Artur Jazdon On evaluation and categorization of libraries
	Poznań University Library
	This article was translated thanks to the grant received from the Open Society Institute

In the recent years, we have become familiarized with such terms as standardization, categorization, accreditation, evaluation, educational quality, assessment, calculation, ranking, etc. Depending on the context, these terms are meant to stimulate effectiveness and efficiency in library services but, sometimes, they sound more frightening than motivating. We hear them most commonly referred to research activities, teaching, educational programs, accomplishments of individual scholars, specific university units and universities, in general. We hear them and, very often, don't bother to think about them twice. After all, how important is it to us that a certain university department was granted a C category? If it means that it will receive less funding next year, its employees and management will strive to get a better result in the next evaluation. What business do we, modest librarians, have in it? Well, it should be important to us because, when several departments of a university receive a poor evaluation, state funding for the whole university declines, eventually, decreasing the library budget. However, in my opinion, this is only part of the problem. I am deeply convinced that libraries cannot avoid assessment - honest, thorough, and based on legitimate rules and performance indicators. Furthermore, I support evaluation because of the effect that it should have on improving library operations. My stance on this issue is not just motivated by recent rankings published in Rzeczpospolita and Perspektywy, which awarded my library enough points to place it second in the country. The Poznań University Library gave way only to Cracow's Jagiellonian Library, whose top spot is a sure consequence of the tradition and longevity of its institution, the wealth of its collections, the position of Cracow in Poland and its role as a former Polish capitol. Cracow is home to the Pope, the legendary King Krak and his daughter Wanda, Kościuszko's Mound, Michalik's Cave, famous Medieval merchant Wierzynek and, moreover, it's located near Zakopane. On one hand, we could consider ourselves wronged on the account of these factors but, on the other hand, we can see ourselves as moral champions of this ranking. Using the same sort of reasoning as above, librarians in Torun could claim that the Poznań library beat them only because of its location on the Warsaw - Berlin route, the presence of the Poznań International Fair, or the fact that the Minister of Education comes from here. If Torun would surpass Poznań, I would probably rationalize it with arguments on Torun's Teutonic tradition or some other thing. One may wonder how is it possible that our library clearly outscored a very modern Warsaw University Library, which offers one thousand seats, open access to shelves and hundreds of computers for users. Even considering its working conditions and the fact that it administers the central authority file catalog, Warsaw University Library received 75 points for automation while our library pulled out a 100!

We are all familiar with the above-mentioned rankings and with the way they were conducted. It just so happens that these Rzeczpospolita and Perspektywy rankings offer the most complete assessment by considering the following criteria:

• Collections, measured in the number of volumes owned by the university library.
• Polish and foreign periodicals, measured in the number of subscription titles.
• Total number of seats in reading rooms, number of seats per student.
• Library automation.

The ranking provided no explanation as to how library automation was measured. If I recall the exact survey question correctly, it was evaluated on the number of computers available to students. It is possible that lack of clarity in the last criterion contributed to the fact that our library received 100 points in this aspect, while the library in Warsaw only 75.

The ranking conducted by Polityka, which assessed entire university infrastructures using 7 indicators, considered the following three criteria when evaluating library services:

• The library and its status.
• Total number of computers available to students.
• Number of computers with Internet access compared to the total number of computers.

In the discussion, the editors wrote: "We gave special attention to libraries since, on one hand, they are the main source of materials necessary for individual study and, on the other hand, the collections, especially in private institutions, constitute the weakest part of the infrastructure." In the final assessment, the overall infrastructure weighed in at 10, while its relationship with the surrounding environment at 15, focus on the student at 20, not to mention other criteria referring to personnel or research that was considered even more important. This scheme of relevancy undermines the former statement on the special importance of libraries. Furthermore, it was never mentioned how the ranking actually evaluated library status. While the survey for the previous ranking required some basic statistical data, in this case, there were no questions on the numbers and no official visits to the library.

The evaluation for the Newsweek ranking of libraries was conducted by managers, who did not provide any comments on library services at all. Their assessment of libraries depended wholly on the reputation of universities, which govern them. One can only dream that a university's status would also depend on its library, modern collections, services, and competent personnel, in other words, everything that is necessary for researchers and students to do their work.

