We've got news about the northern California earthquake in this issue. With the electronic communication we have today, somehow this seems like old news, even though it was less than three weeks ago. Vicky Reich (Stanford University) and I began "corresponding" the day after the earthquake and have continued as conditions at her library changed. She reported that she was able to use BITNET only four hours after the earthquake! She and others in the area have said repeatedly how much they have been comforted by the e-mail messages coming in from all over. We spoke by telephone one week after the earthquake and she said several things that don't appear in Tia Gozzi's report.
At that time the staff was really still in shock, but in good spirits and working together to clean up whatever they could. Vicky felt fortunate to be surrounded by competant, strong, good-natured people. At that time the half a million books that fell off the shelves had already been picked up and shelf reading had begun. The staff was sharing lots of hugs. With the loss of the telephone system at the li- brary, BITNET had proven invaluable for communication. One week after the disaster things were not as bad as had first been feared, and people were "optimistically realistic." Things were moving fast. They let the Provost know the 60 year old building was hurt, and they got attention. On October 26, I received this message from Vicky: "BY YES-ERDAY WE HAD ALL THE MAIL SORTED AND BEGAN CHECKIN. WE HAD ACCESS TO OUR "NEW HOME" EARLY-MID AFTERNOON ON TUESDAY. THE STAFF ARE JUST FANTASTIC."
In September, I experienced the same sort of caring that meant so much to Vicky and others, even though my immediate area had no emergency. When Hurricane Hugo struck North and South Carolina, many of you sent me messages. By the way, I have sent Katina Strauch all your messages in response to the newsletter issue that contained the interview with her after the storm. For Vicky, Katina, and myself, THANK YOU!
Cindy Hepfer, SUNY Buffalo Health Sciences Library, sent a photocopy of an article in the September 21, 1989, NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, "How Good is Peer Review?" by Arnold S. Relman and Marcia Angell. The system has come under general criticism recently in meetings and in articles. The authors say, "Particularly in view of recent cases in which fraudulent reports appeared in reputable journals after undergoing peer review, questions are being raised about the value of the review process as well as its reliability and objectivity." They point out that, while peer review greatly improves "the chances that published work is valid, it cannot guarantee scientific validity," simply because human beings are fallible. The limitations of peer review do not mean that it is without value. "When properly used it is a powerful means of protecting and improving the quality of what is published."
12.2 ARTICLES TO LOOK FOR
Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, BITNET: NOTCAH@LSUVM.
The October 25th issue of the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION contains an article by Judith Axler Turner, "Critics say Publisher's Suit Inhibits Inquiries into Rising Journal Costs." The article documents the variety of individuals who have been threatened in letters from Gordon and Breach for statements about either the publisher or its individual products. One suit, besides the Barschall/American Institute of Physics suit, that Turner mentions was filed against G.R. Luckhurst, a professor of chemistry at the University of Southampton in Britain. He became editor of a new journal, LIQUID CRYSTALS, published by Taylor and Francis, a year after he left the advisory board of Gordon and Breach's MOLECULAR CRYSTALS AND LIQUID CRYSTALS. Joseph Boisse, Librarian at the University of California, Santa Barbara, was advised by university lawyers that it would be "prudent" to retract an article critical of price gouging by publishers which used Gordon and Breach's EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE as an example. Joel Rutstein, Colorado State University Library was also threatened with a lawsuit for "slander and defamation." And Nancy Gubman of the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences was accused of "engaging in a vendetta." Octave Levenspiel of Oregon State University, a chemical engineer, has also been threatened with legal action for letters appearing in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION in the summer of 1988. Richard Meserve, the Washington lawyer for Barschall, the American Institute of Physics, and the American Physical Society, noted that an offer had been made to publish a letter from Gordon and Breach outlining the alleged errors in Barschall's original article, but that because AIP, et al, always give authors the opportunity to respond to criticism "and would do so with Mr. Barschall," Gordon and Breach has refused to provide a response. Pat Berger, speaking not for ALA, but for herself, is quoted in the article as believing the Gordon and Breach action is "international harassment." It is clear we have not seen the end of all this yet. Duane Webster of the Association of Research Libraries expressed concern in the CHRONICLE article that "nuisance suits" would "create a chill on discussion, examination, and debate on serial pricing and quality and discourage the exploration of causal factors and skyrocketing costs." Two recent articles highlight problems in scientific literature published in journals. The ongoing work of Feder and Stewart with Representative Dingell's House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is part of the subject of an article in the October 29th NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, "Conduct Unbecoming," by Philip Weiss. The article details for the general public the travails of David Baltimore, Rochester University's newly named president. In 1986 he co-authored (one of six authors) an article for CELL. Baltimore, a former Nobel Laureate for his work on reverse transcriptase is a policy expert on AIDS, and his work uncovered major mechanisms in cancer virus propagation. The 1986 article announced important information about the immune system. A postdoctoral fellow accused a senior scientist on the research team of misreporting data in the article. Although the research was not done in Baltimore's lab, he came to the defense of his co-author. What raised "official" ire in part was his attempt to stop scrutiny of the research by "outsiders." This particular type of problem, judging the validity of research and "policing" science, as Katina Strauch reported in an earlier newsletter, just won't go away.
