Newsletter on Serial Pricing Issues 005 (JULY 15, 1991) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/nspi/nspi-ns005 Archive PRICES: file prices.ns5, part 1/1, size 29846 bytes: ------------------------------ Cut here ------------------------------ ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES N.S. NUMBER 5 -- JULY 15, 1991 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle BLDSC AND CARL SYSTEMS, INC., DISCUSS COOPERATIVE DOCUMENT DELIVERY AGREEMENT A FEW THOUGHTS ON CANCELLATIONS FROM A LAW LIBRARY, Pamela Bluh INDEXING OF ELECTRONIC JOURNALS SPRINGER-VERLAG 1992 PRICES, Dr. Hans-Ulrich Daniel SOCIETY AND PUBLISHER EFFORTS EASE BUDGET CRUNCH, Christie Degener FROM THE MAILBOX HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS, Chuck Hamaker FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. What difference has the existence and development of scholarly pub- lishing in electronic formats made in your library? I've had a request from Hazel Woodward, Chair of the UK Serials Group, for suggestions for someone from the US <> to lead a workshop on the impact of the electronic journal on the library. The conference is March 30 through April 2, 1992. I recommend the UKSG conference as an opportunity to see other perspec- tives on mutual concerns, make new friends, and exchange experiences and ideas. (See Ken Kirkland's report on the 1991 conference in NS 2 of the newsletter.) In addition, next year's meeting is in Edinburgh, Scotland, the first time this group has met in that country. If you have been to Edinburgh, you know what it's like; if you haven't, what are you waiting for?? If you would like to volunteer to lead the work- shop, please contact me, or Hazel Woodward at H.M.WOODWARD@LUT.AC.UK. --P.S., some of us are planning to resurrect "Tuttle's Tours" and spend an extra week in Scotland after the conference. Let me know if you'd like to know more. BLDSC AND CARL SYSTEMS, INC., DISCUSS COOPERATIVE DOCUMENT DELIVERY AGREEMENT, Press release from CARL Systems, Inc. The British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC) and CARL Systems, Inc., of Denver, CO, are pleased to announce their intention of work- ing together to create an effective and comprehensive document deliv- ery service for US libraries. UnCover, CARL Systems' article access and delivery system, will serve as an alerting service to the BLDSC's collection of 55,000 current serial titles. Requests for journal articles cited in UnCover, but not immediately available from UnCover contributing libraries, will be referred to the BLDSC, under terms of the agreement. Discussions are underway between the two organizations and an announcement with fur- ther details of the agreement will be forthcoming. The British Library Document Supply Centre is the most comprehensive document supply service of its kind in the world. More than 3 million requests for documents are received annually, with an overall fulfill- ment rate of 95 percent. Documents can be ordered from anywhere in the world -- by post, telex, fax telephone or a range of online and elec- tronic methods. The BLDSC's unrivalled collections include: 200,000 journal titles (current and noncurrent); 3,000,000 reports; 500,000 theses; 300,000 conference proceedings and 3,000,000 books. UnCover provides access to 1.6 million journal articles, taken from over 10,000 unique titles. Indexing occurs at the point of issue check-in, providing article access current within 24 hours of issue receipt. Optical imaging and telefacsimile technologies are used to deliver the full text of articles found in UnCover to individual re- questors within 24 hours or less. For more information about the BLDSC contact Stella Pilling, British Library Document Supply Centre, Boston Spa, Wetherby, LS23 7BQ, West Yorkshire, UK (Voice: +44 937 546023; FAX: +44 937 546333). For more information about UnCover, contact Martha Whittaker, CARL Systems, Inc., 777 Grant St, Denver, CO 80203 (Voice: 303 861-5319; FAX: 303 830-0103). A FEW THOUGHTS ON CANCELLATIONS FROM A LAW LIBRARY Pamela Bluh, University of Maryland Law Library, Baltimore, PBLUH@- UMAB.BITNET. Over the past couple of years we have been struggling with the problem of reducing expenditures while continuing to maintain the collection in a manner which supports the research, teaching and clinical re- quirements of the faculty and students of the school of law. In that regard we are no different than hundreds of other institutions across the country, all trying to do more with less. Fortunately, we had an inkling during fiscal years 1989 and 1990 of the dilemma facing us, and we took steps then to reduce expenditures. Even so, we were not fully prepared by the magnitude of the problem which materialized in fiscal year 1991. Initially, we did what most other libraries have done, we looked at serial titles for which multiple subscriptions were received and made a number of cuts. We also examined our collection of microform hold- ings and made cuts in that area as well, with the understanding that microforms could be obtained retrospectively if the fiscal picture improved. Our next line of attack was to examine legal reporters and here again, a number of cancellations were made when multiple sub- scriptions were held. We felt that these kinds of decisions would be supported because the full text of many legal reporters is available online. All of the work to cancel duplicate subscriptions and microforms seemed like a great effort and gave us the uneasy impression that the collection was being