One may say that I am mocking these popular media rankings in order to show how useless they are. Perhaps there's some truth to the mocking but I disagree on the issue of their insignificance. Various school advertisements inform prospective students that their institution is "the year's best," "the best in the region," or "the best in the ranking." It is increasingly more common for future students to consider these appraisals to make their decision. Today, it is still more likely for Adam Mickiewicz University to triumph over any non-state school just on the basis of its tradition of excellence but, few years from now, the situation could reverse itself when the best of private schools will outlive the others and when public universities will no longer be free.

Let us recall an article in Wprost (no. 21, May 27, 2001) titled "XXL Generation" ("Generacja XXL"), which claimed that 6 of the 10 most brilliant careers of the past few years belong to graduates of some lesser-known schools in Nowy Sacz or Warsaw's Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management.

"If you want to have a view, read the Review (Przeglad)," says a familiar advertising slogan. Przeglad once published an objective editorial without any backing of any of the schools, titled "Where is it worth to study?" ("Gdzie warto studiowac?" no. 15/121, April 15, 2002). Its author observed that school rankings are a very significant factor in assessment made by future students, as well as, parents who usually finance their education. He talked about a specific top-ranked institution, whose graduates will be in high demand on the job market. There might be more opinions of this kind and, more importantly, they should not be underestimated. Not unlike other societies, ours in just as interested in seeing comparisons, rankings, graphs and tables, as well as, in finding our own place within them. We like to see who is better than us and who is worse. At the same time, however, we ask too rarely why a certain school scores higher than ours. In my opinion, above all, this is what we need to change!

In a well-known article about the future of institutions of higher learning, ^[1] M. Gorman claimed that assessment of schools will depend on two equally important elements: the school classroom and the library reading room with access to resources. The top researchers will definitely be drawn to large universities. Nevertheless, big institutions are bound to be outdone by smaller universities, more dynamic and effective in making fast curriculum changes. As we strive for greater participation of industries or non-government organizations in financing our schools, some of the more capable private schools will also have a shot at resources necessary to strengthen their position. If we consider that, today, people who want an education pay private institutions 2 billion Polish zloty a year, while another 2 billion a year goes to public schools, it is not surprising that foreign investors have shown interest in Polish schools. A foreign company wishing to invest in our higher education will consider financing a school that will score the highest in its assessment. We have to ask ourselves, is it going to be us?

Aside from media rankings, we have seen some legislative activity that may impact the future of evaluating libraries in Poland. Recently, the Ministry of National Education issued a regulation describing conditions required by institutions of higher education, including requirements for library services thus, providing the basis for evaluating libraries and universities. An article in the mentioned document regarding libraries requires a university to maintain "a material basis, which includes a locale, laboratory and an appropriately equipped library, enabling research and instruction."^[2]

Other efforts to organize formal accreditation have already been undertaken for several years. The National Accreditation Commission has been in place for a short time and it's only beginning to organize itself and its school evaluation procedures. However, current accreditation practice has shown a tendency to deal with library issues in a very general manner. For example, accreditation committees assessing performance of a certain program of studies would visit the school department or faculty, including its library. It would provide the committee with the least basis for an opinion about the library. On the other hand, even under this circumstance, the review remained very subjective because of lack of clear principles, indicators and standards used to evaluate library services. The official guide of the University Accreditation Committee from 2001 contains a three-page application form for accreditation listing 14 main issues. Question 12 of the survey titled "Basic information on the educational infrastructure" deals, especially, with the following factors:

• Access to collections (size of university or department library collections, number of seats in reading rooms, educational materials).
• Laboratories.
• Number of personnel.
• Number and size of classrooms.
• Computer labs.

(Answers should be limited to one page)."^[3]

Another categorization of libraries is conducted by the State Committee for Scientific Research. But how many libraries have submitted themselves to its evaluation procedures? Possibly, not too many and, furthermore, only three libraries received the C category making them eligible for funds to fulfill their statutory requirements. The Poznań University Library has applied for SCSR's categorization several years ago. Since then, every year, it completes an extensive survey for that same purpose. Based on this, it has maintained the C category. It has received only a C, because there are better categories or, as much as a C, because there is a worse type that would disqualify it from extra financial support. The survey included information on how many of our personnel improved their formal qualifications by obtaining post-graduate degrees and how many did not, how many times and where in the world our professionals were published, in how many conferences we appeared with our presentations, over how many committees and conferences we presided, what kinds of international agreements we maintain and in what kinds of research we participate. It is quite labor intensive to complete the survey, to 'bend' the facts and activities of our library practice so they fit the demands of the review. All that to get some extra pocket money, to be able to say that I am a director of one of three academic libraries evaluated by SCSR in the country! It certainly provides us with some prestige and a generous look of the university Rector.