In a similar vein, though with less well known researchers, the September 29th issue of SCIENCE reports on a "cure" for epilepsy published in Gordon and Breach's INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE. The article in question, written by two Greek researchers, is blasted by American scientists, including two who are members of IJN's advisory board. Lloyd Kaufman is quoted in the SCIENCE article as saying, "It's the worst thing I have seen in a scientific journal." The complaints come because the researchers did not describe adequately their "device," did no follow up, used no controls, and on "maps" of electro-magnetic impulses, provided no scales on before and after scans. One of IJN's reviewers, according to its editor Sidney Weinstein, believed the finding was worth a Nobel prize. He does admit, however, that with the number of issues produced each year, "It's hard to find the reviewers you want."
The new issue of SERIALS LIBRARIAN (volume 17, no. 1/2; 1989) has two critical articles. The first is by H. Craig Petersen, a professor of economics, Utah State University. Utah State has been working on modeling journal prices for the last two years. This is a sophisticated statistical analysis showing the results of a study of a random sample of journals. The abstract makes the conclusion clear: "Academic journals exhibit significant differences in price. Only part of this variation can be attributed to costs of production and distribution. This study uses multiple regression analysis to investigate the determinants of the variations in prices for a random sample of 439 journals." Prices in fact varied significantly by country of origin, and holding costs of production constant (and in the world-wide publishing system this is a reasonable constant) "the country of origin differential was too large to be attributed solely to higher shipping costs."
The article explains how the author accounted for many of the "questions" typically asked using multiple regression analysis techniques. Given the number of variables tested for significance -- price, frequency, photographs, art or graphics in journal, advertising, number of pages, age of journal, type of publisher, subject of journal, and location published -- just about every "complaint" and plea for "special" case from a publisher or librarian has been considered. For those who need an econometric explanation: read the article!!! It's so good I wish I had written it! Surprisingly (for some) the article also indicates that prices from for-profit and government/non-profit institutional publishers are ALL significantly higher than society journals. With regression analysis accounting for cost and other non-cost factors, European journals, after making the playing ground level, so to speak, still had an average price 145 percent higher than U.S. and Canadian journals! Put simply, they cost more because they are from European publishers, not because they have fancier graphs or cover "science" areas. For those still in doubt, given Karen Hunter's letter to ARL and the Gordon and Breach suit, this may help remove their last doubts about why some journals are more equal than others -- it may also dispel the last vestiges of doubt that market pricing is the primary mechanism for setting prices.
Peter Young's article, "Periodical Prices 1987-1989 Update" is also in this issue of SERIALS LIBRARIAN. Thank you SERIALS LIBRARIAN for an exceptional issue and a timely one.
The September 28, 1989, issue of NATURE has an article by Blackwell's John Merriman on pages 349-50, entitled "Publishing and Perishing?" This is a balanced discussion from the English perspective of the role played by scientists themselves in the reduced purchasing power of libraries.
12.3 THOUGHTS ON READING THE HUNTER/WEBSTER
LETTERS IN ISSUE NO. 11
Lelde Gilman, UCLA Biomedical Library, BITNET: ECZ5LBG@UCLAMVS.
My opinions are my own and those of some people here, they are NOT OFFICIALLY THE BIOMEDICAL LIBRARY'S OR UCLA'S.
