In evaluating reference sources that are primarily bibliographical in character (e.g., national, trade, author, and subject bibliographies, guides to the literature, annual reviews, indexes, book selection aids), the reviewer should consider the following points, whenever appropriate:

1. Scope

How many actual entries or titles are covered? If it is not feasible to give a precise figure, approximately how many are covered?

Is the work comprehensive or selective in its coverage of literature?

If it is purported to be comprehensive in coverage, does it include material published in all forms, in all languages, in all countries, regardless of date of publications covered?

If the work is selective in coverage, include a full statement of basis of selection, and evaluate the work primarily in terms of its adherence to its stated plan.

1. Are the canons of selection appropriate in terms of needs of the audience to whom the work is addressed and in terms of limitations of subject, language, time, place, and type of material included?
2. Does the work result in excessive duplication with existing works?

Do not accept publisher's statement of scope and coverage.

1. To what extent does the work achieve the coverage claimed for it?
2. Base the evaluation, whenever possible, on comparison of a portion of the text with other sources. By way of illustration, if the work under examination is purported to include all major reference books in a given subject area, entries might be compared with those appearing in such standard lists of reference sources as Balay and Walford, in order to determine whether important authors or titles are omitted. Similarly, if an index under examination is supposed to cover the contents of a particular group of journals, the entries in the index might be compared with the actual contents of selected issues of some of the journals. Such comparisons can also prove useful in checking the bibliographical accuracy of the entries in the work under examination.

1. Authority: In a bibliographic reference work that is selective in its coverage of the literature, or evaluative in its treatment of entries, it is of particular importance to determine and comment on the qualifications of those responsible for selecting and evaluating materials.

What are the qualifications of the compiler? Is the compiler a bibliographer primarily or incidentally? Is he a subject specialist? What is his academic or other position?

Who are the sponsors of the work, and what is the nature of their contriutions to it?

2. Arrangement: Note how the entries are arranged and evaluate the arrangement in terms of its contributions to the achievement of the purpose of the work.

Are subject headings based on a standard list?

Are author and subject headings consistent in form, with adequate and accurate cross-reference from variant forms of personal names and subjects?

3. Nature of Entries: Entries should be noted and evaluated. Peculiarities of bibliographic notation should be noted.

  Are all significant bibliographic elements included? (author, title, imprint, collation, series)

Are prices given?

Are out-of-print items so indicated?

Are library locations given, where this would be appropriate?

Are entries limited to bibliographic data, or are they annotated? Are the annotations descriptive, evaluative, or a combination of both? Do they reflect sound knowledge of the works being anotated?

4. Aids to Facilitate Use: Note what approaches to the contents are offered in addition to the basic arrangement of the entries. Indexes should be examined and evaluated; their accuracy and fullness should be assumed. A sampling is advisable. If needed indexes or other devices to make the information readily accessible have not been provided, it will weaken the use of the publication.

Are geographical and bibliographical index entries adequate?

Are index entries sufficiently specific so that there is not an excessive number of references following any entry?

5. Frequency and Cumulation: Note the pattern for works that are serial in nature. Failure to meet publication schedules where these detract significantly from the usefulness of the work is an important factor.

What plans are there for supplements, cumulations, cumulated indexes, and the like?

How often is material cumulated?

6. Format

Typography and layout

1. Is the type adequate in size, and properly headed, for optimum legibility?
2. If the offset reproduction has been employed to produce a text from typewritten copy photographically, is the result a uniformly clear and legible page?
3. Are special typographical devices employed to facilitae interpretation of the text?

Paper: Is the paper heavy enough to withstand anticipated use?

Binding

1. Is binding adequate to withstand heavy use?
2. Does the volume lie flat when opened?
3. Are contents of volumes clearly indicated on the spine?

Size: If the volume is extra-large, make it available in two volumes

1. Relationship to Existing Works: In evaluating bibliographic reference works, it is particularly important to establish the relationship of the book under review to other works in the field.

To what extent does the book under review duplicate the contents of existing reference works?

To what extent is the book under review a continuation of another work?