A description of the catalog division project at the College of Physicians of Philadelphia Library.

This paper describes the procedures used at the Library of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia to divide its ninety-year-old dictionary card catalog. The division was necessitated by overcrowding, obsolete subject headings, and lack of a complete authority list which resulted in like materials being scattered throughout the catalog under several headings. Two catalogs were created: the historical-biographical catalog, representing all works published before 1950 and all works of historical or biographical nature; and the current catalog, containing all works published from 1950 on, excepting historical or biographical materials. The 1950- catalog was further divided into name and subject catalogs, and the subject section was revised according to MeSH. The project was completed in about two years. As a result, searching time has been much reduced, and the library is able to take advantage of the annual revisions of MeSH to update the subject catalog.     

科技论文题名中"研究"一词的使用原则

针对科技论文题名中"研究"一词的滥用现象,分析"研究"的内涵及其在科技论文题名中的用法,并提出正确使用的原则.     

研究性论文的结尾应是"结论"而非"讨论"

针对某些科技期刊(如医学、生物学等期刊)研究性论文的结尾普遍采用"讨论"而不是"结论"的现象,对"讨论"与"结论"的概念及内容进行对比分析,并指出:在一般情况下研究性论文的结尾应该是"结论"而非"讨论".