COLLECTION EVALUATION

Collection evaluation is a continuing, formal process for systematically analyzing and describing the condition
of a librarys collection and to indicate areas needing improvement. Evaluations are conducted to provide several kinds
of important information to libraries. They help clarify the librarys goals in the context of its mission and budget,
supply data used to set funding priorities, and build a base for long-range planning and administration. But why is
collection assessment conducted? (Collection evaluation and collection assessment will be used interchangeably in this
paper.) This paper will answer this question by presenting the benefits of evaluation, the various evaluation techniques
with their strengths and shortcomings.
Benefits of Conducting Collection Evaluation
Collection evaluation provides library administrators with a management tool for adapting the collection, an
internal analysis tool for planning, a tool to respond systematically to budget changes, and a communication tool and
data for resource sharing with other libraries. Library staff can also benefit by having a better understanding of the
collection, a basis for more selection collection development, improved communication with similar libraries, and
enhanced professional skills in collection development. For libraries involved in resource sharing, collection evaluation
is essential in determining how each library fits into the system and what should be expected for each librarys further
growth in the context of the cooperative relationship.
It goes without saying that before any meaningful evaluation of the librarys collection can take place, the
goals and purposes of the collection should be stated in a collection development policy. Since the development of a
collection can be very subjective, a written policy about what is to be selected or rejected becomes essential to
evaluation.
The Importance of Planning
When planning a collection evaluation, it is important to carefully define the goals for the program, choose the
most appropriate method(s) to be used, and establish what information is needed. An evaluation can be fully
comprehensive or it can focus on specific areas, depending on the librarys needs (and the resources available to carry
it out evaluations can be expensive!). It can be very tempting to gather all sorts of information because it seems
interesting, but it may be useless if it does not fit into the parameters of the evaluation. Be sure that everyone
participating in the evaluation understands what is expected and when tasks should be completed.
Evaluation Techniques
There are a number of standard techniques for obtaining evaluation, but they can all be considered as either
collection-centered or client-centered. Collection-centered techniques examine the content and characteristics of
the collection to determine the size, scope, and/or depth of a collection, often in comparison to an external standard.
Client-centered techniques measure how the collection is used by library users.
A. COLLECTION-CENTERED TECHNIQUES
Collection-centered techniques are employed to examine an existing collection and to compare its size, scope,
depth, and significance with external criteria. The methods include:
1. list-checking
2. shelf scanning
3. compiling statistics
4. application of standards
5. formula method
6. conspectus evaluation
List-Checking
This method compares the collection to authoritative lists of what is available and appropriate for a particular
type of collection. There are hundreds of possible lists to use and It is important to carefully interpret Presumably, a
high percentage of titles found indicates an excellent collection, although at this time there is no agreed upon
interpretations or weightings of percentages held. The type of list selected depends on the type of collection being
evaluated and the purposes of the evaluation. For example, a basic collection serving an undergraduate program
may be checked against standard lists developed for this type of collection. It is crucial that the list match as closely
as possible the libraries objectives. Types of lists include:

standard catalogs and basic general lists such as Books for College Libraries and Choices Opening Day

Collection
printed catalogs of the holdings of important and specialized libraries

specialized bibliographies and core lists

current lists such as acquisition lists of major libraries, books of selected publishers, or annual subject

compilation
lists of types of materials, such as reference works, periodicals, etc

authorized lists prepared by governmental authorities or professional associations

lists, usually in current journals or review sources of evaluated publications at the forefront of current
research

Procedures

Decide on lists appropriate to the subject and goals of the library;

Decide whether to check the lists completely or by sampling;

Assign staff responsibility and check lists against card catalog or online public access catalog;

Record the number of titles held that are listed in the bibliography being checked;

Determine percentage of library holdings in relation to number of titles on each list;

Analyze results and integrate findings with results of other techniques to determine the collection level.

The advantages of list-checking include:

a wide variety of published lists is available;

many lists are backed by the authority and competence of expert librarians or subject specialists;

provides concrete, objective picture of holdings;

may be carried out by support staff/procedure of searching lists is easy;

provides specific items that may be purchased to strengthen collection;

quantitative results useful for budget justification, accreditation studies, etc.

