Newsletter on Serial Pricing Issues 067 (January 9, 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/nspi/nspi-ns067 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NO 67 -- January 9, 1993 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS 67.1 FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle 67.2 COMMENTS ON THE CONTENTS OF NO. 64, Albert Henderson 67.3 COPING WITH DUAL VERSIONS OF _CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY_, Christie Degener 67.4 FIRM PRICES: A POSSIBLE DREAM? Marcia Tuttle 67.1 FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, tuttle@gibbs.oit.unc.edu. The editor and editorial board of the _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Is- sues_ are pleased to announce that Daniel Jones, Assistant Librarian for Collection Development, University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, has joined the editorial board. Danny adds the perspective of the special/medical librarian, but even more, he adds his own experience as an activist in serials pricing issues. Although he would not agree to become a member of the editorial board until January, Danny has been participating in the board's discussions and decisions for some time. We welcome him! 67.2 COMMENTS ON THE CONTENTS OF NO. 64, PLUS SOME NEWS: A CALL TO ACTION AND A QUESTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARL Albert Henderson, Box 2423, Bridgeport CT, 70244.1532@CompuServe.COM. So many people have pointed out the commentary on "Cost Effectiveness of Science Journals" in your no. 64 (Dec 11), that perhaps a few uninvited words would bring some balance. First, I would be surprised if Messrs. Ford and Lustig missed my letter in CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION (Jan 3, 1990, p. B4), written some time be- fore I had ever heard of the foundation that sponsored the panel and the report published in PRQ. In it, I called for a study of science publishing and its place in higher education: "Concerned members of the learned com- munity who wish to contribute a useful study might compare the growth of library budgets, staffs, and buildings to the growth and changing needs of their clientele since 1960. They would provide a more useful perspective on the journal pricing question. Ultimately, I believe they would show the responsibility lies more with the educational and political establishments than with publishers." About the same time I was applying to Council on Library Resources for a grant to study these questions and the impact of new information technology from the point of view of the scientist. Six months later, the chairman of the FISC panel approached me and I agreed to prepare the background material and write the report "for hire" as a consultant. Would the source of FISC's funding have made any difference to me? No! No one guided my hand in the preparation of the review materials or of the executive summary published in PRQ. To anyone who actually read the report and who also read my letter, written in 1989, it will be clear that my point of view has not changed. It has only been enriched by a detailed examination of facts. For anyone who is really interested in studying pricing of journals, I suggest my article, "Forecasting Changes in Periodicals Prices," which appears in SERIALS LIBRARIAN vol. 21, no. 4, 1992. Then call me with any questions; I have worked for both commercial and non-profit publishers since the early 1960s and I can explain the process to you. With respect to Ms. Jenkins, I believe that her phrase, "unfortunate break- down in communications," sums up the circumstance and, respecting her per- sonal and professional concerns, no more need be said. All of the other members of the panel were present at the meeting in Paris and participated in drafting the recommendations that appear on page 80-83 of the report. I believe we reached a good consensus if not total agreement. Therefore the disclaimer about views "not necessarily the view of FISC, AVRIST, the pan- el, or the individual members thereof" followed by a note directing all inquiries to me, with my address. None of the individuals commenting in your newsletter no. 64 made any in- quiries to me. I could have answered many of their questions instantly. This means they were not really interested in answers to the questions that they raised, as far as I am concerned. Mr. Friend's claim that the science community is sufficiently represented at University College by the participation of a physicist on his library committee may be true. He ignores the focus stated first in the abstract: "The R&D community, 90 percent of which is off campus, depends on academic materials but is disregarded by the managers of science library collec- tions." I would be more interested if his library committee included re- searchers from outside University College. The situation of LSU, where the library materials budget has not risen for a decade is interesting. Over the last 10 years or so, LSU's federal re- search grants have risen from $19 million in 1983 to $49 million in 1990 -- an increase of 258%! Meanwhile its library materials expenditures have not risen above $3.3 million during that period. The point that Dean Cargill and others seem to miss is that LSU is in no position to complain about increasing prices of science journals when it is participating so readily in the growth of published papers -- the main work product of its research programs -- and underfunding its library. It is no surprise that LSU's librarians can no longer afford some important science journals. Blaming this on publishers' prices with learned-looking studies is the canard of the century. I am advised by someone from LSU that the portion of indirect funding of federal research grants -- the overhead factor -- that was negotiated by LSU on the basis of library services is "soft money" and is used mainly for salaries and benefits. That means LSU does not have to spend that money on the library, legally. Legally! The October, 1991 reforms of indirect funding of federal research grants added a directive that tied reimbursements for depreciation and use to actual expenditures for acquisition and improvement of research facilities. I have now been notified by a member of the federal interagency task force that they will consider my recommendation to tie the portion of indirect funding based on library services to actual purchases of books and journals for the library. This will affect over $160 million a year. That amount of money would prob- ably buy most or all of the subscriptions to primary research journals needed by the 100 institutions receiving those grants. If my recommendation, which was generated by the FISC panel, is adopted LSU and many other institutions will have to change their ways. Perhaps an end to the serials crisis is in sight. My recommendation will undoubtedly be opposed by campus officials who would like to continue to use "soft money" to balance their budgets. One repre- sentative of this position recently wrote to me that the reform of OMB Circular A-21 that I proposed, "could unnecessarily interfere with deci- sionmaking by college and university communities as to how best to meet their academic needs and priorities. A more directive Federal indirect cost policy such as you suggest could also be viewed as an inappropriate intru- sion by the Federal Government into the unique and varied operations of those communities." So I take this opportunity to ask the readers of this newsletter to write to their elected representatives; to NIH, NSF, HHS, DOE, OTA; to ALA, SLA, RLG and ARL with statements of support for this change in funding of our major national libraries via the indirect funding of federal research grants. Recognition of the value of libraries by the makers of science policy is overdue. I would be glad to assist anyone in drafting letters of support for my recommendation. I might add that I believe my recommendation would be the inevitable conse- quence of any impartial examination of all the facts, whether by me or by anyone else with no interest but the maximum availability of information resources for the use of research and development. This solution favors the libraries, the association publishers such as AIP and APS and most impor- tant the members of such societies -- as well as commercial publishers who happen to make a profit. My earnest belief is that if there were more team- work, such solutions would be found more quickly. P.S. In my 1989 letter to CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION I also called for "more productive challenges than lawsuits and diatribes." It seems to me that the time and money of organizations like Association of Research Li- braries would be spent most wisely in obtaining recognition for its members among the makers of science policy with the objective of adequate funding. It seems to me that ARL has instead made itself a party to lawsuits that are filed in Europe -- six time zones and thousands of miles away. ARL has also not published its statistics on the portion of funding its members receive from their general and education budgets; information that indi- cates precisely which libraries are most underfunded. I would be very interested to hear from members of ARL how these activities tie in with the purpose of ARL as they see it and what they believe that the thousands of dollars spent by ARL pursuing lawsuits and diatribes have produced of value. 67.3 COPING WITH DUAL VERSIONS OF _CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY_: AN UPDATE. Christie Degener, Serials Librarian, Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cdegener@med.unc.edu. This item updates an earlier discussion of this title that was published in the _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues_ no.62 (Dec. 6, 1992). This bizarre situation (simultaneous editions of this title being published by the original publisher, Pergamon, and the longtime editor, Prof. Raymond Wegmann) has developed a new twist. It turns out that the first 3 articles published in the Pergamon issue v.38:5 (Aug. 1992) also appear in issues published by Prof. Wegmann. Here are the citations: Pergamon v.38:5 pp. 477-483 (A. Kumar, "The effect of protease...") is also published as Wegmann v.38:5/6 (Aug./Sept. 1992) pp. 687-691; Pergamon v.38:5 pp. 485-504 (S.B. Sharp, "The levels of vascular...") is also published as Wegmann v.38:8 (Dec. 1992) pp. 903-913; Pergamon v.38:5 pp. 505-511 (C.O. Crockett, "Cassia alata...") is also published as Wegmann v.38:7 (Nov. 1992) pp. 799-802. One can't help but wonder if the final two articles from the Pergamon 38:5 will eventually appear in issues published by Wegmann, and how this dupli- cation will affect any indexing decisions. It also seems that libraries who are receiving two versions of this title for the balance of their 1992 subscription payment are not getting an "extra" subscription after all. 67.4 FIRM PRICES: A POSSIBLE DREAM? Marcia Tuttle, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, tuttle@gibbs.oit.unc.edu. FIRM PRICES: A POSSIBLE DREAM? ALA/ACRL Journal Prices in Academic Libraries Discussion Group Saturday, January 23, 1993 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. Colorado Convention Center, A201 Denver, Colorado "Tell us what it's going to cost before we buy it!" For the past year one of the hottest issues among librarians working with journals has been "firm prices." Fed up with the budgeting havoc created by added renewal charges and last-minute double-digit percentage increases, activist librarians claim the right to know how much a journal costs before they authorize renewal. Does this decision throw a monkey wrench into the cash flow projections of journal publishers and subscription agents? If so, how can we work together to meet the needs of each party? That is what we are going to find out. Two librarians ... Anne E. McKee, Bibliographic Services Librarian, Arizona State University - West Beth J. Shapiro, University Librarian, Rice University Two publishers ... Jerry Curtis, Springer-Verlag New York Keith Courtney, Taylor & Francis, Ltd. One subscription agent ... Ron Akie, Deputy Director, Publisher Service Center, Faxon ... will lead the discussion. Come and share your views on the timing and communicating of firm prices for scholarly journals. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper methods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is published by the editor through the Office of Information Technology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, Internet: tuttle@gibbs.oit.unc.edu; Paper mail: Serials Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Janet Fisher (MIT Press), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State Universi- ty), Daniel Jones (University of Texas Health Sciences Center), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Divi- sion). The Newsletter is available on the Internet and Blackwell's CONNECT. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the Newsletter in paper format from these companies. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically. To get a list of available issues send a message to LISTSERV@GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU saying INDEX PRICES. To retrieve a specific issue, the message should read: GET PRICES PRICES.xx (where "xx" is the number of the issue). To subscribe to the newsletter, send a message to LISTSERV@GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU saying SUBSCRIBE PRICES [YOUR NAME]. Be sure to send that message to the listserver and not to Prices. You must include your name. To unsubscribe (no name required in message), you must send the message from the e-mail address by which you are subscribed. If you have problems, please contact the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++