ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NO 71 -- February 13, 1993 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS 71.1 REBUTTAL TO 65.1 ASSESSMENT OF FISC REPORT, Albert Henderson 71.2 RESPONSE TO MR. HENDERSON, Ann Okerson 71.1 REBUTTAL TO 65.1 ASSESSMENT OF FISC REPORT Albert Henderson, 70244.1532@CompuServe.COM. It was clear to me, long before I began to promote the idea of a study of the relationships between researchers, publishers, and libraries -- in the context of the much larger economic activities and cultures of R&D and higher education -- that most librarian research and commentary focuses on micro-issues and red herrings, in ignorance or perhaps in denial of the macro-issues that create the problems and opportunities. The Pritchard memo offers some good examples.... In the second paragraph of her memo, Pritchard comments on the failure of library budgets to keep up with the normal growth of science journals. She then compares journal price increases to the CPI! Any science librarian should know better. The CPI (Consumer Price Index) accounts for only about one-half of the increase of the prices of science journals. If you add the increases in pages published to the increases in CPI, you will come out close to the increases in the prices of science journals (see my notes 21, and read my article, "Forecasting Changes in Periodicals Prices," in SERI- ALS LIBRARIAN vol. 21 no. 4 (1992) p. 33-43). In paragraph 3, Pritchard suggests that a modem "replaces much if not all traditional library use." Not for me or any researcher that I have inter- viewed, including editors of COMPUTING SURVEYS. While electronic novelties provide enormous new access to threads of commentary once available only in seminars, hallways, and inner sancti, they are no substitute for a good library with a comprehensive collection on paper. More important, interli- brary loan and document delivery depend on comprehensive library resources somewhere. That somewhere is the category of library that is the focus of "Cost Effectiveness of Science Journals." In paragraph 4, Pritchard suggests that I assume that university libraries are the majority of purchasers of science journals. If that was the impres- sion I gave I apologize. Having had access to sales and circulation records of various science publishers for nearly 25 years, I could not dream such an idea. I do hold that the large academic, government and other institu- tional libraries, many of which are members of ARL, have not only a role but an obligation to preserve the quality of their resources for use of the R&D community, most of which is located off campus. I also believe that academic and government libraries provide the circulation base for many of the discipline-oriented omnibus journals while special libraries and indi- viduals may enter subscriptions that are essentially short term. Pritchard, later in that paragraph, says the assertion that 90% of R&D occurs off campus is "completely undocumented." Given the figures of $118.8 billion spent for R&D in 1987, of which $12.1 billion is spent on campus (see Fig. 1 with accompanying notes), one might argue the figure is 89.8%, but "undocumented" it is not. In the following paragraph, Pritchard again claims lack of "any documenta- tion" for the isolation of library managers from publishers and scientists. She should read Dean White's article, "Scholarly Publishers and Libraries: A Strained Marriage," cited in my note 38. She may not agree, but the docu- mentation is authoritative and thoughtful. She also calls reports of crude cancellation procedures, that rush to cut expenditures and ignore the needs of users, "small studies done for prag- matic and specific reasons." Whatever their reasons, the studies by Milne and Tiffany, and by Bustion and Treadwell (notes 52, 53) provide a glimmer of detail of how university administrations can bully librarians into run- ning roughshod over the welfare of researchers; that is why they were cit- ed. While most of the journal cancellation procedures that I have heard described on other campuses have been excellent, the expediency of balanc- ing a university budget on the back of the library is a sin. "Fiscally irresponsible" is not too harsh. The New York City analogies are right on the mark. I looked at many articles and reports, including Machlup and ACLS, demanded by Pritchard in paragraph 6 but not necessarily cited by me in the prepara- tion of the Report in PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY. Machlup and Leeson are cited in the Supplement to the Report, which we expect to receive from the printers in a day or so. I didn't see the need to cite every study I read, because I felt that sufficient documentation had been presented for every point. No offense was intended to any author that I omitted. Contrary to items Pritchard claims, in paragraph 6, "that are not even hinted at," the focus of the panel's interests and recommendations does indeed address serious concerns for "nation-wide information policies." The first recommendation begins, "Identify major academic, public, and national science libraries as central depositories for comprehensive collections in science and technology. As national resources of economic significance, such libraries should be publicly financed and maintained and be controlled by a directorate that represents the entire research and development com- munity as well as librarians and educators...." This is of major importance and appears to have escaped Pritchard's notice entirely. Pritchard attacks my use of government statistics in paragraphs 7 and 8. Would she have attacked U. Mass. Librarian Richard Talbot's use of the same source in the BOWKER ANNUAL, 1984? He draws similar conclusions