The disadvantages of this technique include:

many lists are not revised and become out-of-date;

lists representing the viewpoint of one individual or group may not represent the subject well;

lists may not be as representative of the librarys subjects or purposes or the interest of its users;

may be difficult to evaluate their validity, usefulness, relevance, etc.

in some subject areas, lists may be hard to locate or compile.

It is important to carefully interpret the qualitative data that result from checking lists, considering who
assembled the list and for what purpose. List checking can help the library staff understand the size and scope of
possible materials, and it can be helpful in assessing what should be added to the collection. Because there are many
possible lists to check and they are quickly outdated, this can a time- and labor-intensive method, especially if you do
not have an automated system. Misleading results can occur when the same best book lists are used for selection as
well as evaluation, when published lists are written for a very different audience than the librarys community, and
when lists dont include works owned by the library that are as good or better for the local community than the
materials on the list.
Shelf Scanning
This technique involves examining the collection directly. With this procedure, a person physically examines
materials on the shelf; the person then draws conclusions about the collections size, scope, depth, and significance;
its recency; and its condition. Preservation, conservation, restoration, or replacement of materials may be taken into
consideration in this process. Examination of date due slips provides samples of actual use.
Procedures
1. Select classification area. Work with someone if possible.
2. Gather necessary tools.
3. Determine scope: examine every item or a sample.
4. Determine location of other materials in the collection that need be considered: electronic documents,
periodicals, vertical files, commercial databases, reference tools, etc.
5. Look for such things as:

physical condition of the materials (weeding needed?)

6.

types of materials

language

serial runs: complete? Broken? Bound? With our without deficiencies?

scope, extent of the collection

special problems

multiple copies

Record findings.

The advantages of using this technique include:

providing immediate, relevant results

can be done quickly

provides overall view of the size, scope and quality of the collection

builds on knowledge and expertise of the evaluator

evaluator sees what the users see

can be used to accomplish goals other than evaluation

The disadvantages of this technique are:

subjectiveness and impressionistic, does not produce quantitative or comparable results

persons knowledgeable in a subject area and its literature are required and such individuals may be

difficult to locate, unable to invest time, or charge fees greater than the library can afford
results may be biased if conducted by the librarian who developed the collection or currently selects for it

some materials may not be on the shelf

This technique is well-suited to smaller libraries and areas of a collection that dont fit into the classification scheme. It
has the advantage of providing relevant information quickly, but it can be highly subjective, especially if the person
doing the evaluation also does the selection. Working in a team should be encouraged. Direct examination should not
be used as the sole evaluation technique. Shelf-scanning should be conducted after the shelflist data have been
collected; the two techniques complement each other to provide a reliable characterization of the collection. Be sure
to examine the entire collection, including periodicals, audiovisuals, and reference works. You should make notes on
items that should be weeded, but do not weed as you assess. Depending on the size and type of you r collection, you
may not need to examine every item; sometimes a sample works just as well.
Compiling Statistics
Traditionally, the main comparative methods for evaluation of collection strengths were aggregate figures on
collection size and material expenditures. This information is typically reported in annual reports. The following
statistics are typically collected and reported by libraries:

Size: this may be the measure of titles, volumes, or portions of the shelflist in specific call number

ranges
Net volumes, titles, or units added: this measures growth rates in total collection size, specific portions
of the collection, or in various formats, for example, books, microforms, or periodicals

Expenditures for library material: this may include money spent for all material or for specific formats

or portions of the collection. Figures may be annual and may be expressed in pesos or a proportion of
the total or institution budget
The advantages of collecting statistics include:
some statistics may be easily maintained, for example, shelflist counts performed every 4-5 years

if proper records have been kept, they are easily available

if clearly defined, they may be widely understood and comparable

automated library systems should be able to extract this easily and perform some preliminary analysis

The disadvantages of this technique include:

statistics may be recorded improperly

clear definitions of units may be lacking

statistical records may not be comparable

significance of statistics may be difficult to interpret

Application of Standards
This technique analyzes government standards or an accrediting groups standards. Such standards vary a
great deal in format and specificity. The advantages of using this technique include:
for the appropriate type of library, the standard will generally relate closely to the library goals

standards are generally widely accepted and authoritative

they may be promulgated and used for evaluation by accrediting agencies, funding agencies, and others;

they may be very persuasive in generating support for the library.