When will the publishers stop calling on librarians to help resolve a problem they have created?? When will librarians realize that they are in a profession that is currently (and has always been to a large extent) in direct opposition to the ultimate goals of large, commercial PACKAGERS and SELLERS of information created within the academic community? Why is it that in this climate of commercialization and privatization we still expect the publishers and librarians to work out differences to some mutual benefit?? What is the mutual benefit?? Publishers are in business to sell and to maximize profit so that they can further develop saleable items. Librarians are not in business (for the most part), they are in service (alas!) and their role is to provide maximum access for the least cost. These roles and goals are in direct conflict!! The publisher is concerned with selling for the maximum amount possible; the librarian is concerned with disseminating for the least amount possible! We should stop pretending that publishers are in this for the greater good of scholarly publication and act accordingly. There is nothing wrong with librarians accepting their role as alert and civil opponents to publishers' attempts to create markets where there should be none. A favorite quote from the NATURE journal review issue (just out): "But the gap the JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY seeks to occupy does not exist." Needless to say, we did not rush to subscribe!
Let us not forget that librarians, for the most part, are "middlewomen/men" in this thing, who are EXPECTED by their institutions to do the best they can with the collection funds they have available. Their first responsibility is to serve the extant and projected information needs of their institution's primary users through the best collection of journals/monographs/other media available. They must do this in a fiscally responsible manner, making sound judgments and requesting new funding IF AND WHEN THIS IS NECESSARY. Their loyalty is to the scholarly community and NOT TO THE COMMERCIAL PUBLISHERS. They have a business arrangement with the publishers and vendors for material that is generated by the scholarly community. Publishers make their living from scholars and librarians/libraries. Therefore, when librarians clearly see that the commercial sector is taking advantage of the librarian's position and is exploiting it for its own benefit, they have a duty to advise the scholarly community of this and enlist their support in addressing the situation.
To most commercial publishers, libraries are a market, and a market only, if librarians only realized this, they would not be so "shocked, shocked, shocked that there is such price gouging (there is!) going on here." All I am saying is that we should be more realistic about what is possible and reasonable for us to do. I am certainly not for curtailing scientific communication, nor am I against new journals. I am just making the observation that we should not get so shocked about publishers doing what they are in business to do! If I were a publisher or a publisher's rep, I would say exactly what Karen said, but I am not, so I favor Duane's stance.
About science journals and how we do it at UCLA's Biomedical Library: Every journal starts out with a sample issue which is carefully examined in light of others in the same subject area. It is placed on a "Hold 2" status. It may move up to a "Hold 1" status if it gets indexed by INDEX MEDICUS or is requested by faculty in several disciplines or several faculty in one discipline. It then gets reconsidered together with other new titles in that subject or discipline. If a subscription is placed, it is reviewed in three years in light of use and reviews. The NATURE journal review issue is read very carefully, and the reviewers' comments are taken seriously. What is good about the NATURE issue is that reviewers compare the new titles in various subject areas. Need we get all titles on evolutionary biology, or just one? And so on.... We have seen many a journal die after three years of what must be no subscriptions on the part of libraries or individuals. We pick up well-reviewed journals if they are requested and examined here. Some might say that we are impeding scientific progress by not allowing access to important informaiton by interested parties. Is there anyone who takes this seriously? The many scientists I know personally and professionally all share the belief that good science will find a high quality existing journal for dissemination of its results. (However, these are tenured people!!)
Yes, there are specialized journals in fast growing new areas that can serve as vehicles for communication within a particular group of scientists and be of good quality. We will and do subscribe to some of these. If the journal is good and important, individual researchers will subscribe to it (Garfield says this as well), and it will stay alive because there is a real need for it. Yes, the academic institutions, scholarly societies, university presses, and deans of schools (who set faculty tenure standards) should address this problem, just as the ALA president is urging.
I have always had a problem with publishers (and vendors) giving lavish parties and receptions at professional meetings and flying librarians to various anniversary celebrations. If they wish to thank the institution or the profession, why don't they lower the prices of some of the journals or their service charges? That would benefit all and compromise no one! But, that is just not how business is done here, is it....
Finally, I find that publishers are enormously threatened by the ability of librarians to communicate nationwide through e-mail networks about what is happening, to disseminate their findings, and to plan for concerted action. Why is this the case?
12.4 ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS
Mike Renshaw, McGill University, BITNET: AD70@MCGILLA.
In the Association of American Universities' "Washington Report" of October 11, 1989 (page 5) is a summary of the NSF's new policy reducing "to no more than 10" the number of publications considered during merit review of research proposals. The summary indicates that "The NSF limitation on number of publications considered in merit review dovetails with intensive efforts in the research library community to control the spiraling costs of journals and serials." It then goes on to cite ARL reports and recommendations about changes that would reduce the emphasis on publication volume for promotion, tenure, and funding.
This should cheer everyone up immensely. As announced in the Montreal Daily News October 17th:
The University of Trois-Rivieres said yesterday it will award an honorary doctorate to British communications tycoon Robert Maxwell for his long-standing support of scientific periodicals.The degree will be awarded at graduation ceremonies on November 25th. Maxwell is a "part-owner" of the Montreal Daily News. Despite our efforts, Maxwell and other "tycoons" are still heroes to most of the world!
12.5 WHEN THE EARTH MOVED, SO DID TECHNICAL
SERVICES: A STATUS
ON TECHNICAL SERVICES AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Cynthia (Tia) I. Gozzi, Director for Technical Services, Stanford University (sent to the newsletter by Vicky Reich)
October 26, 1989
At 5:04 p.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 1989, northern California experienced an earthquake rivaled in severity only by the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. A number of the Stanford University Libraries (SUL) were adversely affected by the quake. As many of you have expressed concern, this will serve as an update to you, our technical services colleagues around the country, with regard to our recovery progress.
Although the University was closed, earthquake recovery was initiated on Wednesday, October 18, when SUL Directors met to determine the appropriate course of action. Among other, more serious damage, hundreds of thousands of books and other library materials fell from their shelves during the quake. Reshelving efforts, which began on Thursday, October 19, continue at this time.
To date, a good number of libraries have been quick to resume as many of their services and operations as possible. However, since the quake, Tech Services staff (approximately 125 people) have been unable to reoccupy their workspace in the west wing of the Green Library (referred to as Green West), which has been declared unsafe. As a result, technical service operations have been temporarily interrupted. Optimism prevails, however. We are hopeful that the damage can be repaired, although it could be a matter of weeks to months to years before staff are able to return to all parts of Green West. The really good news is that no Tech Services staff were injured and all have been assisting other libraries in bringing operations back together.
The Tech Services status report, department by department, follows:
(1) Serials Department: Staff of the Records and Acquisitions sections have been relocated to the third floor Sorting Room in the east wing of the Green Library (Green East). The manual Serials Records file (the drawers anyway) has been relocated to the sorting room. We have resumed serials check-in, as well as invoice processing and catalog maintenance. Until we gain access to RLIN we will be unable to claim. We're happy to report that most of the journal issues which were in Green West at the time of the earthquake have been retrieved.
At this time the staff of the Serials Cataloging and Retrospective Conversion sections are still without "homes," as are Vicky Reich and Miriam Palm, Chief and Assistant Chief of the Serials Department, respectively.
(2) Catalog Department: Because the Music Library was relatively undamaged, the music cataloging operation located there is continuing as normal. Staff of the Special Collections Cataloging Section have been relocated to the Music Library and are working with the music Cataloging Section, cataloging rare and Slavic language music books and converting music materials.
Most Catalog Department staff, including the Acting Co-Chiefs and Acting Assistant Chief, are still without "homes." Although most cataloging functions can't be performed at the moment, several projects have been organized and, together with tasks being performed for other SUL operations, are keeping Tech Services staff occupied.
(3) Preservation Department: The Department Chief, Connie Brooks, and Conservators Eleanore Stewart and Walter Henry, have advised Branner Library staff about disaster recovery procedures for maps and books that received post-earthquake water damage.
Brittle Books Office staff, responsible for preservation microfilming efforts, have been temporarily relocated to Green East. Three members of the Repair Unit are being relocated to the Meyer Library and will resume the normal repair program. Another staff member will "float" to one or more branch libraries to help with collections damaged during the earthquake.
Other Preservation Department staff have yet to be relocated, but are keeping busy. Staff of the Binding and Finishing Unit are currently reshelving books in Green East.
(4) Acquisitions Department: The Search and Order Division has been divided up and housed with Foreign Language and Area Collection and General Reference staff in Green East. This arrangement provides staff with access to selectors, as well as limited RLIN access. Because some regular work functions have been curtailed, staff combine regular work with shelf reading in the Green East stacks.
Staff of the Processing and Receipts and Gifts and Exchange divisions are still displaced, as is Ruth Tucker, Department Chief. Most staff are currently shelf reading in Green East.
Although it is too soon to estimate when all technical service operations will be back to normal (conditions here are changing daily, if not hourly), we will keep you informed of our progress. Thank you for your concern.
