Newsletter on Serial Pricing Issues 003 (JUNE 5, 1991) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/nspi/nspi-ns003 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES N.S. NUMBER 3 -- JUNE 5, 1991 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle ACRL COPYING FEE, Yvonne Wulff EBSCO PREDICTS MODERATE SUBSCRIPTION PRICE INCREASES FOR 1991, submitted by Laura A. Ralstin DAVID MERMAN'S "PUBLISHING IN COMPUTOPIA," Deana Astle REVISITED -- AGAIN, Ann Okerson RESPONSE FROM EDITOR OF , Kim Parker LETTER FROM HAWORTH PRESS ABOUT INVOICES, Sent by Ron Akie TASK FORCE REPORT TELLS IT LIKE IT IS, Susan Ballinger FROM THE MAILBOX HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS, Chuck Hamaker FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET I understand that everybody got five copies of the last issue. So did I! I'm sorry. Here's what happened, according to our postman (expurga- tions by editor): Here's the scoop: Someone whose id is [DELETED BY ED.] added herself to the list. Unfortunately, through no fault of hers, the address added was malformed. We (PRICES-L) saw it as [SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT]. When PRICES-L was used to send the newsletter to everyone on the list, she was sent a copy as well. So far, so good. But when [GATEWAY] received the newsletter, it couldn't interpret the address. Their mailer rejected the newsletter and tried to return it to PRICES-L. You all got a copy. PRICES-L then sent the rejection to [PROBLEM ID]. Endless loop. I have since removed [PROBLEM ID] from the PRICES-L list. No [PROBLEM ID] no loop. Thanks to your early reactions, we corrected the problem on Monday morning, June 3. However, one or more copies were still in the loop and they were delivered. Thank you for your patience and your humor during this situation. This is an example of why I prefer to have you subscribe through me. We may eliminate the option of self-subscribing. Issue NS2 was the last one distributed to about 55 mailboxes on Fax- on's DataLinx. Here is some of the message I sent those subscribers: ...the only reason for discontinuing this "edition" is the four or five hours required for the editor to rekey each issue. When we began the newsletter in February 1989, not a lot of librarians used BITNET/The Internet. Now, however, we do, and it is much more satisfactory to receive a document than 30 - 40 screens of information. Also, I can use the keying time to better advantage soliciting articles and editing contributions. Thank you for being a DataLinx subscriber.... The Society for Scholarly Publishing held its annual meeting in late May in Philadelphia. I missed last year's meeting, but this year the atmosphere was, to me, far better than two years ago. This time there was no (public, at least!) bashing of anybody, but a sense of working together to resolve the problems besetting all of us. As a last-minute stand-in I led a discussion group of seven publishers trying to decide which of eleven possible types of journals to cut in an already-cut- to-the-bone library. I was heartened by their uniformly sympathetic and understanding discussions. They may have thought "Anybody's jour- nals but mine," but they didn't say so! They worked through the case study just as librarians do in real situations, considering short- and long-term implications, sacred cows, regional and subject obligations in resource sharing, document delivery, and very high priced subscrip- tions. This group made me feel that there is hope for us still. In a near-future issue we will have a report on the conference. ACRL COPYING FEE Yvonne Wulff, University of Michigan, USERGB33@UMICHUM.BITNET. A faculty member just sent me a copy of her spring reading list. The course uses readings from some ACRL publications, or, used to would be more accurate. ACRL currently charges $11 per page for permission to copy from C&RL NEWS and from COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES. If that fee seem excessive (even outrageous?), write to President Barbara Ford right away. There should still be time for the policy to make the Atlanta agenda of the ACRL Board meeting. EBSCO PREDICTS MODERATE SUBSCRIPTION PRICE INCREASES FOR 1991 Article to appear in "At Your Service," EBSCO's newsletter for cus- tomers; submitted by Laura A. Ralstin, Communications Coordinator, EBSCO, Birmingham AL. Academic and medical libraries may pay from 9 to 12 percent more for serials subscriptions in 1992 due to expected publisher price increas- es, according to projections developed by EBSCO Subscription Services. These projections are based on general economic indicators in the US and Europe as well as discussions with major publishers throughout the world. Subscriptions to serials published in the US could cost these librar- ies about 9 percent more in 1992 than in 1991; subscriptions to Euro- pean publications could cost up to 12 percent more. However, the actu- al effect of these price increases on libraries' overall subscription lists will depend on the mix of European and US titles subscribed to, since the prices of European titles are predicted to increase at a higher rate. Of course, the purchasing power of currency used to buy serials will be a major factor in determining the total effect of serial price increases on library budgets. And, although many economic signs show the US dollar strengthening, experience dictates a conservative bud- geting policy may be the best strategy for US libraries.... HISTORICAL DATA. The cost of a typical academic title list has in- creased by almost 60 percent over the last five years, according to an analysis of selected EBSCO academic customer accounts. A collective list of 7,680 titles that cost $891,077 in January 1987 cost $1,413,739 in January of this year. The cost of an academic list has increased by an average of 14.6 percent each year over the last five years. The average price of an academic title has increased from about $116 in 1987 to $184 this year. The combined cost of all INDEX MEDICUS(tm) titles increased by approx- imately 19 percent from 1990 to 1991 according to preliminary findings from EBSCO's INDEX MEDICUS Price Study. The cost of US published ti- tles in INDEX MEDICUS appears to have increased by 12 percent during the same period. It should be noted that titles published outside the US (the titles which are generally most expensive) make up 62 percent of the INDEX.... HEDGING AGAINST CURRENCY FLUCTUATION. EBSCO usually pays publishers in October and November for subscriptions with January start dates, therefore any projections made must take into account the predicted strength of the currency used to purchase serials in October. Since October of last year, the dollar has been steadily gaining strength; by March of this year it had gained 4.4 percent against a bread basket of five major European currencies (British pound, German mark, Dutch guilder, Swiss franc and French franc). In April, this strengthening trend continued and the dollar climbed another 8.57 percent. Compared to October 1990, the dollar is 12.56 percent stronger. This 12.56 precent increase in the dollar's value is approximately equal to the predicted publisher price increases for European publications. Therefore, if this trend continues, price in- creases for European serials could have little or no effect on US libraries this year. Conversely, the trend could have a negative im- pact on European libraries which subscribe to many US publications.... Non-US academic and medical libraries should use the predicted value of local currency as measured against the dollar and major European currencies along with the basic rate of increase in publisher prices predicted in this article to prepare upcoming budgets.... DAVID MERMAN'S "PUBLISHING IN COMPUTOPIA" Deana Astle, Clemson University, DLAST@CLEMSON.BITNET. David Merman has published a very interesting opinion piece in the May 1991 issue of PHYSICS TODAY, entitled "Publishing in Computopia." He posits that electronic communication has made journals obsolete. He states, "In a rational world, paper, printing, postage and PRL (PHYS- ICS REVIEW LETTERS) would never have crossed my mind (for distribution of his paper). I would simply have e-mailed my essay to a central clearinghouse for posting on its electronic bulletin board....After calling up for inspection the abstracts of titles that caught their interest, readers could call up copies of entire articles, even print- ing them out on the rare occasions they promised to repay careful study." In answering the criticism that this would be unfair distribu- tion since not everyone has access to the networks, he states, "Non- sense! Even fewer people have access to preprints, the current avenue of serious communication; nothing could be more unfair than the way we now do business." The scientific community would not suffer greatly from the lack of refereeing for these papers, he comments. "Readers would have to de- cide for themselves whether a paper was rubbish....Because none of us are saints, current refereeing is so ineffectual that this is already unnecessary. Under the new system readers would simply have to sift through a somewhat larger pile." He concludes, "The fact is that journals are obsolete except as ar- chival repositories....Our failure to recognize the obsolescence of journals has restricted effective scientific communication to in- groups and cliques and is destroying our libraries. The sooner we get rid of journals the better....Why do we still live this way? What are we waiting for?" Citation: David Mermin, "Publishing in Computopia," PHYSICS TODAY 44 (May 1991): 9, 11. REVISITED -- AGAIN Ann Okerson, Office of Scholarly and Academic Publishing, Associa- tion of Research Libraries, OKERSON@UMDC.BITNET. You might be interested in an excerpt from the most recent letter from Birkhauser, the publisher of INSECTES SOCIAUX: 16 May 1991 Dear Ms. Okerson: It can be