How did people search scientific papers before the internet

Ah the joys of Chem Abstracts. Many of the best years of my life were wasted there. First try and guess what chem abs called a certain structure - (it changed periodically resulting in a new guess every so often). Working out the name say 15 minutes. Look up the name in the substance index - these only covered 5 years or so at a time resulting in 20 or so books to look up. About 30 minutes. In each book there might be lots of entries for each chemical so pick out and write down the actual volume numbers such as 89 34562A. Go to volume 89 entry 34562 and see if it was relevant. Probably found that you wrote the number wrong. Go back and check. Also likely is that the entry though useful was written in russian in an unobtainable journal. Repeat 60 times. (2 hours)

This is all for one search that I can now do in 2 minutes.

Science Citation Index
Chem. Abstracts
Physics Abstracts
Decennial Indices
for major journals (like Journal of the Optical Society)
Yearly Indices for each journal – if you have to
Cumulated Index Medicus

Then there were periodical indices, which helped sometimes:

Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature
Blackpool’s Guide to 19th Century Periodicals
New York Times Index

There’s also a Humanities Index, but it wasn’t a lot of help.
I spent a lot of time flipping through the SCI.

By the way, it wasn’t as easy as today, but I was doing computer searches of scientific databases at the library as far back as the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Don’t act like these things are all obsolete, either - sure, Index Medicus and Chem Abstracts are digital these days, but I’m a public librarian and I use the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature not daily, but certainly weekly. How else do you think we answer “I need articles from the 20’s about architecture and home building”? Print indexes are still very much alive and well. I’m sure there are academic science librarians who still have to go to the Big Wall every so often, too.

Then again, it’s kind of sad to see all those big libraries trying to dump their National Union Catalogues. To think of what an accomplishment that used to be!

I just barely spanned both styles in my researching career. In some ways, it’s the same, but to the extent that it’s different, let me say that I like the modern computerized systems much better.

The simplest method was to take a guess at what journal an article of interest would be in, and in what date range. Most journals maintain an index which they publish every decade or so. You obtain the index for your decade, and look up various key terms in it. Each of those will lead you to a list of specific references, and you then obtain those, and read through them and decide which are relevant and useful. Note that “obtain the index” and “obtain the journal papers” might, in some cases, entail filling out a form for each volume you needed, and handing it to a library employee who would then delve into the restricted stacks and bring you back one volume at a time, for you to not take out of the library.

Once you had a few papers which were at least somewhat relevant, the next step would be to look through the reference lists in those papers, for papers they cited. Some of those might be of interest to you, too. You could then check those papers (which might require more forms for the library employees). It was also possible to check for papers which cited a paper you already knew of, but the databases for that were often incomplete, and in the pre-computerized versions, more cumbersome to use. Both of these methods are still important for research, though (especially for forward-referencing) they’re now much easier.

To leverage the afore-mentioned method, you might start your search with a “review journal”. Most fields have one or two of these. The papers in a review journal don’t represent new contributions to knowledge, but rather compilations of others’ contributions. So the reference list for a review article will generally include the most important papers on a subject. Again, these still exist and are useful.

And finally, then and now, a lot of paper-finding was done by word-of-mouth. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons that most research is done at universities and other institutions, rather than by independent individuals: You can talk with colleagues, and ask “Are you familiar with any work done in this field?”, or “Did you hear about the new technique that the group over at University X is using?”, or “How do these results relate to the work of So-and-so et al?”. You can also encounter ideas from visiting faculty, or guest colloquium speakers, or at conferences, or the like. This was and is perhaps the most important way of finding information, and even this is easier with the Internet, thanks to e-mail and other methods of communication.

This is a very good point: the older indexes are still needed to track older articles. Most online databases are too busy keeping abreast of current publications to go back and fill in older material. One important exception is the Century of Science project from the same people who publish the Science Citation Index; it pushes the SCI’s coverage back to 1900.

Another advantage of the print indexes is that they are not rendered obsolete by changes in data storage formats; a book is a book. After being issued for years on CDROM, the SCI was issued on DVD-ROM last year; much upset emerged from customers not equipped for DVDs.

Not to mention that you can pay for online access to databases for years and then stop them, and you’ve lost all the archives you’ve been paying for. If you’d been buying print instead, you’d have those volumes (well, there are leased print volumes, but they’re in the minority.) Likewise, large aggregator databases change their titles all the time and when they stop buying it, you don’t get to keep an archive of that either. Basically you lose all sorts of control over collection development.

Oh, how this thread takes me back!

I recall once when my prof was asked to give a lecture on microbial ecology. She sent me to find some stuff. The one article I recall clearly from that was in a nursing journal, of all strange things. A nurses’ association in South America (Brazil?) sponsored some research (a twin study - heh!) comparing babies fed formula vs. breast-fed. I think the article was published in 1979. It was a great study, and I believe she featured it in her lecture.

And yes, it could take a lot of time to find things, but I always enjoyed the process, somehow. Probably it was something on the lines of “the thrill of the chase”. OTOH, it always seemed to me as though time in a library was spent in a time warp - time stood still while I was in there.

The 19th Century periodical index is actually called

Poole’s Index to Periodical Literature

Don’t forget also that lawyers had to do all their research before Lexis and Westlaw and that was a lot of gruntwork. Now you can “Shepardize” a case by hitting a button, but before you actually had to go through individual volume’s of Shepard’s. And there were also difficult indexes to use to find court cases.

Anyone here use a union catalog?

Besides a librarian like me?