12.6 MEANWHILE, FROM OVER IN BERKELEY....
Gary Lawrence, University of California, BITNET: GSL$SR@UCCMVSA. (Message of October 24, in response to the editor's question)
We know that many of our colleagues are concerned, and I'm happy to say that things are in a much better state for the UC libraries than we might have expected. As you can imagine, I spent much of last Wednesday - Friday trying to find out, on behalf of the Office of the President, how our Northern California libraries had fared (a process that was complicated by the fact that the Office of the President's building in Berkeley was itself closed for structural inspection on Wednesday), but sufficient normalcy has returned that I spent all of yesterday (Monday) in a regularly-scheduled meeting of public service librarians from the nine campuses.
To summarize conditions here, the libraries at Berkeley, Davis, and San Francisco, and our northern egional storage facility, came through with minor cosmetic damage (actually, no damage at all at Davis) and no personal injuries. The Doe and Moffitt libraries at Berkeley were closed on Wednesday for inspection, but were open for business on Thursday; the other libraries named above (including all other branches at Berkeley) were in full or limited operation on Wednesday. At the Santa Cruz campus, there was no structural damage to any campus building, and NO INJURIES on campus. However, there was considerable structural damage to the shelving at the Santa Cruz main library, and it is not clear when they will be back in full operation.
To the best of my knowledge, the only University-related deaths were four personnel from the San Francisco campus whose vanpool was involved in the collapse of the Cypress Structure on I-880; none was library staff. The reports of "fire near the library" are based on an early report from a KCBS helicopter pilot who, being unfamiliar with local Berkeley geography, guessed that a major Berkeley fire looked like it "might be the Berkeley Public Library." In fact, the fire (which was at an auto-towing company) was about a block from Berkeley Public (about a helf-mile from Doe Library) and was contained with no damage to surrounding buildings.
There are, of course, tales of personal tragedy enough to go round, business and transportation in the Bay Area will be disrupted for some time to come, and our colleagues are not untouched (I know of several librarians at Santa Cruz whose homes suffered significant structural damage, although none was displaced), but the UC libraries in general withstood this seismic surprise in amazingly good shape. Please share this good news with your colleagues, and thanks for your concern.
12.7 LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF PHYSICS TODAY
Larry Lucas, Research Chemist, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD 20899 (submitted by Patricia W. Berger, with the comment: "How's THIS for creativity?")
I have followed the discussions and lamentations about increasing subscription rates for scientific journals with interest, and I would like to offer some comments and suggestions based upon my experience as a reviewer and one-time assistant editor. The process of generating and disseminating scientific information consists of five basic steps:
1. Generating the information to be reported;
2. Generating the report;
3. Internal editing and reviewing;
4. External editing and reviewing;
5. Reproducing and distributing the report.
For most scientific publications, the cost per step decreases as one goes down the list. Steps 1 through 3 are generally carried out by the authors and/or their particular institution and will not be discussed here. Submission of a report for publication in a journal occurs between steps 3 and 4.
Most of the discussion to date seems to center on the control exercised by a few large publishers over step 5. While this is certainly of concern, I think that it overemphasizes step 5, which I consider to be the least crucial and the least costly step in the process: Anyone can pay to have a journal printed and distrivuted. I contend that step 4 is more crucial and more costly than step 5 and that step 4 remains under the control of the scientific community. To be scientifically and economically viable, a journal needs a large number of knowledgeable and dedicated editors and reviewers. These editors and reviewers are recruited from the scientific community and usually work for a publisher without any significant compensation. This represents a significant subsidy and is absolutely essential to the success of a scientific journal. Furthermore, the subsidy comes not so much from the individual editors and reviewers (although there are many who contribute their own time and resources as well), but from the institutions that employ them. And the subsidy can be significant indeed. I estimate that NIST subsidizes scientific journals to the extent of more than one million dollars per year, primarily in the form of staff time. This is almost equal to the yearly cost of all of the journals in our Research Information Center.
I think it is important for each institution to evaluate the magnitude of its subsidies and to consciously decide upon the conditions under which it chooses to continue them. We need not continue to subsidize our own demise, just because we have done so in the past. I present the following sample guidelines as an example of the position that an institution might take. The guidelines are not intended to be complete, but rather to provide a basis for further discussion.
All use of institutional assets to assist in the publication of scientific journals must conform to the following guidelines. Institutional assets include staff time, building space, materials, and services.
