NS34.2 "ACTIVISTS RESPOND TO EXCESSIVE JOURNAL COSTS", October Ivins
NS34.3 RESPONSE TO BART HARLOE'S QUERY IN NS 33
Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET.
While librarians continue to respond positively to the Aqueduct Action Agenda, presented in this newsletter in NS 24, subscription agents appear not to understand Item 12:
Inform subscription agents that firm prices must be distinguished from preliminary prices on all invoices. Further, inform vendors that additional billings will not be accepted on titles where previous billings indicated firm prices.
In both the news story in the May 15 issue of _Library Journal_ (which also quoted Joel Baron of Faxon) and in an ad in the June 1 issue of the same title Dixon Brooke of EBSCO Subscription Services speaks to a "misconception" about journal prices on the part of "the library community" that was "brought to our attention through the Aqueduct Group's Action Agenda." (Quotes from the June 1 LJ, p. 193.)
Brooke says in the ad, "Who sets journal prices?...Publishers, and no one else, set subscription prices for their journals. Subscription agents set neither original nor renewal prices for any of the publications which are ordered through their programs."
The librarians who met at Aqueduct are well aware that subscription agents do not set journal prices, but usually charge librarians the list price -- set by the publisher -- plus a service charge. However, as can be seen above, Item 12 of the agenda is not about setting prices. We are asking to be told which prices are firm (i.e., current, set by the publisher for the period being invoiced) and which are not. We are saying that we will not pay additional charges for titles whose prices were noted as firm on a renewal invoice.
Some librarians have determined that they will not pay renewal charges until firm prices are available, a policy which has cash flow implications for subscription agencies, but that is not part of the action agenda. Item 12 simply asks for information and states that libraries adopting the item will not pay additional charges for titles listed as having current prices on the renewal invoice.
NS34.2 "ACTIVISTS RESPOND TO EXCESSIVE JOURNAL COSTS"
October Ivins, Louisiana State University, NOTORI@LSUVM.BITNET.
ALA MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
GROUP: ACRL Journal Costs in Academic Libraries Discussion Group
TOPIC: "Activists Respond to Excessive Journal Costs"
TIME: Saturday June 27, 1992 2-4 pm
PLACE: San Francisco Marriott, Sunset D-F
PRESENTERS:
-- Donald W. Koepp, University Librarian, Princeton University
Targeting specific publishers' titles for cancellation; informing
faculty on editorial boards of pricing policies; and A proposal to
pay only firm prices to subscription agents
-- Marcia Tuttle, Head, Serials Department, UNC-Chapel Hill
Planning and implementing the Aqueduct Action Agenda
-- Ann O'Neill, PhD Student, UNC School of Information and Library Science
Ownership and pricing distribution of expensive serials owned by
members of ASERL (Association of Southeastern Research Libraries)
If you believe one person can't make a difference, then you haven't heard these folks! Please join us to share ideas and discuss actions that individuals -- not just institutions -- can take.
For additional information contact chair October Ivins, Head, Serials Services, Louisiana State University Libraries: NOTORI@LSUVM.BITNET.
NS34.3 RESPONSE TO BART HARLOE'S QUERY IN NS 33
Various subscribers
From: Bernard Naylor, Univ of Southampton, B.Naylor@southampton.ac.uk:
I don't have any wish to defend the Pergamon practice in particular but I think that two-tier (or more than two-tier) pricing is very common out there in the world of commerce and we are being utopian if we think it will not apply in the field of journals. We feel very self-satisfied when we occupy an airline seat at a huge discount from the price paid by the standard business customer. In the case of learned journals, libraries are "the standard business customer." It is also fairly normal, I would have thought, for a firm to say: "If your company does business with us, we will offer our goods to you personally at a special discounted rate." The whole situation arises from the fact that journal publishers have high up-front costs and low run on costs, and, in commerce, this is a classic situation for segmentation of the market. The misfortune of librarians is that journal publishers see us as the segment of the market most able and most likely to pay the highest cost. Of course, if we start to show them that is not the case.....
-----
>From Kimberly Parker, Yale Chemistry Library, kimberly_parker@yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu:
In answer to Bart Harloe's query as to whether Pergamon's two tier pricing structure is unique, the answer is: no. Several years ago, one of my Chemistry faculty called to say that ISI was going to charge him a whole lot more for a subscription he had with them, because the library did not subscribe to the journal. They told him that this was a standard policy (for this particular journal?), and in reviewing their files, they had just figured out that the library wasn't subscribing. So much water has gone under the bridge that I don't remember the journal or if he decided to go ahead and pay up or not.
-----
>From Brian Cox, Director of Journals Business, Pergamon Press, Headington Hill Hall, Oxford OX3 0BW UK:
With reference to the note in _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues_ Number 33 from Bart Harloe of Claremont Colleges, I think I should explain that this is not a new policy and that Pergamon has had personal subscriptions to many of its journals since the 1960s. In the case of _Journal of Clinical Epidemiology_ (formerly _Journal of Chronic Diseases_), this offer has been made available on second or additional subscriptions ordered for personal use since 1971.
