Notebooks are often classified as highly confidential because this data is essential for providing patent and copyright protection. That these notebooks will be maintained in some sort of library or archive is often briefly mentioned in the handbooks which accompany new research notebooks. Chemical, pharmaceutical, and food research companies often document ongoing laboratory research through the use of notebooks. In addition, these companies tend to have research libraries or proprietary document archives which are entrusted with completed notebooks, and which are relied upon to develop a storage and retrieval system to guarantee their access while also maintaining protection of confidential materials. Unlike public and academic libraries which develop specialized collections, the special library with a laboratory notebook collection does not have the luxury of choosing which notebooks--out of the total generated by the organization--it will accept into the collection, or which ones it will weed out of the collection when space becomes a concern. Yet, the literature which does go beyond discussion of proper use of research notebooks still fails to completely address the need for physical security of their valuable contents, or provide in-depth guidelines for maintenance and storage. No benchmarking standards exist for librarians to base their research notebook collection maintenance and security procedures upon.
Physical security: precautions taken to guard against theft, damage, or loss of actual and original material or information.
Bork (1983) states that there are two aspects of protecting notebook records: "(1) maintaining it confidential unless and until the information is specifically released and (2) providing for its physical safekeeping and security." (9) He believes that the details of maintaining confidential information do not need to be explained, but does feel that it is essential that extreme care be used in keeping the record physically intact and undamaged during its generation and storage. He suggests first keeping the notebooks in a place other than the laboratory, and in steel filing cabinets or fireproof files. He also believes that the notebook's whereabouts should be known to the researcher, particularly if the notebooks are sent off to a central repository. Once a notebook reaches its storage destination, Bork (1983) states that "it is essential that a log of its location be maintained" with "proper identifying guidelines." (9) Microfilm copies of the notebook records should be made and stored at a site separate from the original documents. Bork is not writing from a librarian's perspective, nor does he specifically address a library's needs when handling research notebooks as part of the collection.
Similarly, the Texas Instruments Laboratory and Engineering Notebook guide notes the importance of "proper security markings on, and storage of, notebooks as required" (Texas Instruments 1986). TI often performs research under Department of Defense contract, so proper security and storage of notebooks is not a small matter. The guide states that, "TI legal personnel or other TI-ers with a valid need-to-know may borrow a copy of a notebook." (2) Original notebooks may be retained by researchers after a microfilm or photo duplicate copy is made. No other information on the care of notebooks after they are acquired by the library is offered.
Bell (1981) discusses the possibilities of a storage and retrieval method for research notebooks, based on a survey of food science libraries in the United States. She found that a number of food science libraries do not handle the research notebooks generated within the company. Some are kept in departmental offices and filed according to differing systems, and generally not easily available to other members of the institution. Bell identifies four systems of storage and retrieval and outlines criteria for a basic system. Cost effectiveness, convenience, ease of use, flexibility to incorporate different data, and physical integrity are some of the major criteria she suggests. A number of libraries do not employ indexing or retrieval systems of any kind.
Bell's (1981) research shows the most recent in-depth study of some of the problems associated with keeping laboratory notebooks in an archive or library. Her conclusions are that there are general drawbacks in the indexing systems being used, perhaps as a result of uncooperative researchers unwilling to take part in a storage and retrieval system. Bell does not address the issues of physical security and storage when these notebooks have been indexed--and yet indexing is done specifically to insure retrieval and use.
In his book Kanare (1985) goes to great lengths to discuss the details involved in keeping a notebook, and why such meticulous care is necessary on the part of the researcher. His sections on the librarian's responsibilities are less detailed, but still offer basic information. He recommends that notebooks be "kept locked in drawers or cabinets when not in use," and that "in industry, completed notebooks should be turned in to a central office for cataloging, microfilming, and storage" (50). Kanare also lists requirements for records storage facilities as put forth by the American National Standards Institute. These requirements cover construction materials, drainage control, air circulation and fire control systems. No mention is made as to whether these requirements are being applied to libraries with laboratory notebook collections, or if these standards are being used to keep notebooks secure.