The disadvantages of applying standards include:

some are stated generally and are difficult to apply

they may require a high degree of professional knowledge and judgment

knowledgeable people may disagree in application or results

minimum standards may be regarded as maximum standards

Formula Method
Various formulas have been conducted to assess the quality of library collections. Among the formulas that
have received wide attention include: Clapp-Jordan, the ACRL formula for college libraries, the ACRL formula for
college libraries. Mention can also be made of the formula presented during PAARLs seminar Procedures depending
upon the formula used. Advantages associated with formulas include:
greater potential for in-depth comparison between libraries

greater ease in preparation and interpretation

The disadvantages of this technique are:

in ability to assess qualitative factors that are important in the relationship between the library collection

and patron needs

lack of standard definitions of what to measure, e.g., there is no uniformity in use of the terms titles and
volumes.

Evaluation by Outside Expert

A knowledgeable person from outside the library staff can be enlisted to survey a portion of the collection and
provide qualitative data. Outside experts include consultants, other librarians, a faculty member, or a library user with
specialized knowledge, surveys a portion of the collection. If you choose to use an outside expert, be sure that the
expert understands your assessment goals and that you are asking for advice which may or may not be implemented.
That persons contributions should always be recognized. The advantages of this method include:
brings a fresh perspective to the collection

facilitates mutually advantageous communication between librarians and administrators, staff and users

The disadvantages of this technique include:

evaluation may be impaired by bias, narrow or specialized view, or lack of understanding of the librarys

collection policy
subjectivity of the evaluator

may be difficult to find an outside expert, or expert may not be available when needed

Conspectus Evaluation
The term conspectus was developed by the Research Libraries Group in the United States to refer to a
standardized means of evaluating library collections in each of the subjects, categories, and divisions. Developed in
the 1970s and 1980s, it was originally intended for large academic libraries, but it has been adopted and used by
other types and sizes of libraries, as well. The conspectus method provides a framework to describe their collection
strengths and current collection intensities. The evaluation levels indicate the appropriateness of the collection to
support certain subjects at certain levels, so they have immediate relevance for collection development, for example, if
you have a level 3 collection but the academics are running strong research programs, youd better improve that area
of the collection. Conspectus uses a Collecting Level Indicator (0 to 5), or summary, of a librarys Current collecting
Level (CL); Acquisition Commitment (AC) and Collecting Goal (GL). Libraries can also supply additional information
about strong collections, notable items in the collection, number and median age of items held, and the selection
policy for a particular part of the collection.
N.B. Refer to previous notes on the collection code levels
The advantages of conspectus evaluation include:
the detailed subject breakdown of the conspectus allows for more finely delineated collection descriptions

collections and collecting patterns are described in comparable terms

conspectus values are easily accessible online or in paper format

cooperative collecting or preservation policies can be developed using the conspectus as an instrument to

map collection strengths

The disadvantages of this technique include:
this method is labor-intensive

it is based to a considerable extent on subjective judgments, although supplementary guidelines reduce

the level of subjectivity

the approximately 6,000 subject descriptors may be too detailed for some libraries or portions of their

collections. Reducing the number of descriptors for local purposes requires additional work and must
maintain alignment with the full set for comparability
the subject descriptors

B. USE-CENTERED TECHNIQUES
While collection-based techniques focus on whether or not the libraries have obtained the materials they
intended to, use-centered techniques go beyond the collection itself to determine how the collection is used by library
users and to answer to questions like: can library users identify and locate the items they need, are the specific items
indeed available, what unmet needs exist, and who the users are. Analysis of the results of such studies may provide
information for other subsequent collection development activities, such as planning, budgeting, or weeding. The
methods include:
1. circulation studies
2. in-house use studies
3. survey of user opinions
4. shelf availability studies
5. simulated use studies
5.1 citation studies
5.2 document delivery tests
Circulation Studies
Studying collection use patterns as a means of evaluating collections has been quite popular. Two basic
assumptions underlie use/use studies: a) the adequacy of the collection is directly related to its use by students and
faculty, and b) circulation records provide a reasonably representative picture of collection use. These studies analyze
circulation data to determine trends in use of part or the total collection, by user group, by purchase date of book, or
by subject area. Data of these types can be used to:

identify little-used portions of the collections that can be retired to less accessible and less expensive

storage areas
identify a core collection of items likely to satisfy some specified percentage (say 90%) of all circulation

demands within the near future. These titles which are heavily used may therefore require duplication,
or treatment in some other way, to improve their availability
identify use patterns of selected subject areas or types of materials by comparing their representation in

the total collection (expressed as a proportion of titles or volumes available) to their circulation
(expressed as percentages of all circulations). The resulting information is helpful in adjusting collection
development practices or fund allocations.
Identify user populations and/or relative use by different populations

