Cloth or Paper: Usage by Binding in an Academic Library

Abstract

This study analyzed checkout data from hardback and paperback volumes in the BYU library to determine if there was a difference in circulation rates. Based on usage from 2000 through 2020, hardback volumes are no more likely to circulate than paperbacks over that 20 year range, regardless of when the book was added to the collection or its subject (i.e. humanities, sciences, or social sciences). Also, the average number of circulations for these volumes was low enough that damage to a paperback book was unlikely. Given the lower price of paperbacks, academic library budgets may be better served buying paperbacks.

Keywords:

• Acquisitions
• binding
• usage

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Litzinger conducted a series of tests on school textbooks demonstrating cloth held out longer than paperback texts. Christensen found that many paperbacks survive longer than expected; he advocated prebound materials only in cases of long-term expected use. Presley and Landram found that most paperback books from their sample were still in working order, four years after an earlier evaluation which even included a library-wide collection shift in that time period.

2 Silverman and Speiser found paper on average lasted 8.5 circulations before needing to be replaced or repaired where cloth bound books lasted 11 circulations on average before needing attention.

3 Rinio found that paper acidity and circulation accounted for a large portion of damaged books, rather than binding or even how books were shelved.

4 A and Z subjects were omitted due to their generic subject matter; the library also has a collection of books in Dewey call numbers for elementary and secondary education curricular support, but due to the specific nature and purpose of the collection, these too were omitted from the sample.

5 The authors are deeply indebted to the cheerful student reference employees who carried out this arduous and time-consuming task.

6 These were in addition to the report limited to B-V. These 74 slipped through the initial report selection process.

7 We explained data from renewals and in-house uses in conjunction with just initial checkouts and while the cost-per-use declined for hardbacks, the cost-per-use of paperbacks declined at the same rate, creating a statistically identical ROI, regardless of whether renewals and in-house uses were included.

8 Examining these by date of publication and by discipline returned a similar percentage of 10 or more and 5 or less.