decimated. Nevertheless, we knew that we needed to develop a contingency plan so that if further budget cuts were handed down, we would not have to make hasty and uninformed decisions about cancellations. As a result, we began some informal discussions among the professional staff which led, ultimately, to the design of a methodology for identifying and assessing library materials. We had read a great deal about the vast cancellation projects conduc- ted in some of the nation's largest libraries and began to consider how we could handle a such a task. Our problems are similar to those of larger institutions (it is just a question of scale) and we felt that the solutions would probably be similar as well. As we talked about how we might approach the matter here, a number of ideas began to crystalize. First of all we had to decide where the focus should be placed next. Journals had already been cancelled and there was not much left which was not central to the mission and objectives of the institution, so some other area would have to become the target for savings. In law libraries, a great deal of money is spent on looseleaf services and we were naturally reluctant to start whittling away at these types of materials, since the investment is so significant. Once allowed to lapse, the service cannot be replaced without an expenditure of twice or even three times the annual upkeep costs. Nevertheless, since these materials represented very heavy continuing expenditures, we finally realized that they could no longer be exempt from review. Second, we knew that any decisions to cancel looseleaf and legal con- tinuations could only be done with the advice and consent of the fac- ulty. Fortunately, the library maintains an excellent working rela- tionship with the faculty and so cooperation from the faculty was anticipated. Third, based on experiences with other cancellation projects here, as well as what we had heard and read, we doubted that a system of review which relied solely on numerical rankings, such as 1 being most impor- tant and 5 being least important, would result in any substantial sav- ings, since it was highly likely that respondents would find all ti- tles extremely important. In order to determine relevancy, we decided instead to take a completely different approach to assessing the ma- terial, based on use of the material. "Use" for the purposes of this project was not tied to statistical information about number of circu- lations a title might have had over a given period, which might have been obtained from the online system, but rather use based on a facul- ty member's personal knowledge of a particular title in a specific subject area. We were fairly certain that there were a number of very valuable, important titles in our collection which, if not being used, (or for which no program currently existed or was planned) or not known, should perhaps be considered for cancellation. We felt we could no longer afford the luxury of maintaining a collection of "important" titles which were never used. Therefore, we created five broad cate- gories and asked each respondent to indicate for each title being considered, the type of use (or uses) being made of the material. The categories we designed were: Course, Seminar, Clinic, Research, and Unfamiliar with title. The intent was to have faculty indicate whether a specific title is used for course work, either for their preparation for the course or by the students themselves; in a seminar; as part of the clinical law program; or for individual research projects. The fifth category was added to handle instances where the title was not known to the respondent and presumably therefore not used in teaching, clinical work or research. As a result of a fairly comprehensive analysis of the collection, approximately 50 subject areas were identified, ranging from Account- ing to Zoning. Much of the work of selecting titles for the lists was done by actual physical examination of the material in the stacks. The primary target of the review was on titles having periodic upkeep, such as material in looseleaf form or having annual supplementation in the form of pocket parts or supplements. In the field of law it is not uncommon for subjects to be covered in very similar ways by a number of different publishers. For example, both Prentice Hall and Commerce Clearing House publish a guide to tax information for the states. Frequently all that is different about the publications is the presentation; the coverage itself is identical. So titles dealing with the same topic from different vendors received top priority for consideration. Once the subject lists were assembled, the staff began the work of identifying individual faculty members in each subject area to whom the lists of titles could be sent for review. Some faculty received only one list while others received several lists. In some subject areas, the same list was sent to a number of key faculty. Each faculty member was asked to review the information and annotate the form which accompanied the list of titles. For the most part faculty were quick to respond to the request for information and returned the completed forms within the time allotted. The library received support from the law school administration which was critical to the success of the project. Because of the publication pattern of much of this type of material, it was essential that the cancellation decisions be made as early as possible so that savings could be realized as soon as possible. Our goal, therefore, was to