1. Preliminary results of this survey are reported by Brown, Linda A. “Approval Vendor Selection–What’s Best Practice,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 22 (Autumn 1998), 341–351.
2. Previous surveys of libraries using approval plans included McCullough, K., Posey, E., and Pickett, D., Approval Plans and Academic Libraries, Phoenix: Orix, 1977, who cite some earlier surveys on p. viii. The landmark survey in this area was conducted by Reidelbach, John H. and Shirk, Gary M. “Selecting an Approval Plan Vendor: A Step-by-Step Process.” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 7 (No. 2 1983), 115–112; “Selecting an Approval Plan Vendor II: Comparative Vendor Data,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 8 (No. 3 1984), 157–202; and, especially, “Selecting an Approval Plan Vendor III: Academic Librarians’ Evaluations of Eight United States Approval Plan Vendors,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 9 (No. 3 1985), 177–260, which is the most extensive survey in print dealing with approval plans, to our knowledge. Surveys of management of approval plans in ARL libraries were contained in Approval Plans in ARL Libraries Spec Kit #83, Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1982 and Approval Plans, Spec Kit #141, Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1988, 1–30; and Flood, Susan, compiler, Evolution & Status of Approval Plans. SPEC Kit 221, Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, 1997, 1–21. Rossi, Gary J. “Library Approval Plans: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, 11 (No. 1 1987), 3–34, is a standard bibliography to 1986. More current on one aspect of approval plans is Case, Beau, “Approval Plan Evaluation Studies: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography, 1969–1996,” Against the Grain, 8 (Sept., 1996), 18–22, 24.
3. The authors wish to thank Franklin Goza, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Bowling Green State University and Elaine Howard, Vice President, Market Facts, Inc., Arlington Heights, IL, for reviewing the survey questionnaire and Howard for her valuable suggestion to include the ratings of vendor performance in the survey questionnaire.
4. The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to the five vendors whose cooperation was indispensable in allowing this survey to proceed. They bear no responsibility for or association with any statements made in this article. Responsibility lies solely with the authors.
5. Names of additional doctoral institutions were selected from “Earned Doctorate (and Intermediate Degrees) in Regionally Accredited American Universities and College, 1975–1989, by Institution and Year,” American Universities and Colleges, American Council on Education, 14th Edition, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992.