Manual versus computerized retrospective reference retrieval in an academic library

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Twenty searches, initially completed on-line in 1976 by London University Central Information Services, were performed manually. Both modes were costed and their effectiveness examined in terms of relevant references retrieved. The average computerized cost was £28.55 versus an average manual cost of £37.10, while both modes were equally effective. It was found that the most significant variables in determining the relationship between manual and computerized costs were user salary and the time required for a manual search. Evidence also suggests that the degree to which the structure of the indexing language reflects the subject of the query strongly influenced the ease with which a bibliographic tool could be searched manually. For those retrieval tools lacking the added structure of abstracts, manual searches were overwhelmingly cheaper. No variation in search characteristics was found between postgraduates and academic staff. However, due to the salary differential between these two gronps, manual searches were less costly for the former while the reverse was true for the latter. The salary point where the price advantage shifted from manual to computerized was shown to be around £2 per hour.

This publication has 3 references indexed in Scilit: