4.2 UPDATE OF GORDON & BREACH/PHYSICS TODAY CONTROVERSY, Lloyd Davidson
4.3 JOURNAL PRICES: A PUBLISHER'S COMMENT, Ken Ford
4.4 NOTICE OF ARTICLE ON ANALYSIS OF SERIAL PRICES, Charles Hamaker
4.5 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR SMALLER LIBRARIES, Charles Hamaker
4.6 UNITED KINGDOM SERIALS GROUP 12TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, Kenneth L. Kirkland
4.8 THOUGHTS UPON READING THE FIRST ISSUE OF THE PRICING NEWSLETTER, Richard M. Dougherty
4.9 SWEDISH IMPRINTS, Richard Jasper
4.10 NEWS OF THE WEEK, Charles Hamaker
Reprinted with permission from ARL NEWSLETTER, no. 145 April 25, 1989, p. 4.
After a year-long study, ARL has received two final reports on serials prices from Economic Consulting Services, Inc. (ECS) and Ann Okerson, a private consultant. ARL commissioned these studies in the spring of 1988 in response to what has been widely regarded as a crisis affecting research libraries' ability to serve the information needs of the research community.
The Executive Summary of the ECS report states, "the results of our analysis indicate that the cost increases in the serials publishing industry simply do not justify the price increases that research libraries have had to face, notwithstanding fluctuations in exchange rates and the effect of inflation." Furthermore, the report's analysis indicates much larger differences between serials price and publishing cost growth rates from 1980-1987 than from 1973-1979. The report concludes that, "if such estimated rates of growth [of publishers' profit ratios] are reasonably accurate, then the library community would benefit greatly from such measures as the encouragement of new entrants into the business of serials publishing, and the introduction of a program to stimulate greater competitive bidding for publishing contracts of titles whose ownership is not controlled by the publishers."
The Okerson report provides a comprehensive review of the serials prices problem and concludes with a series of specific recommendations within three broad categories. The first category includes actions which ARL can consider to assist libraries in dealing directly with the issue through local and/or cooperative library actions. The second category includes actions directed toward introducing and fostering greater competition to the commercial publishers of scientific, technical, and medical journals. The third category includes actions directed toward reducing the amount of information published and distributed through the scientific journal by working with scholars to influence the ways in which the scholarly and academic communities operate peer review systems.
Both reports will be discussed at the ARL May 1989 membership meeting and the Committee on Collection Development is charged with developing a recommended ARL response to the reports' recommendations.
4.2 UPDATE ON GORDON & BREACH/PHYSICS TODAY CONTROVERSY
Lloyd Davidson, Life Sciences Librarian, Seeley G. Mudd Library for Science and Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston IL 60208, E-MAIL: L_DAVIDSON@NUACC.ACNS.NWU.EDU
In the first issue of this newsletter I discussed an article by Henry H. Barschall in PHYSICS TODAY 41 (6) (July): 56-59, in which he criticised the cost of Gordon & Breach journals and their cost effectiveness. Gordon & Breach then claimed that the article included misleading statements and errors and, in the November issue, it was reported that they had asked for a chance to respond.
In the March 1989 issue (PHYSICS TODAY 42 (3), p. 13) there is a statement by the editor of PHYSICS TODAY and the Executive Director and CEO of the American Institute of Physics about this controversy. They in essence report that Gordon & Breach did not provide adequate substantiation of their claims for any retractions to be published. Furthermore, the editors invited Gordon & Breach to publish a letter, to which Barschall could respond, but they did not accept this offer.
In the same PHYSICS TODAY issue, pages 15 and 154, Barschall publishes a letter which further clarifies the methodology used in his study.
4.3 JOURNAL PRICES: A PUBLISHER'S COMMENT
Ken Ford, American Institute of Physics. BITNET: AVDOD@CUVMB
There seems to be a (natural) tendency for librarians to look at the
total cost of a journal subscription rather than its cost per page or
per character or its cost/impact ratio. By the simple measure of subscription cost, PHYSICAL
REVIEW and THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS,
for example, are expensive. but they are
4.4 NOTICE OF ARTICLE ON ANALYSIS OF SERIAL
PRICES
Charles Hamaker, Louisiana State University Library, BITNET:
NOTCAH@LSUVM. From copy sent to AGAINST THE GRAIN for its June
1989 issue.
For an analysis of serial prices on a basis of cents per thousand
characters, comparing scholarly journals in the humanities, social
sciences, and sciences, as well as those produced by associations,
scholarly organizations and commercial publishers (comparing data for
1985 with 1973), see Sandra R. Moline "The Influence of Subject, Publisher Type and
Quantity Published on Journal Prices," in JOURNAL OF
ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP 15, no. 1 (1989): 12-18. On a price per thousand characters
(cost/kchar) basis, social science and science publications from association/society and other
scholarly publishers were
approximately equal. However, the cents per thousand characters price
from commercial publishers and the larger size of journals they published, meant that libraries
"paid a higher total price than they
would have if the cents/kchar were equal for all categories and higher
than if the total number of characters were equal." Although the names
of the publishers are not mentioned, the conclusion is clear. Commercial publishers' prices are
significantly higher, both in absolute
terms and in per/unit terms than any other type of publishers. The
author suggests that the use of cents/kchar should be the basic unit
of explanation and comparison in journal price comparisons. She avoids
all possibility of a law suit carefully avoiding names of commercial
firms associated with the higher per unit prices. In that sense, the
article represents a step backwards in the current debate. But the
careful analysis, with data from before the tremendous swing in the
dollar's value, does provide a good base line. Explanations of statistical tests of significance
and their results when applied to this
data also represent a positive addition to the literature.
4.6 UNITED KINGDOM SERIALS GROUP 12TH ANNUAL
CONFERENCE, APRIL 1989
Kenneth L. Kirkland, Serials Librarian, De Paul University Library, Chicago IL;
BITNET: LIBKLK@DEPAUL.
Ten papers were presented at the conference, many of which will be
published in future issues of the group's journal, SERIALS. This report consists of summaries
of several of the most relevant to serials
pricing.
"Serial Communications - The Future," by Professor Jack Meadows,
Loughborough University. Expense will continue to be a problem, one
reason being that publishing is a labor intensive industry. It takes
seven or eight years now to get a new publication into the black,
whereas it used to take five. There were 71,000 titles current in
1987, but the rate of increase in new titles is flattening off. However, one new title a week is
started. Meadows mentioned three "American
solutions" to the expense/inflation problem:
Meadows distributed a table of statistical comparisons over a five-
year period, 1982/83 - 1986/87, showing relationships between total
university recurrent expenditure, total library recurrent expenditure,
the library as a percentage of university recurrent expenditure, library salaries & wages,
library total non-pay expenditures, expenditure on books, on periodicals, on binding, and
miscellaneous. The
table included the British Academic Book Price Index figures.
"Education and Training for the Book and Information World," by Maurice B. Line,
Consultant and former Director General, British Library
Document Supply Centre. Perhaps library schools should add publishing
courses, and publishing courses should add library studies. Chief
elements of common interest include financial management, staff management, marketing,
new technology, and bibliographic database construction and use. Two courses for the book
trade and publishing were
cited, one at Napier Polytechnic in Edinburgh and one at Watford.
Napier had 30 places, but 400 applicants. Industries are willing to
donate to the polytechnics. Booksellers want university graduates for
clerks, and although they offer low pay, the booksellers have no trouble getting
applicants.
"Thoughts on the Standardisation of Information on Journal Covers," by
Anthony Watkinson, Chapman & Hall, Ltd. In the past, journals were
not marketed, because a journal "will sell itself." This is no longer
true, hence bright colors on covers and changing titles, typography,
and sizes. These moves are to sell the journal. Watkinson polled the
audience on what we librarians preferred: ISSN in the right-hand corner; title should be
visible from a distance, as short as possible,
and as explanatory as possible; subtitles are ignored; kinky lettering
should be avoided; acronyms on the cover or title page are anathema;
no Roman numerals; uniform size of typeface in titles; notation of
"last issue in volume"; month of issue not necessary; bar codes (Kluwer is experimenting,
said they were just trying things out, didn't
have standards yet, wanted reactions).