have the completed forms back in time to make final decisions before the new fiscal year began on July 1, 1991. With the completed forms in hand, several members of the library staff, including the research librarian and the librarian responsible for collection development, as well as the director of the library, evaluated the responses. In addition to the information provided by the faculty, the library staff also kept in mind such things as sup- port for new courses in the planning stages, new faculty with special needs coming to the school, and our obligations to resource sharing within the academic law library community, as well as within the greater university community. The plan was that, once library staff had reviewed the individual responses, a complete list of titles pegged for cancellation would be sent to all faculty for final com- ments and review. In this way, everyone would have an opportunity to see what decisions were being recommended, rather than restricting the decision-making process to those faculty with an interest in a specif- ic subject area. There are many aspects of the law which are very much interdependent and we felt that an examination of the entire spectrum of recommended cancellations by all faculty would give us that extra measure of support for the process. With only a few exceptions, the complete list of cancellations received widespread faculty support. Our serials/continuations budget for FY92 is $395,001 (exactly the same as it was for FY91 after cuts were made). The cost of upkeep for the titles targeted for review was approximately $166,000. As a result of the review process, approximately $76,600 worth of titles, based on FY91 prices, was identified for cancellation. With the rate of infla- tion for legal continuations estimated to be in the vicinity of 6 percent, and given the fact that our FY92 budget represents the 'stat- us quo' and is susceptible at any moment to further reductions, the cuts we have made, representing 19 percent of the allocation for con- tinuations, will allow us a very small modicum of flexibility in our monographic purchases for the year, and we hope just barely keep us from running a deficit for serials and continuations. In addition to the cancellations which have been recommended as a result of this process, we have also been able to identify a secondary list of titles for cancellation if the need arises. While we earnestly hope this will not happen, if further cuts are required, we will not be faced with making rash, spur of the moment decisions. Let's face it, this is a transitory world we live in, and despite our best ef- forts at planning and forecasting, circumstances change rapidly. We hope we are on top of things, but only time will tell! The process described here worked well for us for a number of reasons. We are a relatively small library (as academic libraries go), with a discrete collection. We have a very supportive faculty and administra- tion who appreciate the library and the services it offers and who are willing to work closely with us in making sure we are able to continue to meet our objectives. We are trying to take a proactive rather than a reactive stance to events and value advance planning both for the benefits for the organization and for the well-being of the staff. INDEXING OF ELECTRONIC JOURNALS Responses to editorial in NS 4. >From Norman Stevens, University of Connecticut (HBLADMXX@UCONNVM): In response to your comment about indexing/abstracting I agree that it is something to be looked at. It should be noted, though, that with journals in electronic form it certainly should be possible, and highly desirable, to develop an approach that would allow for "free-form" text searching based on words and/or strings rather than conventional indexing techniques that are far less detailed. I believe that one of my staff currently is using a software package that allows her to do that kind of searching on various list server files. >From Tom McFadden, University of California, Davis, TGMCFADDEN@- UCDAVIS.EDU): As a librarian AND indexer (and member of the Board of Directors of the American Society of Indexers), I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I had not thought much about this problem. Probably because most electronic publishing to date has not really passed the So What test -- i.e., it simply hasn't been of sufficient scholarly importance to merit the effort of trying to identify and control it. But this situation is beginning to change. There appear to be at least two general problems here: 1. Bibliographic control of electronic publications, of the sort offered by library catalogs and other, similar, lists; 2. Indexing (and possibly abstracting) of electronic publi- cations, of the sort offered by services such as H.W. Wilson or the MLA. The first problem, along with the problem of electronic journal archiving, is probably prior. Until we can establish bibliograph- ic control and solve related problems of access and location, it won't help much to provide indexing. After that, however, may we not assume that (eventually, an important qualification) elec- tronic journals will be included in the traditional indexing services (such as Wilson)? Would this be so bad? And in fact, wouldn't this development assist in (partly) legitimizing elec- tronic journals - something this format desperately needs to compete with traditional print publishing? If something like this does NOT happen, then do we envision a parallel body of indexing literature growing up exclusively for