record lengths, merging, sorting,
 searching, indexing and duplicate record
 detection capabilities, and the ability to
 customize a work form for data entry. Bib-
 liographies of records can be generated in
 a variety of standard or individually cus-
 tomized styles.
 ProCite proved to be a satisfactory
 package for our purposes despite some
 limitations of the software. For example,


Biblio-Links would not transfer down-
loaded records to a user-defined work
form. Although ProCite has numerous
pre-defined work forms for data entry,
none was suitable for the purposes of our
project. We wanted the database structure
to contain not only bibliographic informa-
tion but additional information about the
title such as its location, condition, rating
by scholars, and preservation priority. In
order to transfer downloaded records Into
our ProCite user-defined work form, Bib-
lio-Links had to be modified, and a cum-
bersome multistep series of importing, ex-
porting and editing procedures developed.
Once entered, the transferred records
often had to be edited to correct problems
that occurred during transfer, including
deleting extraneous information and
adding missing information from the ma-
chine-readable cataloging record. The du-
plicate detection feature was useful, but
the match between duplicate records had
to be exact, letter for letter and space for
space, so duplicate titles frequently were
not detected. The new version of ProCite
(2.0) has features (such as a global work
form change capability) that should rem-
edy some of the problems mentioned
above.
 Lists generated from online sources
 were supplemented with citations from
 printed sources, including scholarly bibli-
 ographies produced by the Library of Con-
 gress, dictionary catalogs, repository shelf.
 lists, source bibliographies appended to
 chapters of books, and lists of titles avail-
 able from prominent New York-based
 agricultural publishers such as Sixton,
 Moore, and Orange Judd. More than 125
 publications and bibliographies were ex-
 amined. An additional important resource
 turned out to be the State Library's collec-
 tion itself, which had benefited from the
 donation (circa 1900) of the New York
 State Agricultural Society's original library,
 Compilation work was also facilitated by
 direct access to the State Library's New
 York State Documents collection.
 Major sources consulted included the
 dictionary catalogs of the New York Public
 Library, the National Agricultural Library,
 and the Ciannini Foundation of Agricul-
 tural Economics Library. We analyzed


shelflists in the Comell University Librar-
ies, the New York State Library, the New
York State Museum, the Albany Institute
of History and Art, the New York State
Historical Association Library, and the
Buffalo Historical Society.

SCIIOLABLY REVIEW PROCESS
The finished bibliography contained 2,890
citations. To make the list more manage.
able for review, we divided the bibliogra.
phy into numerous categories. More than
hlf the citations were excluded from re-
view, including pamphlets (fewer than 50
pages) and theses. We felt that these two
categories of materials could best be
handled as separate preservation projects.
In addition to these materials, the mono-
graph and serial list of titles already filmed
(222 citations) were sent to reviewers for
informational purposes only.
 Prior to distributing the bibliography
for review, Mann Library hosted a meeting
to discuss a range of issues concerning the
bibliography, including its purpose, compi-
lation methods, subject scope, complete-
ness, plans to supplement, rating scheme,
the scholarly review process, and uses and
publication of the rated lists. Preservation
and collection development librarians
from the two participating institutions and
reviewers were invited to attend.
 As a result of this meeting, several
changes were made in the organization and
arrangement of the bibliography in order
to facilitate the scholarly review process.
Because historians tend to specialize in
particular subject areas and time periods,
the bibliography was subdivi'ded into sub-
ject categories and arranged in reverse
chronological order. Monographic cita-
tions were placed into one of eight subject
categories (agricultural economics; agri-
cultural engineering; animal science; soils,
crops, and atmospheric science; forestry
and natural resources; food and nutrition;
rural life: and miscellaneous). This ar-
rangement made it easier for the reviewers
to see each title within the context of the
subject matter and the period of the pub-
lication. A total of 566 monograph titles
were reviewed,
 Serials were arranged into one of five


categories depending upon the type of
publication (serials about New York State
agriculture, serials published by the state
of New York, Cornell and other state agri-
cultural related institution publications,
county publications, and serials published
in New York but not necessarily focusing
on New York). A total of 782 serial titles
were reviewed. Nearly 40% of the serials
in the bibliography were published in New
York but did not necessarily focus specifi-
cally on New York's agricultural concerns.
Because these journals had regional and
national influence, we felt that they were
important to include in our list. (See ap-
pendix A for monograph and serial subject
categories, categories excluded from re.
view, and the number of citations in each.)
 A total of 1,348 monograph and serial
citations were sent to four scholars
selected for their knowledge of agricul-
tural or New York State history. Each
brought a unique background and point of
view to the project. Reviewers included
Could Colman (Archivist and Historian at
Corell University), a specialist in New
York agricultural history; Morton
Rothstein (of the Agricultural History
Center, University of Califomia-Davis,
and the editor of Agricultural Histony), a
specialist in agricultural history; Wendcll
Tripp (of the New York State Historical
Association, and the editor of New York
History), a specialist In New York history;
and Donald Marti (Professor at Indiana
University in South Bend), an agricultural
historian and bibliographer of agricultural
literature. Each received an honorarium
for their services ns bibliographic consul-
taltts.
 The reviewers were sent a packet of'
information that included the lists for re-
view, instructions for rating the lists, infor-
mation on the scope of the bibliography
and on the compilation process, and a bib-
liography of sources consulted in compil-
ing the lists. The following rating scheme
was provided for use in determining the
relative importance ofeach title for histori-
cal research compared with other titles
within the same list:
1.Very important historical 'title; first
 priority for preservation in this grant
 project,


LRT7S 37(4) Notes on Operations /439