In older literature Mendenhall (1978) and Bailey (1972) both discuss methods of indexing notebooks. Mendenhall also takes note of the sparse literature on the subject, and mentions the use of optical scanning to record indexing data. By adapting information given by chemists and translating the data to electronic storage a system of in-depth indexing, sorting, and retrieval can be produced. Mendenhall's suggestions are brief, and somewhat outdated by current technology. Bailey goes more into depth with her suggestions on organizing a collection of research notebooks. She outlines methods of assigning numbers to individual notebooks, based on authorship or project, strategies for maintaining control of the notebook collection, and procedures for making each record for the card catalog.
A computer database of names was created using mailing labels provided by the officers of the Pharmaceutical Division of the Special Libraries Association. Membership names were matched with control numbers, and control numbers were printed on labels and affixed to the questionnaires in order to track returns. Control labels were also affixed to return envelopes in the event the original questionnaire was not returned. Once a response was received and keyed into the database, the record was erased in order to eliminate further mailings.
Questionnaires were mailed with a personalized cover letter explaining the project and offering further contact information (Appendix B). Respondents were give the options of replying with an included stamped return envelope, by fax machine, or by electronic mail. A total of 586 questionnaires were mailed to members of the Pharmaceutical Division who had contact addresses within the United States. Two weeks later reminder postcards were mailed to those who had not responded to the initial letter and questionnaire. Telephone calls were made to those respondents who sent back a questionnaire, but who had forgotten to complete the questions on the second page, in order to acquire completed forms.
A total of 234 individuals responded to the questionnaire and the reminder postcard resulting in a 39.9% response rate. Approximately half of the responses (120 of 234) were from individuals who reported that laboratory notebooks are not generated within their organization. It is likely that a majority of the remaining individuals who did not reply did so because their organization does not conduct research which produces laboratory notebooks. Individuals who have an interest in pharmaceuticals librarianship, but who do not currently work in a research library may have chosen to ignore the questionnaire. Since questionnaires were mailed to individuals and not to libraries, more than one individual within the same organization may have received a questionnaire, while only one response was returned. Responses from the postcard reminder mailing indicated that some individuals did not reply to the initial questionnaire because another individual in the library already had. It is also possible that when laboratory notebooks were not held by the library the individual questioned did not know which department had that responsibility and failed to reply rather than indicate a lack of knowledge.
Research and development administration were also frequently identified as being responsible for completed laboratory notebooks. Six respondents indicated that they did not know which department was responsible for the organization's laboratory notebook collection. Two respondents indicated that the library's only responsibility was to distribute new blank notebooks to researchers, since they are centrally located and continuously staffed. Two individuals actively refused to participate, claiming that the library's involvement with laboratory notebooks was a proprietary matter.Table 1.--Reported Location of Laboratory Notebook Collections
Location Number library 26 records/ documents management 20 proprietary/ scientific research 15 R&D department administration 11 individual departments/ labs 8 don't know 6 legal/ patents department 5 other site library 5 regulatory affairs 5 administrative services 4 technical documentation 4 archives 3 outsourced 1 quality assurance 1 total departments identified 114 not applicable/ refused participation 120 total responses 234 total population surveyed 586
Question two asked the number of notebooks in each collection. Answers ranged from 332 to 31,100 total volumes, with an average of over 4000 volumes (Figure 1). Collection sizes were most often indicated in average numbers rounded off to the nearest hundred or thousand volumes: three of the libraries reported exact collection size while the rest gave averages. In response to the third question only two libraries reported using electronically generated notebooks. Question four asked how often new notebooks were added. The most common responses were on a daily or weekly basis, with two libraries reporting annual additions en masse.