officially said that the IUSSI decided upon the change of publisher on 8th August 1990 at the meeting of its delegates on the occasion fo the 11th IUSSI Congress in Bangalore (India). Besides Birkhauser, there were other publishers interested in "Insectes Sociaux" and in the competition. Masson knew of the IUSSI's plans and could have informed its representatives in time. After Birkhauser received the award, the contract still needed to be negotiated so that we could not begin informing the libraries until September 1990. Thanks to the IUSSI's strong support, we were able to find out who had subscribed until 1990. We wrote to all of these addresses, alhtough unfortunately most of the libraries and subscription agencies reacted very slowly, probably because they had already paid Masson for 1991. We wrote to these libraries a total of three times and also sent them issue 1 (1991). We will undertake nothing further; those who did not pay Birkhauser for their subscriptions will not receive the next issues (issue 2 will appear in June). Unfortunately, we cannot help those who have paid Masson. They must request their money from Masson themselves. If there are any libraries we did not write to, they are not known by us as subscribers and should contact us. Yours faithfully, BIRKHAUSER VERLAG Dr. Andreas Bally Biology Editor RESPONSE FROM EDITOR OF Kimberly Parker, Kline Science Library, Yale University, Kim_Parker. sml@yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu. I am sending you the reply I have received from the editor of the BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL. This was in answer to my complaint about their publishing the Reviews reprint. [See Newsletter #37.] Dear Kimberly Parker: I was sorry to receive your letter of April 15 criticising the BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL REVIEWS COMPENDIUM. Clearly the usefulness or not of such a volume is a matter for individual opinion; I can only say that yours is the only such letter I received, and, indeed, I have just returned form the FASEB meeting in Atlanta where the COMPENDIUM was one of the most popular of our publica- tions and a number of favourable comments were received. Natural- ly we will take all views into account before deciding whether to repeat the exercise next year, but at the moment I have to say that it is looking likely that we will do so. I was particularly surprised to see that you proposed to discard the volume. If you are in the habit of discarding material you consider "unnecessary," I suggest that instead you offer it to the appropriate departmental library or donate it to a less well- endowed institution; I can provide addresses of a number of third-world universities to whom we, and other publishers, regu- larly send material. Yours sincerely, Dr. A.S. Beedle Managing Editor The BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL LETTER FROM HAWORTH PRESS ABOUT INVOICES Sent to the newsletter by Ron Akie, Publisher & Publications Servic- es, The Faxon Company, Westwood MA. re: renewal notice mistakedly called "invoice" Dear Colleagues; Several weeks ago, your library received a consolidated renewal letter from Haworth for forthcoming journals that are ON TIME and which are up for renewal for the Fall 1991/January 1992 season -- BUT: a) We regretfully had pre-printed forms which called this renewal letter an INVOICE instead of a RENEWAL LETTER. b) To libraries which use the FAXON Company: we owe both you and FAXON sincere apology. We have been told by our liaison at FAXON that: - an "invoice" implies that a subscription agency did not pay a subscription renewal which it was supposed to. - a "renewal notice" is, instead, simply just that -- the normal "reminder of renewal" which most libraries, if they utilize an agency, just throw away. c) Mr. Ron Akie at FAXON recently wrote to you describing our set-up for renewals for Haworth Press. The description of this set-up for this renewal system is entirely accurate. It was prepared with Mr. Akie's assistance. d) With Mr. Akie's help, we have an excellent relationship with FAXON. If any librarians thought that there were journal renewals due that FAXON did not remit -- this is not the case. We apologize once again for this grevious error and take full responsibility for this. e) Some librarians (and agencies) ask us why we bother to send out renewal notices at all when a library uses an agency. The answer is several-fold: - We have no foreknowledge of when a library may "switch" from ordering direct to utilizing an agency; when they might do the reverse; and when they might transfer a section of their journals from one agent to another. We ANTICIPATE that libraries that are in a "no change" situation will simply throw away the renewal notice. When a library "re-writes" its orders in any fashion, they then use our renewal notice as a useful document. - Sometimes there is a change in a ship-to address. These are often marked on our renewal