Such data are usually gathered more easily from an automated circulation system, but some of them have
not been designed to provide data in the format desired for a given study. The advantages of circulation studies
include:
data are easily arranged into categories for analysis

allows great flexibility as to duration of study and sample size

units of information are easily counter

information is objective

with todays circulation systems, use data becomes increasingly easy and inexpensive to gather

The disadvantage of these studies include:

excludes in-house consultation and thus under-represents actual use

reflects only successes and does not record user or collection failures

may be biased through inaccessibility of heavily-used material

fails to identify low use due to obsolescence or low quality of collection

circulation data cannot reflect the use generated within the library such as reference collections and

noncirculating journals
circulation data cannot reflect the use generated within the library

even for circulating items, there is no way of knowing how the material was used; perhaps the volume

was used to prop open a window or press flowers

value derived from a circulated item is unknown, making it difficult to accurately assess the collections
worth

In-House Use Studies

Several techniques are available for recording the use of materials consulted in the library and re-shelved by
library staff. This type of study can be approached from two directions: materials used and users of materials. The
study can focus on the entire collection or a part of the collection and/or on all users or a sample of users. The
definition of use must be clearly specified, i.e., at table, at shelf, etc. While some in-house use may appear casual or
of minimal importance, such as at-the-shelf-use, there is a potential danger of assigning values to different types of
uses. The extent to which patterns of in-library use parallel patterns of at-home use remains controversial and little
has been published about the values to patrons of different kinds of reading or consulting of library materials Use data,

5
normally circulation figures, are objective and the legitimate differences in the objectives of the institution that the
library serves do not affect the data. One can tailor use studies to fit the library, rather than forcing the library into a
standard mold. They are also helpful in deselection projects. An important factor is to have adequate amounts of data
on whc8ih to base a judgment. With todays computer-based circulation systems, use data becomes increasingly easy
and inexpensive to gather.
The advantages of these studies include:
user approach to in-house use gives a more complete picture of in-library use than a study which focuses on

materials. It can be used to correlate type of user with type of materials used
can be used in conjunction with circulation study focused on same part of the collection to give more accurate

information on use of the collection

regular pattern of sampling periodical use combines in-house and out-of-library use

can tailor use studies to fit the library, rather than forcing the library into a standard mold

helpful in deselection projects

The disadvantages of in-house use studies include:

difficult to use in uncontrolled or open stack areas because of the need to rely on users cooperation.

Probably have to supplement by direct observation to ascertain appropriate correction factor for noncooperating users
timing of the study during the year, such as during a peak period or slack period, may bias results

materials in circulation are not available for in-house use and this may bias the observations

reflects only successes; does not indicate user or collection failures

Survey of User Opinions

The goal of a user survey is to determine how well the librarys collections meet the users information needs
by gathering written or oral responses to specific questions. Information from user surveys can be used to:

evaluate quantitatively and qualitatively the effectiveness of the collections in meeting users needs

provide information to help solve specific problems

define the makeup of the actual community of library users

identify user groups that need to be better served

provide feedback on successes as well as deficiencies

improve public relations and assist in the education of the user community

identify changing trends and interests

The advantages of user surveys include:

it is not limited to existing data, such as circulation statistics

permits direct feedback from users

can be as simple or complex as desired

The disadvantages of this method include:

designing a sophisticated survey is difficult, i.e., it is difficult to frame unambiguous questions that will

yield quantifiable results

analyzing and interpreting data from an opinion survey to get usable information is difficult and imprecise

most users are likely to be passive about collections and so must be approached individually and polled

one at a time, increasing the costs of conducting the survey

some users may not cooperate in the survey and thus results may be skewed

many users are not aware of what their library should reasonably be expected to do for them and

therefore have difficulty in judging what is adequate

user surveys may record perceptions, intentions, and recollections which do not always reflect actual

experiences
users interest may be focused more narrowly than collection development policies. This may introduce a

negative bias in the survey results.