The responses to question five indicate that a majority of the libraries have had notebook collections within their department for more than five years, often since the founding or early days of the organization. When asked how long the library has had responsibility for the notebook collection 75 years was the longest time reported, and 2 months the shortest (Table 2). On average, these collections have been in the library for 14 years. Libraries which have had the collection for less time appear to be in organizations which have been established only in recent years. Question seven asked why the library had been given responsibility for the notebook collection. The reasons center around the need for both centralized management of the records and an organized staff to take the responsibility. One library reported that the organization's founder "was farsighted enough to hire an archivist at the company's conception." When other departments within the organization had been responsible for the notebooks in the past, the collection was transferred to the library because the other department was seen as disorganized or inefficient. Reasons such as "proper staffing," "because we're organized," and "they didn't organize or manage the project efficiently" were given as answers. One respondent explained that, "cataloging, circulation, information retrieval, and records management are part of our responsibilities. Lab notebooks require all of these operations." However, another respondent noted that, "It is such a thankless job, no one else would do it!" while one echoes, "No one else wants the job." Question six asked which departments other than the library had been responsible for notebooks at some time in the past. Answers include individual researchers, laboratory management, quality assurance, documents management groups, and computer services, although 16 of the 26 respondents indicated that no other group had ever had this responsibility.
Time Number less than one year 1 1-5 years 4 5-10 years 5 10-15 years 6 15-20 years 3 20-25 years 0 25-30 years 2 30-35 years 0 35-40 years 1 40-45 years 1 more than 45 years 1 * two respondents did not answer this questionQuestion twenty asked the participating individuals how many years of experience they have had with laboratory notebooks in a library setting. The librarians responsible for these collections indicated a range of personal experience with notebooks, from less than one year to 17 years (Figure 2). Average experience was over seven years. The total number of years of library experience and level of education of participating librarians was not asked in this survey.
Questions eleven through fourteen probed methods of preparing backup copies and storage of these copies. Most libraries have taken advantage of microfilming for preparing backup copies of their collections. For security and disaster preparedness these microfilm copies are often kept offsite with a document storage vendor. Copies are also kept onsite in locked storage rooms, archives or vaults. Nine libraries reported using offsite storage exclusively, while seven libraries reported having copies both onsite and offsite. Six libraries reported having backup copies kept onsite only. Three libraries did not respond with the location of their backup copies. One library stores images of notebook pages on laser disk. Another has copies made on archival paper and bound, while an additional copy is burned onto a CD-ROM. One library keeps copies in electronic format on a computer hard drive. Additionally, one library stated that copies were made with the use of carbon paper until earlier this year, and that copies are now no longer being made in this fashion. Backup copies of this collection are not reported.
Storage of original notebooks is reported to be onsite in half of the libraries with responsibility for them (Table 3). Other libraries have offsite storage facilities for original notebooks, or have some combination of onsite and offsite storage arrangements. There was no indication of why some notebooks, within a single organization, are stored onsite while others are stored offsite. One library failed to report the location of its originals.
Questions fifteen, sixteen and seventeen focused on circulation procedures for the notebook collections. When asked who could check out notebooks the answer was always some variation of employee or research staff. In some cases it was noted that a manager's approval was needed in order to gain access to the laboratory notebook collection, and in one instance it was further noted that this approval is rarely granted. In all cases non-employees are specifically denied access to the notebooks, and this category may include temporary and part-time employees as well. It was noted by some respondents that researchers who were not issued the notebook they wish to examine (i.e. the notebook was generated by another researcher) may need special management approval in order to gain access to it. When notebooks could be checked out they could not be removed from the company premises except under extreme circumstances. Exceptions are usually made for patent attorneys. One library reported that employees are subject to special procedures for the removal of company property.Table 3.--Locations of Original Laboratory Notebooks
Location Reported as Storage Site onsite 13 offsite 5 both 7 not reported 1
According to the responses to question eighteen, most patrons who have access to the notebook collection are allowed to photocopy pages from the notebook although, again, special permission may have to be obtained and records may be kept of who photocopied which pages. Three libraries reported that permission from project directors was necessary, while two noted that copies can only be made from notebooks generated by the employee. Copies made in one library are recorded and stamped as copies. Another library noted that while copies are permitted, they are not encouraged. One library with copies on optical disk allows prints from that source, and one library allows copies from microfilm.