notice and sent back to use directly. Agen- cies also do this -- it is simply a "double-check." - We sometimes include announcements of new books related to seri- als librarianship, including special discount offers for these books. f) Haworth is preparing a bi-monthly "Journal Schedule/Dispatch Sheet" which we hope will be useful to avoid unnecessary claiming or to make sure you can receive a free replacement copy of stolen or missing issues. We hope you will find this useful. Many thanks for your patience and understanding! Again, our apologies for some mis-understanding which we know had taken place, and our appreciation in advance for your acceptance of our apologies. With good wishes, Bill Cohen Publisher TASK FORCE REPORT TELLS IT LIKE IT IS Susan Ballinger. Reprinted from "Library Staff Newsletter" at the University Carolina at Chapel Hill. The University Libraries Task Force, chaired by Dr. Donald Kennedy of the English Department, has submitted its report to the university administration....The report is divided into three sections: THE CON- DITION OF THE LIBRARIES, SOURCES OF FUNDS, and RECOMMENDATIONS. The information contained in the section on the condition of the libraries is familiar to most of us -- it emphasizes the decline in the librar- ies' buying power since 1985. Sources of funds discussed include the state, the campus administration, and fund-raising activities. The recommendations are divided into short-term involving the state, short-term involving the campus, and long-term. Many figures are quot- ed, and there is a lengthy and involved discussion of the allocation of overhead monies....Below are several excerpts from the report. In the Academic Affairs Library the materials budget increased a total of only 4.9 percent for the three years from FY 1987-88 to FY 1990-91. During this period the cost of serials and books increased at a rate of 40.9 percent and 29 percent respectively ....The Library is now acquiring books at the rate of a good undergraduate college, but not at the rate of a major university .... Not only have the libraries been inadequately funded for materi- als ... and staff, but the University also has not yet made the major financial commitment to technology which is becoming essen- tial for major libraries....If this technological support is not provided, within the next ten years the University will be unable to compete with peer institutions for faculty, students, and outside funding. The University Administration and the General Administration must make every effort to get additional funding from the State. Most of the damage of the past five years is permanent, and the gaps in the libraries' collections will be even more pronounced than those that resulted from the Reconstruction era. The Task Force is encouraged by efforts at fund raising, and by the Administration's allotment of $20,000,000 from the Bicenten- nial Campaign ... for an endowment for the libraries....And al- though the endowment ... will help the libraries with special needs [it] will not be a substitute for adequate support from the State. A $20,000,000 endowment would give the libraries only an additional $800,000 a year in expendable income. The Task Force hopes that the State will provide in the next biennium the additional funding for the libraries the Administra- tion has requested, that it will remove the 5 percent sales tax on books and serials, and that it will soon at least begin to phase out the 30 percent share it takes from overhead for re- search grants. The Task Force also believes that the UNC-CH Administration can and should do more to support the libraries by re-allocating existing funds and by finding new sources of income. In the past funding for the libraries does not appear to have been a high priority. The Task Force was disturbed to learn 1) that for many years only 3.2 percent of General and Educational Expenditures for this campus had been spent on libraries ... and that this percentage had dropped to 2.9 percent last year, and 2) that the percentage of overhead the Administration has been giving the libraries during the past several years is considerably less than they once received. This report suggests a number of ways for the Administration to find additional funds for the libraries. The most promising sources would be inclusive student fees, if ap- proved by General Administration, and additional support from overhead income, since the amount of overhead received by the University is increasing annually. Other suggestions, such as the surcharge on tickets, support from the Athletic Deartment, and control of the photocopy machines, should also be investigated. The reputation of the University and its ability to attract stud- ents, faculty, and support for research is dependent on the qual- ity of its libraries. The Administration should do everything it can to correct a situation that has become intolerable to stud- ents and faculty. FROM THE MAILBOX The mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. >From Yvonne Wulff, University of Michigan (Yvonne_Wulff@um.cc.umich. edu): The American Physical Society formed a Task Force on Electronic Information Systems in 1988. Their report appears in APS REPORTS, v. 36, no. 4 (1991). The report reviews current technology relat- ed to electronic publishing, proposes a long range objective for APS publishing and envisions a remarkable future for scientific publishing. Must reading for everyone thinking about these is- sues. >From Richard M. Dougherty, President, American Library Association (USERGBTH@UMICHUM.BITNET): I have great admiration for Chuck Hamaker. He is usually at the cutting issue of issues, but I'm afraid he isn't aware of what ALA has been doing in relation to promoting the NREN. ALA has devoted an enormous amount of energy to spreading the word about the NREN. With considerable help from the Washington office, it's no longer common for librarians to say "NREN? NREN what?" Only a year ago NREN was a term that few were familiar with. That is no longer the case. It took considerable effort to convince Senator Gore to come to ALA and speak about his vision of the NREN. And, it hasn't been a breeze to convince legislators to recognize that we librarians have a great deal to contribute. If the role of librarians is recognized in the legislation that passes, all of us ought to thank the influence of our Association. >From Keith Stetson, Fairfield University (KSTETSON@FAIR1.BITNET): As a direct subscriber to SHEPARD'S CONNECTICUT CITATIONS (ISSN: 0730-3688), we recently received an issue of SHEPARD'S CONNECTI- CUT EXPRESS CITATIONS (ISSN: 1055-9507), followed by an invoice. Shepard's produces similar titles for most states. The Citations is a cumulative bimonthly. The Express Citations, a monthly, "updates, but does not replace" Citations. Each bimonthly Cita- tions cumulates the previous Citations and Express Citations. The first issue of Connecticut's Express Citations was published January 1990. I assume we were sent the current issue and an invoice as a Citations subscriber that had not picked up the Express Citations. Although Express Citations is only $90 a year, plus s & h, I think that Citations alone is perfectly adequate for a library that does not support a law school. >From Bill Britten, University of Tennessee, (britten@utklib.lib.utk. edu): Chuck Hamaker reported in the last newsletter on a 4 year use study at LSU showing that 43 percent of the collection had circu- lated during the period. From this data Mr. Hamaker concluded that the old rule of thumb that 20 percent of the collection accounts for 80 percent of the circulations was not valid at LSU, or for longitudinal studies in general. I have reported in two journal articles on a use study covering the period 1982 to 1989 (see cites below). The data from these studies revealed that while over 44 percent of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville collection circulated during the period, the most-used 20 percent accounted for just over 80 percent of that class's use. A collection manager could note vast differences in the degree of balance of use for LC classes. Britten, William, and Webster, Judith. "Class Relationships: Circulation Data, Collection Development Priorities, and Funding for the Future." THE BOTTOM LINE 4 (Spring 1990): 8-11. Britten, William. "A Use Statistic for Collection Management: The 80/20 Rule Revisited." LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS: PRACTICE AND THEORY 14 (1990): 183-89. >From Deana Astle, Clemson University, (DLAST@CLEMSON.BITNET): "British publisher Robert Maxwell says he expects his NEW YORK DAILY NEWS `will make a profit by the end of the year or at the latest by the first quarter [of 1992].' "Maxwell bought the moneylosing tabloid in March from Tribune Co., during a crippling strike by the newspaper's unions. Speak- ing at a National Press Club lunch in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Maxwell said the News' circulation has returned to pre-strike levels, which would be more than 1 million copies a day, and costs have been cut 30 percent. Maxwell, set to retire as chair- man of Maxwell Communication Corp. in July, also said he planned to introduce color printing at the DAILY NEWS in two or three years." --USA TODAY, May 31, 1991, p. 2B. >From Joel Baron, The Faxon Company (DataLinx: JBARON): I thought you'd like to know that the inventory for the current issue of INDEX MEDICUS has been "frozen" by the Superintendent of Documents office. Apparently there was some old data in the issue and it should not have been included. The office in Washington was a little unclear of exactly what was wrong. In any event, the error has apparently been corrected, and new inventory is due in momentarily. We don't know if they will auto- matically replace copies that got into circulation from the first printing or not, but I will let you know as soon as we find