By definition, surveys of user opinions will miss valuable statements from and about the nonuser

Shelf Availability Studies

This approach is used to determine whether or not an item presumed to be in the collection is actually
available to the user. While other methodologies depend on simulation, this technique monitors user inquiries directly
and measures how often the collection is deficient when a user cannot find an item and how often the users error
causes an item to be inaccessible. During a specified period, users are asked to name the titles that they failed to find
in the library. One method is to interview users, another to administer questionnaires as users leave the library or to
provide failure slips as they enter the library. It may include all users of the library, or it can focus on a random
sample of these users. This technique monitors user inquiries directly and identifies deficiencies in the collection as
well as illustrating users errors in locating materials. Collection deficiencies may take the form of titles not owned or
an insufficient number of copies of a given title. The reasons why a user may fail to find a desired item may include:
item not owned by the library; item not on shelf due to circulation; item missing or mis-shelved; lack of clear
directions for location of materials; lack of correct or complete citation; and users error in copying a call number or
locating the item on the shelf. The information gathered will identify causes of user failures that should lead to
corrective action and changes. The advantages of this technique include:
provides immediate, relevant results

provides overall view of the size, scope and quality of the collection

evaluator sees what the users see

reports the failure of real users in finding materials

as a by-product identifies non-collection development reasons for user failures and provides data on

which changes in library policies and procedures may be based

can be readily repeated to measure changes in library performance

The disadvantages of shelf availability studies include:

subjective and impressionistic; results may be biased if conducted by the librarian who developed that

collection or currently selects for it

depends on the cooperation of users

some materials may not be on the shelf

Designing and carrying out the study is time-consuming and difficult

Does not identify the needs of nonusers

Simulated Use Studies

Citation Studies. Citation analysis consists of counting and/or ranking the number of times documents are
cited in footnote references, bibliographies, or indexing and abstracting tools and comparing those figures. It is
assumed that items that are relatively heavily cited are likely to be used more than those that are cited little or not at
all. This technique is similar to the collection-based List checking, but here emphasis is on how many times an item
is cited to establish relative importance. Citation studies may be used in a variety of situations, but recently their
focus has been to develop core lists of primary journals and to identify candidates for cancellation or storage.
Empirical data have repeatedly shown that, in many subjects, a relatively small number of core primary journals
contain a substantial portion of the journal literature bearing on that subject although the proportion varies from one
discipline to another. The rest of the literature is scattered throughout a large number of secondary journals. Ranked
lists of journals may be used in the development and management of journal collections.
This technique is most applicable to research or special collections in university or special libraries. It can be
characterized as a specialized form of list checking, in which the lists are created by the evaluator from scholarly books
and articles. Citation lists can be more specific and current than published lists, but citation analysis is timeconsuming (less so with a computer) and labor intensive. If your collection is broad, this probably be not a useful
method.
Procedures

sources of citations include dissertations, theses, scholarly and specialized books and articles, special

reports, works by best authors in the field, reference tools, and electronic databases
determine the sampling method

compile list

check against library holdings

tabulate and analyze results

integrate findings with results of other techniques to determine the collection level

The advantages of citation studies include:

data are easily arranged into categories for analysis

method is sufficiently simple that it can be employed repeatedly

timely and current: identifies changing trends in the published literature

citations could be computer generated:

databases
frequently used to develop core lists of primary journals

can help identify candidates for cancellation or storage

lists can be compiled efficiently and rapidly utilizing online

The disadvantages of this technique include:

time consuming and labor intensive

susceptible to popular trends

it is difficult to select the source items that will reflect the subject studies or the local user needs

subareas of one discipline may have different citation patterns from the general subject

research patterns of some disciplines do not lend themselves to citation studies

the inherent time lag in citations will not reflect changes of emphasis in disciplines and/or the

emergence of new core journals

citations do not follow consistent bibliographic standards

citation analysis in isolation is a questionable measure for collection development decisions