IF the journal in question is published by a recognized scholarly
organization dedicated to the advancement of science and to
the dissemination of scientific information in its field(s),
AND the journal in question is published on a not-for-profit basis,
AND the Director of this Institution has determined that in order to further the goals of this Institution it is essential to subsidize the publication of the journal in question,
THEN the Director of this Institution may authorize the use of specific institutional assets to provide editorial and reviewing services to the journal in question.
IF the journal in question is published by a for-profit organization,
OR the journal in question is published on a for-profit basis,
OR the Director of this Institution has determined that in order to further the goals of this institution it is not essential to subsidize the publication of the journal in question,
THEN no institutional assets are to be used to provide services to the journal in question.
IF the Director of this Institution has determined that in order to further the goals of this Institution it is essential to assist, but not to subsidize, the publication of the journal in question,
THEN the Director of this Institution may authorize the sale, at cost, of the editorial and reviewing services to the journal in question.
What would happen if these guidelines were adopted by all of the educational and governmental institutions? I predict that:
(a) The majority of scientific journals would be published by nonprofit organizations that are
dedicated to the advancement of
science (rather than profits);
(b) The copyright revenue, such as that generated from the sale of information to commercial publishers and information services, could be used to reduce the cost of a journal to an institution that has helped to subsidize its production;
(c) Fewer articles would be published, and those that are published would be of higher quality, because of the greater awareness in the scientific community of the true costs of editing, reviewing, and publishing.
What do you think?
12.8 HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS
Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, BITNET: NOTCAH@LSUVM
The November 6 issue of TIME carries a letter from Nancy F. Bush, Information Officer, Library of Congress, claiming a March press release on the "PENTAGON" DOD procurement scandal. She says LC discovered the abuse and "corrective actions" were taken. Also, it wasn't a 15 percent rakeoff, just 5 percent.
Barbara von Wahlde, Director of Libraries at SUNY Buffalo, has reported that at its recent meeting, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges endorsed the ARL Serials Report. In addition, work done at Utah State University (Logan Utah) has brought NASULGC to the point of forming a library committee to continue investigation of the problems facing libraries. This is apparently the first time that the heads of the country's land grant colleges and universities have formed a library committee. All land grant institutions should check with provosts or chancellors to determine further what involvement NASULGC envisions.
12.9 RESPONSE FROM MARCEL DEKKER
Danny Jones, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
The following letter to Danny Jones from Marcel Dekker is dated September 21:
Dear Mr. Jones:
RE: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE ADDICTIONS
When I read your September 7, 1989 letter in response to my August 10, letter to you, I realized that I somehow must have been remiss in my explanation. Your supposition that this journal is "obviously troubled" is an entirely erroneous conclusion. The problem with the journal is that it has TOO MUCH of a backlog of manuscripts, and if anything we can't publish the material sequentially fast enough. The schedule that I showed you is an indication of the attempt we are making to get it out in a timely fashion.
In 1990 the journal is publishing an extra volume as a silver anniversary volume. The manuscripts are available and will be published. By saying the journal is troubled, you are implying that it may have editorial problems when, in fact, it is well recognized as the leading journal in the field. Your decision not to subscribe leaves you with journals ranking second in the field at best.
My suggestion is that you rethink your decision. If, on the other hand, you cannot afford the journal, then that is different matter entirely. If it would be more palatable for you to subscribe to only one of the two 1990 volumes, then please let me know, and I will see whether we can work out an arrangement for you to pay only half of the total. However, you will be missing an entire volume this way. In 1991 the journal will again be one volume of 12 issues.
My purpose in writing is to give you the true overview of the journal's situation so that you can make a more informed decision based on these facts. I hope I have been of some help.
Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper methods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter.
The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is published as news is available by the American Library Association's Association of Library Collections and Technical Services, Publisher/ Vendor-Library Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Serials Pricing Issues. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; ALANET: ALA0348; Paper mail: Serials Department, C.B. #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938. Committee members are: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Mary Elizabeth Clack (Harvard University), Jerry Curtis (Consultant), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), Robert Houbeck (University of Michigan), and Marcia Tuttle. EBSCONET customers may receive the newsletter in paper format from EBSCO. Back issues of the newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor and in paper from ALCTS, American Library Association, 50 East Huron Street, Chicago IL 60611. Paper issues are priced at $5.00 per issue, per copy, prepaid. Billing charge: $2.00, plus postage.