Let us focus more on questions asked in various surveys in regards to university library and information systems. What is important to the evaluators? The list of factors is actually quite scary. It includes statistics on professors, publications, conference participation, computers, size of the collection, or better yet, the number of subscribed journals (what if a library acquires most of its journals through exchange?), reading room seats in relation to the number of students, etc. However, while some surveys ask about the number of reading room visits, none of them ask about electronic resources, databases, journals and reference services based on electronic formats. No one seems to want to know about the cost of resource management, the cost and time of services, the organization of access to resources (for example, whether services such as SUBITO or JAZON are used). Occasionally, reviewers ask about the number of special collections. They are impressed when they hear that a library owns 120,000 items of social life documents but they never ask how many students actually use them and how much does it cost to maintain it. Furthermore, no one evaluates libraries based on the speed of processing new titles or the completeness of a collection (a popular aspect of assessment in American libraries, attempted in Poland by the likes of Miroslaw Gorny^[4]), the impact of users on the shape of the collections. Many more of these accusations can be drawn in regards to library performance evaluation in Poland.

Hence, the question of how libraries should be evaluated? What factors should be considered in the assessment? The literature on the subject has already pointed that it is the quality of library operations that should be assessed!

Most of us are familiar with ISO 11620^[5], created in 1998, dealing with international library standards. The library performance indicators contained in ISO 11620 include the following:

• User satisfaction with the overall library and specific services.
• Services (number of visits, costs).
• Document delivery (accessibility, availability and usage).
• Document retrieval (waiting time for obtaining items or for locating them in the open access collection).
• Circulation of materials (number of loans, costs).
• Interlibrary loans (waiting time for obtaining materials through ILL).
• Reference services (number of correct answers to queries).
• Catalog searches (by author/title and by subject).
• Equipment and facilities usage (accessibility).
• Technical services (acquisitions and cataloging).

In their 1996 book, edited by IFLA, R. Poll and P. Boekhorst^[6] suggest some performance indicators for academic libraries. They offer the following breakdown:

1. General access and use of library services
   • User marketplace (actual vs. potential user, user groups compared to overall statistics).
   • Opening hours vs. user needs.
2. Quality of collections
   • Expert lists
   • Use of the collections
3. Effectiveness of the catalog
   • Author/title/publisher searching
   • Subject searching
4. Accessibility of specific titles in collections
   • Speed of acquisitions
   • Speed of cataloging
   • Accessibility of items in the collection
   • Time of delivering documents to users
   • Speed of ILL services
5. Reference services
   • Realization of reference questions (time and accuracy of answers)
   • Remote use of services and resources
6. Satisfying user needs
   • User satisfaction from all types of services
   • User satisfaction from remote services (e-mail surveys).

Professional literature available abroad offers many more similar examples of performance indicators.

In the Polish library community, discussions on evaluating library services have also been taking place for some time. There exists a well-known proposal, developed by a team of representatives from Polish libraries that was presented at a conference in Cracow in 2001.^[7] It offers an evaluation scheme, which due to its extensiveness, may prove to be unpractical in assessing and comparing libraries.

Regardless of what can be said about these efforts and discussions, it is inevitable that standards, indicators and actual data are essential to making an honest assessment of library services, to avoiding subjectivity and odd categories that have little relevance. Obviously, not everything in libraries can be brought to a mere numerical evaluation but many aspects of services can be measured by comparing performance statistics of a certain library in relation to established indicators and standards.

Creating these standards for performance evaluations of libraries is, without a doubt, no easy task. When thinking about standards in relation to collection management ^[8], I have outlined several general questions to consider.