Document Delivery Tests. This carries the citation study a step further, in that it determines not only whether
the library holds a certain but, in addition, whether the item can be located and how long it takes to do so. Document
delivery tests assess the capability of the library to provide users with the items they need at the time they need them.
This technique is also similar to the shelf availability study, but searching is done by library staff rather than users.
The most frequent approach is to compile a list of citations that are presumed to reflect the information needs of the
users of the library. The test determines both the number of items owned by the library and the time required to
locate a specific item. Essentially this technique simulates users walking into the library and each user looking for a
particular item. The advantages of the technique include:
provides objective measurements of ability of collection to satisfy user needs

data can be compared between libraries if identical citation lists are used

The disadvantages of document delivery tests include:

it is difficult to compile a list of representative citations

since library staff perform the searches, the test understates the problems encountered by users,

such as user error in locating materials

to be meaningful, results require repeated tests or comparisons with studies conducted in other

libraries
When planning a collection evaluation project, it is important to carefully define the goals for the program,
choose the most appropriate methods to be used, and establish what information is needed. An evaluation can be
fully comprehensive or it can focus on specific areas, depending on the librarys needs and the resources available to
carry it out (evaluations can be expensive!). It can be tempting to gather all sorts of information because it seems
interesting, but it may be useless if it does not fit into the parameters of the project. Be sure that everyone
participating in the project understands what is expected and when tasks should be completed.

7
There is no single, best way to evaluate a particular collection. Usually, an effective evaluation uses a
combination of techniques to gather two kinds of data: quantitative (including numbers, age, and/or use statistics) and
qualitative (such as list checking). The type of data useful for evaluation depends on the purpose and mission of the
library. For example, a library that wants to provide many varied titles might compare its acquisition rate to annual
publishing output, and might look at titles held per capita. If the library has very limited space and must keep growth
to a minimum, data on turnover rates (how often items are circulated), acquisitions, withdrawals (weeding) will be
essential. A library that focuses on popular works would want information on circulation and in-house use per capita.
Some Recommended Lists, Best Books, and Core Collections
Retrospective Lists
Books for College Libraries: A Core Collection of 50,000 titles. 3rd ed. Chicago, Il.: Association of College and
Research Libraries, 1988; 6 vols.
This six-volume set devoted to broad disciplines (humanities, history, social sciences, etc.), it recommends a
core collection of about 50,000 titles for undergraduate libraries. No annotations, just basic cataloging
information.
Choices Opening day collection.
Fiction Catalog
Guide to reference books. 11th ed. Robert Balay, editor. ALA)
Covers some 16,000 reference titles for medium-sized and large libraries. Annotations for each
title are included.
College Library Book Selection Conference, Cagayan de Oro City. Basic books for a college library
The Readers Adviser: A Laymans Guide to Literature, 13th ed. Edited by Fred Kaplan. New York: R.R. Bowker. 198688. 6 vols.
First published in 1921 as The Bookmans manual, it lists titles that should be in modestly sized
libraries. Generally reliable listing of books with annotations.
Subject Bibliographies
Baxter, Pam M. Psychology: a guide to reference and information sources. Englewood, Co., Libraries Unlimited, 1993.
Coman, Edwin T. Sources of Business Information.
Deason, Hilary J., ed. The AAS Science book list. Washington, American Association for the Advancement of Science,
1959.
Patricia A. Meelung. Selection of materials in the humanities, Social Sciences and Sciences.
Beth Shapiro and John Waley. Selection of library materials in applied and interdisciplinary fields
Alfred N. Brandon. Selected list of books and journals for the small medical library
Serials
William Katz. Magazines for libraries
Standard periodical directory
Ulrichs International Periodicals Directory
Serials directory (EBSCO)
Gale directory of publications and broadcast media (Gale Research)
Loke, Wing Hong. A guide to journals in psychology and education. Metuchen, N.J., The Scarecrow Press,
1990.
Audiovisual Materials
Media digest
NICEM (National Information Center for Education Media) indexes
Index to overhead transparencies
Index to educational audio tapes
Index to educational slides
Index to educational video tapes
Microforms
Guide to microforms in print
National register of microform masters
Microform review
CD-ROMS
Bosch, Sstephen, ed. Guide to selecting and acquiring CD-ROMS, software and other Electronic publications.
ALA, 1994.

8
Jasco, Peter. CD-ROM, software, dataware and hardware: evaluation, selection and installation. Libraries
Unlimited, 1992.
Dewey, Patrick R. 300 CD-ROMs to use in the library: description, evaluations, and practical advice. ALA,
1996.
Database: magazine of electronic database reviews
Online and CD-ROM review
Current Reviews
Booklist.
Publishes positive reviews of new titles for public and school libraries
Choice
Critical evaluation of new books of particular interest to academic libraries
Library Journal
The book review section gives practical evaluation of current titles
Book Review Digest
Compilation of citations and summaries of new books