about the decline of library funding in higher education and is quoted in the Supple- ment. His opening line: "The patterns of academic library finance clearly indicate that on the average academic libraries receive a fixed percentage of their institution's budget and no more." He indicates a pattern of de- cline beginning in the 1970s and a correlation with ARL statistics. Having read Talbot, I wrote to Duane Webster, ARL Executive Director, on Feb. 28, 1991 with reference to an article in PW and ARL's machine readable statistics 1907/08 - 1987/88. I asked a number of questions about ARL's statistics, particularly with respect to how each ARL member fared in main- taining its share of its university's budget. I referred to Talbot's arti- cle. Pritchard responded on March 11 and subsequently supplied detailed annual figures for the majority of ARL's members -- figures that to this day remain unpublished by ARL. (ARL has refused to release updates of these figures to me but declined to divulge who or what they were protecting.) In paragraph 9, Pritchard claims one of the main reasons that ARL doesn't publish the budget-share data of its members is the unreliability of the data itself. In her letter of March 11, she made the point that differences in accounting results in differences between institutions. She also empha- sized that the figures should agree with other statistics supplied to ARL and DoE. The figures that I calculated based on the statistics she provided showed the trend of each institution, comparing the latest with the earli- est figures. The result was either a gain, a loss, or status quo. These are the figures in Note 58 and more extensively reported in the Supplement: more losers than gainers. On May 7, I wrote to Pritchard enclosing a draft of what appears as my note 58, stating, "I hope you agree that this sort of application is appropriate and useful to the objectives of the ARL." She never replied, one way or the other. Most important, and ignored by Pritchard and others is that these govern- ment and ARL statistics clearly corroborate the premise that it is a lack of adequate funding that precipitated the serials crisis, not the avarice of scholars and publishers. ARL has for some reason taken the other posi- tion, trying without success to prove publisher greed, and so may find this idea disagreeable. In his 1984 article on these statistics Talbot predic- ted, "libraries will be in increasing competition for funding from computer centers and in many institutions will lose the competition." He was right on the money. Pritchard begins paragraph 10, "The unquestioned assertion that library collections are supposed to double every fifteen years is laughably out-of- date...." Would she be surprised to read Duane Webster quoting Richard Wurman's assertion that the world's great libraries double "every 14 years" (in "The Librarian's Response and Expectations," in ISSUES FOR THE NEW DECADE, edited by A.F. Trezza. Boston, Hall, 1991. p. 60)? If I'm laughably out-of-date, at least I'm in good company! One might also reason that where a major library has not continued to dou- ble every 15 years -- the rate at which science research publication num- bers double -- the library is probably out of date and no laughing matter. Eventually research talent will go elsewhere, as they did in the 19th cen- tury. Paragraph 11 claims I am wrong to criticize the management of academic libraries and their parent institutions. She is wrong. This is the funda- mental macro-issue: Can our major research universities keep producing researchers and re- search without adequately funding their own libraries to catalog and store the work product -- research papers published in journals -- of that research?! The panel deals with this question and recommends a solution.... I doubt that Pritchard can quote me writing that ILL is "a dangerous, slop- py, and unthinking approach," as she suggests in her paragraph 12. Where did she get this? Interlibrary loan and document delivery may be the answer for satellite libraries but they are unacceptable as substitutes for com- prehensive collections. PW (July 27, 1992. p. 22-23) reports an interpreta- tion of ARL statistics by Okerson and Stubbs that forecasts the present trend of library management culminating in ARL libraries buying nothing by the year 2017; they will instead depend on "access." They quote U. Minn. librarian Tom Shaughnessy's doomsday prediction, "You can't borrow, if no one owns it." Perhaps the ILL trend is dangerous and unthinking, if not sloppy. "Access not ownership" is an option that violates the ideal of excellence of a central library. Writing as a researcher I say "just in time" means two hours, not nearly two weeks -- the average time taken to fill an ILL request according to OCLC NEWSLETTER (July/Aug 1989). The various electron- ic innovations, technical potentials and dreams of copyright reform that have recently occupied much editorial space may have their place. They are not worth mentioning as affecting the essential cost effectiveness of sci- ence journals and the custodial obligations that need to be recognized by the higher education community. They provide little in the way of solutions to financial problems, because they all cost more than conventional pub- lishing. Finally, if it is unclear to Pritchard what thesis gave rise to the report, its intended audience, or outcome, let me direct her attention to the ab- stract and recommendations. Pritchard seems to wish that the recommenda- tions of the panel had criticized publishers more, addressed micro-issues, and floated more speculative proposals for new technology rather than the macro-issues of higher education finances and lack of science policies to maintain good