ABSTRACT
Published allocation plans for books may be inappropriate when dealing with research journals. Reasons can include inordinate complexity and a lack of focus on issues within departments. Librarians may be better able to cope with the more finite matter of subscription distribution based on either apportionment by specialists within the department or by the relative productivity of those specialists. A comparison of the outcomes of these two approaches in 50 U.S. chemistry departments is reported. Warnings are issued about the possible tyranny of a passive majority in a department as well as undue credit awarded for artificially inflated publication counts.