The number of laboratory notebooks lost or stolen each year appears to be low, and since most libraries also reported microfilm backups as regular procedure, the concern over missing data may be small. Answers to question nineteen show that the number of missing or lost notebooks ranged from zero to between 1 and 5 a year. One respondent noted that "none have been lost in the last few years now that we track them electronically and have strict assignment and sign out procedures." Another library noted that losses occur when notebooks are not completed and submitted according to proper procedures. One library reported that while no notebooks were stolen, between two and three volumes are found to be lost each year. Another library reports up to three original notebooks lost each year, but adds that they have the microfilm copies to replace them. One library stated that while 83 notebooks were known to be missing from the collection, these losses date from before the library was given the responsibility of managing them.
The final question was designed to probe problem areas which might not have been covered by other questions and to give the respondents a chance to voice concerns about their responsibilities. Libraries which chose to respond to this question offered a variety of concerns, usually about the procedures involved in collecting and maintaining such a collection. The overwhelming concern was with control of the entire process: six libraries would like to give up responsibility for their collections to another internal documents group, while the library concentrates on external publications used for research. One library reported that the organization "does not provide adequate storage facilities to do the job right" and another wanted the company to "put more resources into this area since lab notebooks are a very important intellectual and financial asset to the company." One library would like more control over the entire process, especially in writing and enforcing policies, and two others mention that their biggest problem is in enforcing standard procedure for filling out and signing notebook pages--a task more suited for laboratory managers.
Other concerns centered around generating indices for the notebooks, either by making the researcher write a subject index, or by having both the staff and resources to create one. Three respondents said they would like to improve the indexing and cataloging of their collection. Converting the paper notebooks to microform or electronic backup was also seen as an issue: one library would like to control the scanning process, in order to keep it running more efficiently; two noted that the microfilming process was felt to be too time consuming and labor intensive; and two said that they would like to have images of the pages available on computer disk.
Controlling access to laboratory notebooks does not seem to be a current issue, as most librarians report a series of controls which must be overcome in order to view notebook contents and make copies for personal use. While tracking document usage does not guarantee that valuable records will not be lost, it prevents loss due to carelessness and can document intentional acts of vandalism. The keeping of copies at locations separate from the original indicates knowledge of the value of such documents and the necessity of being prepared for an emergency which might include permanent damage or loss of valuable information. The loss of original notebooks does not appear to be a major concern, mostly due to frequent and thorough microform or electronic backup procedures which make a loss less of a detriment to the organization. Sufficient care of these collections has been taken to insure that, in the event the original is lost, the information it contained is still available in some format. Improvements in indexing and cataloging procedures would have the additional benefit of insuring that the information could be found if such a loss were to occur.
Further research into laboratory notebook collections is possible through a number of topics. More detailed investigation of the special libraries already surveyed could provide specific information which could be used to develop a guide to maintaining these collections. Much wisdom could be gained by interviewing the librarians who have worked with notebook collections over the years. Similar surveys should be taken of sister divisions in the Special Libraries Association, notably in chemistry and food sciences. Practices which match or differ from those discovered within the pharmaceutical industry may offer much material for discussion. Additionally, a survey of practices among other departments which have responsibility for laboratory notebooks, specifically documents management groups, will provide more information for comparison and evaluation. The number of legal and patent departments which have responsibility for the collection, combined with the special circulation privileges given to attorneys may indicate a trend of special interest to legal librarians. Care will have to be taken in uncovering this information, since some organizations regard their procedures as being as proprietary as the data it protects. Laboratory notebooks are an increasingly valuable resource for many organizations, and the practices surrounding their safekeeping should not be kept as much a secret as their contents.