electronic formats? I don't have any quick answers here, but it clearly is the case that someone needs to begin thinking seriously about this question quite soon. >From Jim Mouw, University of Chicago (MOUW@MIDWAY.UCHICAGO.EDU): The issue of indexing for electronic journals raises several interesting questions in my mind. It seems to me that the actual indexing might be the easiest part. We already have good indexing mechanisms in place, both in print and non-print versions. We seem to understand the benefits and problems inherent in the various types of indexing -- controlled vocabulary, key-word, full-text, etc. -- and we should be able to apply these to elec- tronic journals. I believe that the major problem is that we don't yet know how to control the journals themselves. The following pieces of the puzzle are not yet fully in place: 1. Bibliographic control - these journals are now being cata- loged and entered into the national database, but I have no indi- cation that many libraries are taking advantage of the records. I do believe that this will change with time. 2. Patron access - this is partially an offshoot of the biblio- graphic control issue. The question is: How will the desired information, once identified through an index, be delivered to the patron. 3. Availability of information - these journals are not the same as the paper products that we receive, catalog, bind, and shelve. Some of the journals are archived, others are not (particularly in the area of newsletters). We must ensure that the desired information will be available both now and 25 years down the road. Who will be responsible for keeping the "official archives" of these publications. This is especially critical since we know that this electronic information is prone to alteration, either accidental or deliberate. SPRINGER-VERLAG 1992 PRICES Dr. Hans-Ulrich Daniel, President and Chief Executive Officer, Springer-Verlag New York. Letter dated June 24, 1991. Dear Librarian: Being very aware of the serious budgetary constraints that academic, corporate and medical libraries are facing, I am particularly pleased to announce that 1992 price increases for Springer journals produced here in the United States average only 4 percent. Most of this in- crease can be attributed to just two journals which will see an in- crease in pagination and reguarity. That means that many of the other New York titles did not increase in price at all! Good news for you also on imported journals: The dollar is strong now and may be getting even stronger against the German Mark. This bodes well for the more than 300 Springer-Verlag journals that come to us from Germany. While we do not have our final figures before August for these titles we are expecting an overall 1992 price increase of just 3 to 4 percent, and some journals may even decrease in price. In our continuing effort to be responsive to the library community, we hope this very minimal price increase for 1992 will be helpful to you in these difficult budgetary times. All of us involved in the Spring- er-Verlag journal program have made every effort to contain costs without sacrificing quality in these difficult times, and we have succeeded. With best regards PS: The 1992 journal price list will be available in August 1991. [A phone call from Jerry Curtis of Springer-Verlag New York on July 11 announced that Springer has set its exchange rate at 1.79 Marks. Jerry says that some of the higher priced Springer journals may have price decreases of as much as $100.00 for American libraries in 1992.-ED.] SOCIETY AND PUBLISHER EFFORTS EASE BUDGET CRUNCH Christie T. Degener, Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CDEGENER@MED.UNC.EDU. Kudos to the cooperative efforts of a professional society and a pub- lisher for helping relieve overextended serials budgets. The Physi- cians for Social Responsibility asked Williams & Wilkins how PSR might make their new scholarly journal, PSR QUARTERLY (ISSN: 1051-2438), available to hospital and health center libraries. Williams & Wilkins agreed to let PSR chapters pay institutional subscription costs for a copy specifically designated for a library location. The publisher will mail a card notifying the recipient about the gift, and the is- sues themselves will be mailed directly to the library. As an added incentive, Williams & Wilkins is offering the initial subscription at a 20 percent discount ($68.00 rather than $85.00); this discount will not be available for renewals. Our library has already been contacted by our local PSR chapter and we are excited about receiving this title. Bound volumes of the journal will include bookplates acknowledging the source of the gift. We sin- cerely hope that others follow this example. FROM THE MAILBOX The mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. Pat Berger of the National Institute of Standards and Technology sends an item entitled "Bereft of Books" from the May 18 issue of NEW SCIEN- TIST (p. 17), reporting on the results of a study conducted by the British Library in which "more than 2000 researchers at universities and polytechnics" were interviewed: British researchers say that they are less adventurous, less rigorous and less well-informed than they were five years ago because library collections of scientific journals have deterio- rated....Research now takes longer because journals are scarcer. [The study] reveals a widespread belief that libraries abroad are better stocked and give foreign researchers an edge over their British counterparts. The study's