The first issue deals with the very question of developing performance indicators. If there will be too many indicators for which to obtain information about library services or if the process will require hiring a team of specialists or conducting long-term measurements, quite simply, they will be too consuming to be used and they will not fulfill expectations. In my opinion, they should amount to about a dozen or so. Furthermore, they should be as objective as possible and never refer to abstract ideals. Information should be easy to measure, as well as, easy to understand by the general public and, especially, our immediate superiors. At the same time, libraries should also conduct detailed studies of productivity or cost effectiveness of their operations so that management could use them to improve their organization and to achieve the best possible quality of user services. However, those types of studies cannot be a substitute for easily obtainable and readable performance indicators intended for the evaluation and categorization of libraries.

The second issue refers to the question of whether it is possible to create universal norms and indicators that can be used to measure performance in all research libraries. After some careful analysis, I came to believe that we should develop separate performance indicators for libraries of higher education institutions and for other types of research libraries. This is due to the following factors:

• Differences in financing library operations and forming budgets
• Differences in statutory goals realized by various types of libraries
• Clear differences in user groups and their expectations (public research libraries, university libraries, libraries of the Polish Academy of Sciences, etc.).

Moreover, when creating norms for academic libraries, we should also consider making further distinctions within this group of libraries. I am opposed to the idea of differentiating among libraries that provide services to specific areas of study. Generating separate indicators for university, polytechnic, agricultural, medical or economic libraries will defeat the whole idea and make it uninteresting. However, it is worth considering the possibility of defining different indicators for libraries based on their size, for those that function in small and big schools. The terminology is completely optional and libraries can be called in a myriad of ways. It seems that it will be really difficult to adopt the same indicators of collection management for a university of 50 thousand students and for a small art school. However, before we get to the task of creating standards based on library size, we need to establish how we would classify universities in terms of their size.

The third problem is one that was mentioned by Anna and Jacek Osiewalski. ^[9] In order to develop conclusive performance indicators we need to be able to, easily and on our own, identify data for their calculation. For example, the sum of different types of expenditures cannot be greater than the overall budget.

Next questions deal with assessing electronic resources and services, as well as, special collections. In case of evaluating electronic collections, among other things, we would consider acquisition costs, we would identify the types of resources to be measured (all types, free or paid, full-text or citation only), calculate how many users access them and determine how they are being used.

In case of special collections, the problem lies with counting them, specifically, with determining what constitutes a special collection. Is it old prints, which are counted as special collections at the Poznań University Library or, is it norms, patents and master's theses, which are included in this category by some other libraries? Furthermore, maintaining special collections is very expensive, while their usage is relatively low. This will affect performance indicators designed to compare libraries 'burdened' by the problem of large old print collections to libraries with small collections of this sort.

The attempt to count educational collections poses another problem resulting from the fact that most libraries do not maintain them as separate from the general collection and, therefore, cannot share any information on their didactic materials, for example, data on annual acquisitions. On the other hand, the issue of educational materials seems extremely important in the process of creating standards for library activities due to the growing number of students, costs acquiring them, their short time of use and so on. Therefore, it would make great sense to create and apply certain standard assumptions for this collection type. At the same time, we should also examine whether treating educational materials as part of the general collection does not distort the established

Another question introduces the concept of attributing weights to various types of services or operations. The concept of weights has already been applied in British and German librarianship, although with a slight variation to the way the term is understood in these two countries. The British refer to weighting in terms of calculating the percentage of the overall university budget devoted to the library. They propose the following equation: average price of a book multiplied by the number of students plus weight as an additional element representing new initiatives, advanced research, school location. The Germans, on the other hand, perceive weight as an indicator of importance of certain activities, especially, in terms of their cost, which is somewhat similar to weights used by the State Committee for Scientific Research. When applying indicators for all schools, for example in case of polytechnic or medical schools, we should consider multiplying or dividing indicators according to the costs of materials in various disciplines of study.

The final problem can be reduced to the question of how to count library users. In Britain and the United States, some solutions have been devised to address the issue of library services being additionally burdened by other groups of users. For example, the British have made an assumption that extramural students generate much less activity. Therefore, they have applied a ratio of 5 extramural students to 1 intramural student. Should we introduce a similar approach in our measurements?

Evidently, we must develop a standard questionnaire to be able to perform our evaluations. A lot is expected of the team of specialists responsible for this task. After several years of using such a survey to calculate certain indicators we should be able to produce a standard, a norm, a set of indicators appropriate in our circumstances.

What next? Survey results will allow us to compare libraries in Poznań with those of Torun, and those of Torun with those of Warsaw, Warsaw with Cracow and so on. What will this accomplish? Will my library improve in one category truly to make our services better or to catch up to my colleagues in Torun or, to show my university Rector how good my library is or how many resources per student are available in other libraries?