An unusual session was called "Product Reviews." For an hour and a
half one afternoon exhibitors were allotted ten minutes each to present their latest wares and
developments.
4.7 PROGRESS REPORT: SERIALS REVIEW IN PROCESS
John N. Kilmarx, Assistant to the Director for Planning and Finance, SUNY
Binghamton Libraries, Binghamton NY 13901; (607) 777-
4841. BITNET: JKILLY@BINGVMB
Library staff and senior administrators at SUNY Binghamton have recognized that extreme
cost increases for serials (journals, annuals, and
newspapers) are creating serious budget problems. Until an in-depth
serials review could be undertaken, the universirty has supported
library spending beyond the recommended FY 1988/89 New York State
allocation. Internal adjustments were also made to the library's
spending plan, mostly at the expense of monographic purchases. This
report briefly describes the process and methodology of the serials
review, which is now ongoing. Any hindsight or description of the
final outcome is several months away at this time.
An ad hoc Serials Task Force reporting to the Director of Libraries
was charged with developing a methodology to review and cancel serials
outside the scope of the curricular needs of the university and the
library's budget. The Task Force includes nine library staff and eight
teaching faculty from various academic disciplines. The Task Force has
met weekly since December 1988. The dollar target is $100,000 to
$130,000, to be cancelled from total serials expenditures of $1.6
million. The review must be completed this spring in order to be able
to cancel specific titles when our major invoices arrive over the
summer AND to allow the full consideration of faculty input. A subsidiary Serials Working
Group handles logistical details as they arise
and reports to the Task Force.
A meeting of the Task Force was held in February with the University
President and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The meeting was
followed by an informational letter to all faculty from the Vice President and the Director of
Libraries. The memo detailed the causes of
price increases, the nature and extent of the library's budget problems, timetable for the serials
review, and the contact persons. Further informational meetings were held with
representatives from all
academic units on campus.
The current review will deal with 7,100 titles totalling about $1.3
million. Payments for other acquisitions processed as serials (such as
monographic series) are not so predictable; these other serials will
be reviewed during the next academic year. Titles in all price ranges
are subject to the review. Serials costing less than $60 account for
50% of the titles under consideration, but less than 10% of the money.
Only 3% of the titles cost more than $1,000, but these account for
over 30% of the total dollar amount.
The Task Force has agreed to use a process with several distinct stages:
1. Library reference and collection development staff identified key
reference titles and cross-disciplinary and general serials central to
the university library system (e.g., NEW YORK TIMES, READERS' GUIDE,
etc.). This procedure identified 650 titles that will be protected
from cancellation.
2. Academic units have been allotted set numbers of "core" titles
that will also be protected from cancellation. Doctoral-granting departments may identify 30
titles; other departments may identify 20;
and other non-departmental programs may identify 5 or 10, depending on
whether or not they grant degrees. This step protected another 950
titles.
3. In order to ascertain faculty interest (in support of instruction, research, etc.), academic
units are "voting" on the remaining
5,500 titles. Votes have been allocated to departments based on the
faculty FTE in that department. Total number of faculty FTE on campus
is 583; total number of votes is 58,300. Some departments are pooling
their votes; others have allocated 100 votes to each full-time faculty
members within the department. Interdisciplinary titles may receive
votes from a broad-based constituency; some faculty may wish to throw
their entire vote allocation behind one or a select number of titles.
The Task Force wanted to grant the maximum autonomy for cooperation
and caucusing to the departments and to the faculty.
For the faculty survey, master lists of all 7,100 titles were distributed to each academic unit,
with the 1,600 protected titles flagged.
Price information was included for all titles. Compiling this database
was very time-consuming, as no complete machine readable list existed,
and several sources of information -- including kardex, accounting
records, and vendor-supplied invoice diskettes -- had to be consulted.