Arnold, Patricia K., Manager of Library Services, Frito-Lay, Inc. 1994. Interview by author, 28 September, Plano. Author's notes. Bailey, Martha J. 1972. The laboratory notebook as a research and development record. Special Libraries (April): 189-194. Bell, Margaret C. 1981. Laboratory notebook storage and retrieval systems. Science and Technology Libraries 1 (Summer): 65-71. Bork, C.K. 1983. Record Books -- Their Generation, Maintenance and Safe Keeping. Midland, Michigan: The Dow Chemical Company. Kanare, Howard M. 1985. Writing the Laboratory Notebook. American Chemical Society. Mendenhall, Donna M. 1978. Indexing laboratory notebooks in a chemical R&D environment. Special Libraries (July): 261-266. Texas Instruments Incorporated. 1986. Laboratory and Engineering Notebooks. (np)
Appendix A "I understand that the return of my completed questionnaire constitutes my informed consent to act as a subject in this research." A "laboratory notebook" is a bound collection of serially numbered pages used to record the progress of scientific investigations. These notebooks are used in both the laboratory setting and in field studies. It may also be known as a "lab book," "project notebook," "engineering log," or "research journal." 1. Does this library have the main responsibility for storing and retrieving completed laboratory notebooks within your organization ? __ yes __ no -- > If the library is not responsible for laboratory notebooks, who is? -- > If the library is not responsible for laboratory notebooks, please return this questionnaire now. 2. How many notebooks are in your collection? 3. Does your organization use electronically generated notebooks? 4. How often do you add new notebooks to your holdings? 5. How long has your library been responsible for these notebooks? 6. Which other departments within your organization have had responsibility for notebooks in the past? 7. Why does the library now have responsibility for the notebooks? 8. Are your notebooks cataloged? 9. Are your notebooks indexed? 10. Which format does the catalog or the index take: electronic or paper? 11. Are your notebooks available on microfilm or microfiche? 12. What kinds of backup copies are made of your notebooks? 13. Where are the original notebooks physically stored? 14. Where are backup copies of notebooks stored? 15. Who can check out notebooks from your collection? 16. If notebooks can be checked out, is it permitted to remove them from the company premises? 17. Who cannot check out notebooks from your collection? 18. Can library users make photocopies of the notebooks? 19. How many notebooks are lost or stolen each year? 20. How many years experience have you had with laboratory notebooks in a library setting? 21. If you could change any aspect of your responsibility for laboratory notebooks, what would you change, and why?
Dawn Duperault
xxx Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx
Xxxxxxxxxx, XX xxxxx
(xxx)xxx-xxxx x3296
Dear [Library professional],
I am conducting a research study called The Laboratory Notebook in the Special Library. I am gathering information on the current status of laboratory notebook collections with the goal of determining trends and issues within this specialized field. Your response to the enclosed questionnaire will help to build a profile of special libraries with collections of laboratory notebooks. Since very little information on these collections exists, your response will provide valuable baseline data of benefit to special librarians across the field.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. However, your decision to participate and return the completed questionnaire will result in a more accurate survey. Only half an hour of your time is asked for participation. Your thoughtful answers to the enclosed questionnaire are deeply appreciated, and a stamped return envelope has been provided for your convenience. If you prefer, you may fax your reply to me directly at (xxx)xxx-xxxx.
Please note that information collected from all libraries will be compiled into one report. Individual responses will be held confidential and will not be made available separately from the final report, and individual libraries will not be identified in any part of the report. Every effort will be made to insure that there is no risk to you through a breach of confidentiality. While research is in progress your information will be stored in electronic format on my personal computer. The paper copy of your response will be destroyed after your information is entered into the database. All records which connect you and your library to this study will be destroyed after the final report is printed in May of 1995.
We will try to prevent any problem that could happen because of this research. Please let us know at once if there is a problem and we will help you. You should understand, however, that TWU does not provide medical services or financial assistance for injuries that might happen because you are taking part in this research.
Questions and concerns may be addressed to either myself or to Dr. Joy McGregor in the School of Library and Information Studies at Texas Woman's University, (817)898-2612.
If you have any questions about the research or about your rights as a subject, we want you to ask us. If you have questions later, or if you wish to report a research-related complication (in addition to notifying the investigator), you may call the Office of Research & Grants Administration during office hours at (817)898-3375.
Sincerely, Dawn Duperault