out. Faxon orders are all being filled from the second printing, so our clients won't have a problem ... other than a late issue. HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, NOTCAH@LSUVM.BITNET. Questions about 1992 subscription price levels continue to be a major concern, and although it is still very early, there are some general guidelines to be aware of. With the dollar at present levels, Elsevier appears to be talking about a 12 percent increase in journal prices in guilders. With the dollar at current levels, that means a 1.5 percent increase in the US dollar price. If other companies in Europe follow suit, what does that mean for the overall mix of titles the typical academic library holds? An analysis of the Faxon Academic pricing data from 1974/75 to 1990/91 suggests an average price increase of 10.05 percent per year, plus or minus 3.74 percent. The standard deviation (.037447) can be accounted for each year by one of two factors, or a combination of them. Inflation rate and dollar fluctuation. In looking at the US Periodical Price Index for the same period of time, the price increase has been 10.91 percent plus or minus 1.89 percent. Which suggests that we can expect a low US figure of 9.02 percent and a high of 12.80. The highest levels were reached from 1974/75 to 1980- /81, suggesting higher levels occurred during high CPI periods, with lower ranges since 83/84. With, of course, the exception of last year, when the LJ periodical prices article logged 11.67 percent, the high- est rate of inflation in US titles since the bad inflationary early 80s. So, take your pick and your poison. As much as 40 percent of locally experienced price increases could be from foreign pricing, in which case what you really have to worry about this year is forecast- ing what the domestic budget will do. Personally, my crystal ball hopes for under 10 percent for 1992 for LSU. Say, maybe, just maybe, 8 percent, but that's intuition. Make sure the Academic Officers of your institution see the lead arti- cle in the May 22, 1991 issue of the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION. By Carolyn J. Mooney, the title may not catch their attention, but the content should: "Efforts to Cut Amount of 'Trivial' Scholarship Win New Backing From Many Academics" cites the president of Stanford Uni- versity proposing, among other things, that Stanford limit the number of publications candidates for tenure and promotion can submit to panels that evaluate them. Peter E. Wagner, provost at SUNY-Bingham- ton, is also noted: "If Stanford's doing it, that might help." Stan- ford's Kennedy told the university that overproduction "of routine scholarship is one of the most egregious aspects of contemporary aca- demic life.... It tends to conceal really important work by its sheer volume, it wastes time and valuable resources, and it is a major con- tributor to the inflation of academic library costs." My comment: was Karen Hunter right?? (i.e., our institutions create our libraries' problems!) At the ASERL (Association of Southeastern Research Libraries) Direc- tors meeting at SOLINET in May, two major resolutions dealing with the future of scholarly communication were passed. Nancy Marshall, current head of the organization, has given us permission to report them. Both resolutions will be presented to the WHCLIS (White House Conference on Library and Information Services), to which she is an alternate repre- sentative. The first: resolution on support for the development and dissemination of Scholarly Journals in Electronic Format by the Higher Education Community calls for "ownership of scholarly materials by the higher education community" which will "allow more direct involvement with production, pricing and equitable access." Citing the dramatic increase in the cost of producing and distributing scholarly publica- tion, as well as the use of public funds which underwrite the majority of the nation's research and development activities, the WHCLIS is called to support the evolving NREN as a means to "coordinate elec- tronic publishing and to enhance access to the nation's information resources." A second resolution still in drafting will state simply that there should be no copyright on publications resulting from re- search done with government funding. Questions on the resolutions should be directed to Art Young, Bill Potter, Paul Gherman, or Rhoda Channing. The Southastern library directors have said what is on ev- eryone's mind and taken a courageous stance. Life is too short not to state clearly what you want. Getting it may be something else, but at last there is a clear statement. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, C.B. #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 ALANET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may re- ceive the Newsletter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respec- tively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------