Titles have not been attributed to specific departments, and no department has a strict quota
of titles or dollars to cut.
The strength of the survey method lies in the opportunity for faculty
to identify titles that we should KEEP (a positive angle on the matter), rather than on those to
cut. The Task Force also felt that a
philosophy of retention avoided the problem of trying to coordinate
different ideas about what is NOT essential.
The Task Force has deliberated on several mathematical models of votes
and prices, in order to try to know or guarantee ahead of time how
many votes will be required to save a title of a given price. Unfortunately, it is impossible to
know how the votes and the risk of cancellation will be distributed. Further, even if it were,
we did not want
to build in any potential bias against a particular price range (and
any department using those serials). The whole process is so highly
integrated and politicized that we agreed a firm algorithm would be
dangerous. To a large extent, library bibliographers will apply qualitative criteria such as:
relevance to curricular needs, taking into
account interdisciplinary needs; degree of use; accessibility (indexing); availability through
inter-library loan; and consideration of
academic areas designated for growth. The faculty survey should yield
a useful profile of interest for evaluating specific titles.
*** WE ARE CURRENTLY AT THIS STAGE IN THE METHODOLOGY.
*** THE MASTER LISTS HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED, AND WE ARE WAITING
*** TO TABULATE THE RESULTS OF THE FACULTY SURVEY.
4. Survey ballots are due back in late April. Titles receiving the
lowest number of votes will be considered for non-renewal; as noted,
however, qualitative criteria will be very important. Subscription
price will be a factor too, since we must achieve the target of at
least $100,000.
The list of candidates for cancellation will be circulated among all
departments in May. A modest "cushion" above $100,000 will permit
significant grievances and re-considerations to be addressed, and
still meet the dollar target this fiscal year. Library staff will be
the final decision-makers.
**************
Your comments and suggestions are welcome. We will provide an updated
progress report to this list after data from the faculty survey have
been tabulated.
This intensified attention will help us in the sense that faculty and
library funders will become better educated and price increases of
some journals may moderate, but we're unlikely to see a roll-back in
prices. One question we yet can't answer is whether or not universities will gradually become
accustomed to the higher prices and simply
decide to pay them, much in the same way as institutions absorbed
higher energy costs. Of course, most institutions did make serious
efforts to use energy more efficiently. I wonder if there are some
parallels to be drawn here.
With all the attention on serials, do you think it would be possible
to create a single database against which other libraries could draw
information? I've always thought the work done initially by Michigan
and LSU was solid, but I don't know whether the database of any single
library, no matter how large, provides a truly representative picture
of a publisher's entire list. Right now I find it difficult to get a
fix on what publishers are really doing, i.e., what are their pricing
policies, and what are librarians' responses. There may be no way to
bring greater order out of the current situation. (Maybe it would make
more sense to monitor the entire list of the most important publishers
since individual pricing decisions could transform a database comprised of a random sample
into one that is biased almost overnight.)
I've heard that the price increases of foreign journals this year will
range between four and six percent, with the domestic titles coming in
slightly higher. That may indeed be the case, but what about the pricing patterns of individual
publications? Are the "weak sisters" of
publishers' lists being held stable while the core (or near core)
journals increase at higher rates, or are we really seeing an across-the-board price
moderation? I don't know, but we all realize how averages and medians can mislead.
1. Local/regional co-operation between libraries in acquisitions and provisioning. This is
seen as not so promising. Co-operation works if institutions are close together --
less than 10 miles apart.
2. Lobbying publishers to keep prices down. A difficulty with this approach is that
publishers are more concerned about authors (i.e., faculty and researchers) than they
are about librarians.
3. Cancelling the expensive, rapidly inflating titles.
The paper format will not disappear. Desk-top publishing has not
created more small journals; it is limited largely to newsletters,
partly due to problems of marketing techniques and promotion. Electronic full text is just a
spinoff. It is a by-product of the printing
process, so not a competitor, but just an alternative storage format.
However, social sciences and humanities publications may be more of an
acquisitions problem than others, because of diversification in formats.