author, Bob Erens, "says that government funding has not kept pace with increases in the prices of books and journals." The name of the study is RESEARCH LIBRARIES IN TRANSITION. >From Brad Grissom, Biological Sciences Library, University of Kentucky (BGRISSOM@UKCC.UKY.EDU): The 7/1 issue of BARRON's, in its mid-year market roundtable, has this nice quote from stockpicker Ron Baron on John Wiley & Sons: ...It's their scientific journal business which is terrific. Q: Why? A: The people who write for the journals don't get paid. The people who subscribe must take them, because they are working in those research disciplines. So, they get 95 percent renewals, with no authorship costs, and they collect the subscription money in advance. The business grows every year by 15 percent or 20 percent and, as the scientific knowledge in the disciplines they cover grows, the frequency of publication increases. These busi- nesses are very difficult to enter. The journal business alone is worth over $60 per Wiley share. Q: What is the stock worth? A: It's worth considerably more than $100 a share, and is selling at $37. >From Lois Pausch, Acting Geology Librarian, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (PAUSCH@UIUCVMD.BITNET): Just before I left for ALA (around June 26), this Library re- ceived a letter from our major domestic serial vendor asking whether or not we would keep our standing order for the Associa- tion of Engineering Geologists publications since the price was going from $80 in 1990/91 to $351 in 1991/92. After conferring with pertinent faculty members, one decided to call the Associa- tion to try to find out what was behind the very large increase in price. He reported to me that he was told that the Association had decided to raise the price on its directory to $300 because the directory was being used as a source of names, addresses, etc. by various entities but that it was possible to subscribe to the BULLETIN and the NEWSLETTER without getting the directory. I passed this information on to our Acquisitions Department, who confirmed it with our vendor. We have decided that we can live without the directory and will continue to receive the other two publications (current price, $80). >From Judy Rieke, Medical Center Library, Vanderbilt University (RIEKEJL@VUCTRVAX.BITNET): I want to tell you about an instance where our vendor "went to bat" for us. Springer-Verlag recently shipped and invoiced for a "supplement" to NEURORADIOLOGY (ISSN: 0028-3940) without obtain- ing the permission of the end receiver in advance. Mr. William Leazer of Majors Scientific Subscriptions received so many com- plaints about this that he wrote Dr. Hans-Ulrich Daniel, Presi- dent of Springer-Verlag New York, about the practice. He explained that each library has its own set of rules for pur- chasing, regardless of how related the supplement was to the journal, and that libraries must be given the option of accepting or rejecting such a publication that they did not expect, may not want, and certainly did not budget for! The reply he received from Dr. Daniel indicated his agreement that the distribution should have been done in a different way, and that they would do so in the future. He also promised to be more sensitive to the needs of librarians and vendors when it comes to similar supplement publications. Let's hope so! HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, NOTCAH@LSUVM.BITNET. The CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION for June 26, 1991 has a number of items to check. First, just in case the budget cuts at your institu- tion are getting you down, try this situation on for size: The severe overcrowding of Australian universities is so severe that "at the graduate level students face increasing restrictions in the use of research libraries....At the University of Melbourne, graduate stu- dents have had to stand in line in the library for up to three hours before receiving assistance!" (p. A27 "Dispatch Case") Ann Okerson responds to the May 22nd articles on efforts to cut "trivial" scholar- ship and the "Million refereed articles." Her conclusion may surprise some, so I urge you to read her letter. Ted Weiss, New York House Democrat has the last say in "Point of View" with an article headed "Too Many Scientists Who Blow the Whistle End Up Losing Their Jobs and Careers" and indicates major changes coming in reviews of fraudulent research. The July 3 issue has a major article detailing the results of work on 14 allegations of fraud and plagiarism. That article is also a good summary. The July 12 issue of PUBLISHERS WEEKLY has a report on the June 18th Trends seminar sponsored by PW and the Book Industry Study Group. Donald Lamm (chairman of Norton) gave the keynote address, and one of his comments was astounding: "Publishers are force feeding their wares onto a reluctant public." If that wasn't revolutionary enough, Karen Hunter, V-P for Elsevier, put out the word: "our market simply doesn't have the money." The financial problems with the STM market "were not cyclical, but represent a profound change. Business as usual is over have said it better myself. See pages 16-18. Also of note, quoted in the same issue of PW p. 20 but originally from the NEW YORK TIMES June 30 Business section is this from Dick Snyder, CEO of Simon & Schuster: "We are not a publisher; we are now a creator of copyrights for their exploitation in any medium or distribution system." got that--right?? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 ------------------------------