The discussion on library performance evaluation began at a conference in Lublin in 2000 and carried on in the following year at the earlier mentioned conference in Cracow. It dealt with, in my view, a fundamental question of who are evaluations of libraries for anyway. A number of participants argued that library performance evaluations should serve individual library directors in making the above-mentioned comparisons. It is my conviction that performance reviews should be used for library categorization and rankings.

According to Szymczak's Polish language dictionary, categorization means division into categories. A category defines a "kind or class distinguished in a certain classification: a type, sort, group," while classification requires "an evaluation of somebody or something using a comparative scale."^[10] Therefore, library categorization means dividing libraries into separate groups in a process of evaluating them using a standard comparative scale. The State Committee for Scientific Research has conducted categorization of university departments and institutes for many years. A high SCSR category adds splendor but more importantly, opens possibilities for better financing. However, having a high category is not just an argument for obtaining more funds. It proves that library's services have been well received. A good ranking means that an institution satisfies the established requirements and standards which it does not need to prove on the account of having been granted its category.

On their own, libraries can appeal for different types of funding, much less for research than for equipment related needs. They approach representatives of different foundations and sponsors for this purpose. An indication that a library maintains a high category can prove to be a winning factor. A library category can be an additional argument for university authorities in obtaining funds for the whole school, an argument to get certain accreditation or an advertisement attracting future students. On the other hand, it can also be the cause of shame, which could, and should, motivate efforts to improve performance for the next review. Categorization can help management personnel in establishing priorities for their departments in modernizing, creating or realizing their budgets, as well as, in designing a development strategy for the entire library. Every organizational unit that applies for accreditation, as well as, the SCSR funds to fulfill its statutory requirements, must complete a survey containing an abbreviated list of questions about its library. Submitting information on the category received by the library could also serve as an alternative to a subjective evaluation conducted by those who prepare the application. In summary, it's clear that a solid evaluation, followed by granting the library a certain category, should always be advantageous.

In addition to the term 'evaluation,' which I have used throughout this presentation extensively, I mentioned 'rankings.' For the purpose of evaluating library services, typical media rankings are not what we have in mind. In a recent publication on the quality of education in Poland, ranking has been defined as grading, classifying objects on the basis of the total value achieved in the established indicators.^[11] The author of this definition claims that, despite the popularity of ranking lists, evaluation procedures of national evaluative agencies in Western European countries do not end with rankings. Evaluation, a commonly used term from a sociological perspective, is supposed to define a systematic study of values and strategies, a procedure, discourse, dialog and negotiation.^[12] It is not to be associated with measuring quality, a term popularized by TQM. One of the goals of evaluation activities would be exposing and understanding the studied reality. In sum, for our purposes, we evaluate our performance in order to improve library services, to know why a certain library is better than ours, to aim for perfection but without ranking and classifying ourselves. On the other hand, we should create several basic indicators dealing with typical library operations so that SCSR and similar groups could declare that a library complies with standards in defined groups of indicators, thus, meets the criteria for a certain category and qualifies it for funding. Not complying with standards means no additional resources. As library directors who know what factors influence our performance in these indicators, we should aspire to accomplish

Some time ago, I even proposed a sample questionnaire to be used to evaluate and categorize academic libraries.^[13] At the time, I recommended various indicators, which can now be improved on the basis of a new survey that is being prepared. My earlier suggestion included, among others, the following standards:

• Book per user ratio [15-20]
• Volumes added per user per year [1-2 vol.]
• Ratio of volumes added per year to volumes held [3%]
• Expenditures on library materials per user [30 EURO]
• Percentage of library budget in the total university budget [3%].

If we were to consider devoting 26-30% of the library budget on acquisitions as a standard, achieving this mark would garner 3 points. In reaching the 15-20% area, a library would award itself 1 point, for 21-25% - 2 points, 26-30% - 3 points, 31-35% - 4 points, above 35% - 5 points. Using an assessment scheme constructed this way, libraries could self-evaluate their services for the purpose of receiving an SCSR category or some other form of accreditation. This way, library managers are aware of what category their library may receive and the SCSR committee only verifies the truthfulness of the self-evaluation. If this system has worked for research institutes, why wouldn't it succeed in the evaluation of libraries?