libraries that underlie the serials crisis. The solution to the serials crisis lies not with library managers or even university presidents as much as it does with the national recognition of these major libraries as essential national resources. Higher education finances are generally in a mess, although I did not emphasize these prob- lems in the report as much as I could have. I did emphasize the fact that ARL and similar libraries are used by, and have an obligation to, a nation- al clientele. It should follow that their financing and administration reflect that patronage. It should follow that library finance and adminis- tration be separated sufficiently from local campus situations that collec- tion development can proceed and continue to serve its national clientele with excellent on-site resources. I also believe that, in serving an R&D industry that spends over $120 bil- lion annually, an additional $250 million or so is not too much to ask for purchase of essential books and journals. 71.2 RESPONSE TO MR. HENDERSON Ann Okerson, Association of Research Libraries, ann@CNI.ORG. The following response to Mr. Henderson about Ms. Pritchard's memorandum is submitted from the Association of Research Libraries. Ms. Pritchard has reviewed our message (below); however, her memo was written for, and is the property of, the ARL. ------------- We would like to correct some of the misimpressions Mr. Henderson may have had of the Association of Research Libraries, which have appeared in his recent postings here. ARL is an organization of 120 of the largest research libraries in North America. It is guided by its membership through a broad-based governance structure; ARL policies and positions are extensively reviewed by the li- brary directors who serve on our committees and boards. ARL analyzes re- search library activities and performance and works to maximize the effec- tiveness of human and material resources in libraries. Some of the chief mechanisms for this are in the programs of the Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing, efforts related to issues of Technology/Access, the Office of Research & Development, and the Statistics Program. The work in these programs may sometimes take years to come to fruition and involves many draft documents, test data, informal collaborations, and pilot proj- ects. The ARL works to understand and influence the changes taking place in scholarly communications. The current system is under stress and the causal factors are many and complex. The traditional roles and services of the research library are undergoing transformation. Libraries are forming part- nerships with academic presses and learned societies, among others, to work for a robust information future. The ARL, along with CAUSE and EDUCOM, particularly supports electronic access, as reflected in their successful venture in the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI). Some specific points we would like to make are: The ARL is not party to any lawsuits in the US or overseas in regard to pricing, marketing, or research practices of publishers. ARL has not spent thousands of dollars on such lawsuits. Because of the ongoing research programs, ARL collects far more statistical data than it publishes in any given year. Mr. Henderson was given scholarly access to some of these unpublished data, with the express caveat that they not be used out of context or in ways that would misconstrue their meaning. Ms. Pritchard's memorandum was originally written as an internal document in order to point out areas of inconsistency in use of our data and re- search in the FISC report, not to stand as an independent rebuttal. After reflection, we thought it might be of use to the wider readership of this newsletter to be aware of some of the flaws of the FISC document. On behalf of the ARL, Ann Okerson, Director Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing Association of Research Libraries +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Statements of fact and opinion appearing in the _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues_ are made on the responsibility of the authors alone, and do not imply the endorsement of the editor, the editorial board, or the Uni- versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 by the editor through the Office of Information Technology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, Internet: tuttle@gibbs.oit.unc.edu; Paper mail: Serials Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Janet Fisher (MIT Press), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State Universi- ty), Daniel Jones (University of Texas Health Science Center), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Divi- sion). The Newsletter is available on the Internet and Blackwell's CONNECT. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the Newsletter in paper format from these companies. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically. To get a list of available issues send a message to LISTSERV@GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU saying INDEX PRICES. To retrieve a specific issue, the message should read: GET PRICES PRICES.xx (where "xx" is the number of the issue). To subscribe to the newsletter, send a message to LISTSERV@GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU saying SUBSCRIBE PRICES [YOUR NAME]. Be sure to send that message to the listserver and not to Prices. You must include your name. To unsubscribe (no name required in message), you must send the message from the e-mail address by which you are subscribed. If you have problems, please contact the editor. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ *****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****