Subscriptions of this type are not numerous and in the case of this journal are 8% of the total circulation. This service is, however, available to all Faculty members provided the library subscribes at the usual published price. Each additional personal subscription is supplied at a run on price which does not adequately cover the cost of production and distribution and is provided as a service to the scientific community. In such cases individuals are asked to complete an application form when sending in their personal order giving details of their library affiliation so that we are in a position to check whether their library already supports the journal by subscribing at the usual published price. For economic reasons and in fairness to other library subscribers the concessional rate is not extended to first subscriptions.
The Mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET, or Marcia_Tuttle@unc.edu.
>From Bernard Naylor, Univ of Southampton, B.Naylor@southampton.ac.uk:
Regarding Deana Astle's reported reference to the need to restructure the system of scholarly communication. This restructuring is already under way, I would have thought, the most obvious symptom being massive journals cancellations -- about which the periodicals publishers and agents are certainly apprehensive. Where I think we are mistaken is if we think that somehow all the parties involved in scholarly communication can get round a table and devise an orderly restructuring of what is a very complex process. There is a place for discussions of this kind but there is also a place for unilateral action, for example by libraries faced with otherwise unsustainable budgetary pressures. I'm afraid that the essential process of restructuring scholarly communication is going to be messy and rather anarchic, but I suppose that is the norm rather than the exception for a major restructuring of a complex industry.
-----
>From Philip E.N. Greene, III, EBSCO Subscription Services, 1163 E. Shrewsbury Ave., Shrewsbury NJ 07702-4321:
I have been following with great interest and some dismay, some of the comments that have developed from your [Aqueduct] action agenda.
As you know, I have been in this business for many years and have always considered my personal integrity and that of my company to be the most important aspect of our success. For this reason, I have been particularly distressed by some of the statements and insinuations which seem to indicate that "subscription agents" are engaged in some sort of "below board" activities relative to service charges. To the best of my knowledge, this could not be further from the truth!
Any library which has a question about their service charge (or any other part of agency cost/billing schedule) need only ask their local representative or manager. We have nothing to hide -- we have never hidden anything!
Quite the opposite, our service charges (and all other billing aspects) are easy to identify and always explained in writing.
I would certainly hope that no library spends a great deal of time trying to "figure out" or "verify" their agency billing schedule. It is a lot faster and easier to pick up the phone and make a call to the vendor.
I would certainly agree with Susan Davis' statement that a library with a question should be "talking with the vendor before making any assumptions."
-----
>From Susan Davis, SUNY at Buffalo, UNLSDB@UBVM.BITNET:
The _Chronicle of Higher Education_, v.38:no.39 (1992: June 3) p.17,20 has a nice feature on the TULIP project. It involves Elsevier (so they've included Karen Hunter's photo) and 15 universities. Part of the study involves investigation of user behavior with electronic information. We should all be monitoring this project's progress. Elsevier will provide electronic versions of 42 materials science journals.
-----
>From Gill Jordan, University of Cape Town, GILL@UCTLIB.UCT.AC.ZA:
I was fascinated to read about your Aqueduct Action Agenda in Newsletter 24 -- April 6, 1992, in particular Item 14, a comparison of the charges made by subscription agents and publishers over 100 journal titles.
I have to prepare a document detailing the pros and cons of using subscription agents vs dealing directly with publishers to present to our Library Committee Chair -- a mathematician who does not like the notion of paying handling fees/service charges on top of already wickedly expensive journal prices, and who thinks that by subscribing directly with the publishers, we will cut out unnecessary costs. A rosy view indeed.
However, it is very difficult to quantify the benefits of using agents in terms that a mathematician would appreciate. I wonder, has anyone out there done a cost/benefit analysis on the subject? I cannot be the only serials librarian faced with this problem and I could surely use a little help!
Replies please to Gill Jordan, UCT Libraries, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa, or e-mail address GILL@UCTLIB.UCT.AC.ZA
[If you have trouble with Gill's e-mail address, try GILL%UCTLIB.UCT. AC.ZA@[your Internet gateway]. -ed.]
-----
>From Philip E.N. Greene, III, EBSCO Subscription Services, 1163 E. Shrewsbury Ave., Shrewsbury NJ 07702-4321:
A little bit of follow up on the _Nature Genetics_ situation.
It seems to me that having a publisher accept a "personal check" for a library and thereby, offer the library a $200 savings is a little ridiculous.
In the past, publisher arguments for higher library subscriptions have been based on circulation and readership. In this case, it seems to me that the publisher is saying that it cost $200 less to cash a "personal check" than a library or institution check.
Considering the $200 savings, it would probably be worthwhile for libraries (and vendors) to open personal checking accounts.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time where a publisher has based the rate on the source of the check rather than the ultimate delivery point of the subscription.
-----
>From Ann Lillian Okerson, Association of Research Libraries, OKERSON@UMDC.BITNET:
You might want to note for NSPI, the article by Paul Hilts in the new June 8th PW, pp. 35-37. It is based on Paul's attendance at the ARL Symposium on e-publishing at the end of April and mostly on one particular session on copyright. I hasten to add that the quotations attributed to me are only half correct -- I DON'T envision a system where publishers are information owners, as much as worry about it and seek for an environment with several assorted ownership and payment models. Ah well.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Internet: Marcia_Tuttle@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), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET 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 free of charge through BITNET from the editor.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++