At the time, I also proposed that if a library would gather less than 1/3 of possible points, it would fall outside of the ranking, which would ruin its chances for funding granted on the basis of the quality of services. Obtaining an appropriate number of points would assign it category I, II or III and earn it resources for its activities. In its efforts to acquire resources, for example to pay for foreign journal subscriptions, the university would strive for maintaining a certain level of library services so that it would get enough points to qualify for a high category. Everyone responsible for library services, including directors and other employees would know exactly what to do to improve their performance in the established indicators. It is my worry that an absence of this sort of mechanism or self-evaluation only for the purpose of comparing our library services to those of other libraries will not be encouraging enough for us to recognize our weak points and to find arguments that would convince university authorities to invest in our library.

When university authorities realized that funding for their schools depended not on the number of assistants but PhDs, they moved the youngest employees to expanded doctorate programs. When it became known that certificated librarians also influence the so-called algorithm, the university Rector urged me promote as many of my employees as possible (a former limit allowed for 20 certificated librarians). Therefore, if a library with a certain category were to qualify for special funds for activities like journal subscriptions, participation in consortia, government programs etc., it would most likely mean that every effort would be made to obtain the desired category.

Would the above-mentioned actions lead to a better diversity among libraries? I believe so, although the current library landscape is already diverse. The question of whether we want to go through categorization of libraries through performance evaluations is one that I am not certain of but it now seems such an unavoidable process. It is necessary for us to prepare for it the best we can.

Summary

• Evaluation of library operations is based on annual surveys. The ultimate goal is to seek improvement in the quality of library services, treating evaluation as a responsibility of every individual library.
• It is time to develop some performance indicators and standards, perhaps on the basis of mentioned surveys, in order to engage libraries in categorization, as well as, accreditation, thus securing adequate funds to fulfill their missions.

Footnotes

[1] Gorman, M. (1995), Przyszłość biblioteki akademickiej, Przegląd Biblioteczny, No. 2, pp. 147-155.

[2] Regulation of the Ministry of National Education (dated on June 30, 2001) on the university requirements for the establishment and maintenance of programs of studies, and in regards to naming programs of studies (Dziennik Ustaw, No. 71, July 10, 2001, Pos. 736).

[3] Uniwersytecka Komisja Akredytacyjna. Informator 2000, Lublin, 2000, p. 28.

[4] Górny, M. (1999), Ocena efektywności udostępniania informacji w bibliotekach naukowych, Poznań.

[5] See: Głowacka, E. (2000), Studium zastosowania kompleksowego zarządzania jakością (TQM) w bibliotekoznawstwie i informacji naukowej, Toruń, pp. 164-166.

[6] Poll, R. and Boekhorst, P. (1996), Measuring Quality: International Guidelines for Performance measurement in academic libraries, Munich.

[7] Derfelt-Wolf, L. (2001), Analiza porównawcza finansowania i budżetów [polskich bibliotek naukowych]. Wskaźniki finansowe. Propozycja standaryzacji badań porównawczych, in Badania porównawcze polskich bibliotek naukowych, Cracow, pp. 87-109.

[8] Jazdon, A. (2001), Wskaźniki, normy i standardy w zakresie zarządzania zbiorami, in Badania porównawcze...., pp. 111-128.

[9] Osiewalska, A. (2001), Praktyka badań porównawczych bibliotek akademickich USA i krajów Unii Europejskiej, in Badania porównawcze..., p. 52. Comments in the discussion following a presentation titled Wprowadzenie do analizy kosztowej polskich bibliotek akademickich delivered in 1998 in Cracow. See: Wdrażanie.... pp. 193-209.

[10] Szymczak, M. (1978), Słownik języka polskiego, Warsaw, pp. 901, 926.

[11] Wójcicka, M. (2001), Jakość kształcenia w szkolnictwie wyższym. Słownik tematyczny, Warsaw, pp. 107-108.

[12] Ibidem, pp. 30-35.

[13] Jazdon, A. (2000), O kategoryzacji bibliotek, czyli czy warto porównywać biblioteki, a jeśli tak to jak, po co, dla kogo i kto miałby to robić, in Standaryzacja kosztów w bibliotekach naukowych, Lublin, pp. 61-89.

Translated by Marta Sobieszek