Newsletter on Serial Pricing Issues 090 (July 26, 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/nspi/nspi-ns090 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NO 90 -- July 26, 1993 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS 90.1 FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle 90.2 FIRM PRICES: POSSIBILITIES AND CHALLENGES, F. Dixon Brooke, Jr. 90.3 ELEANOR COOK'S MYSTERY PUBLISHER'S LICENSE AGREEMENTS, Georgia Harper 90.4 HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS, Chuck Hamaker 90.1 FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, tuttle@gibbs.oit.unc.edu. While sorting and packing at home in preparation for a move to a new home "office," I came upon several printed items that had been meant for the newsletter during the spring. I apologize for mislaying these messages; I am afraid most of them are outdated now. While the blame is entirely mine, this is a good time to remind you that the best way to send material for the pricing newsletter is by electronic mail. These messages go right into an online folder and are downloaded and edited online when the next issue is prepared. Electronic messages for the newsletter rarely get misplaced. One of the things I found was a study by Vida Cohen about claiming at Read- more, published in _The Readmore Reporter_, vol. 1:1 (Spring 1993). Along with the article were two charts based on January to December 1992 data and reproduced below. The Top 25: Most Frequently Claimed Publishers JB Lippencott 2659 Neodata 2634 Supt of Documents 2280 Pergamon Press 1994 Williams & Wilkins 1964 Cahners Publishing 1608 Mosby/Yearbook 1560 Elsevier Science Publ 1394 Springer Verlag 1277 S. Karger 1019 American Medical Assn 987 WB Saunders 952 Elsevier Sci Publ Co 873 John Wiley & Sons, Inc 840 Scandinavian Univ Press 815 Blackwell Sci Pub Ltd 805 Macmillan Journals (UK) 780 Grune & Stratton, Inc 689 Haworth Press Inc 658 Academic Press 655 Oxford Univ Press (UK) 617 Munksgaard Intl Pub 603 Slack Inc 580 Medical Economics 579 Plenum Publ Group 565 ---------- The Top 25: Most Frequently Claimed Journals Journal of Nursing Administration 697 American Journal of Cardiology 379 New England Journal of Medicine 346 Lancet 334 Annals of Internal Medicine 318 Quarterly Journal of Medicine 310 Nursing Times 305 Scientific American 288 Science 281 Consumer Reports 257 Emergency Medicine 245 PC Magazine 245 Nature 232 American Journal of Medicine 225 Nursing Outlook 217 Computerworld 216 Journal of the American Medical Assn 216 Seminars in Oncology 214 Nursing 212 Forbes Magazine 211 MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality... 211 Newsweek 208 Annals of Surgery 204 Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Surg 193 British Medical Journal Int'l Edition 192 Cohen says: "During calendar 1992, we honored 92,802 claims and received 32,974 publisher responses. Our investment in claiming on an annual basis is in excess of $300,000. (This figure is based on postage, staff, forms and computer time.) Claiming is a major expense and serious factor." And a major factor in the cost of acquiring library serials. Readmore's business is weighted toward the medical field, so medical pub- lishers and titles show up prominently in the charts. There are also a number of weekly publications in the titles list, along with journals of lesser frequency. I'd like to see in addition something that would balance out the size of publisher and the frequency of journals. I don't want much, just claims per (number of titles x number of orders) for the publishers and claims per (number of issues x number of orders) for the titles. [Fill in your favorite smilie here.] 90.2 FIRM PRICES: POSSIBILITIES AND CHALLENGES F. Dixon Brooke Jr., Vice President, EBSCO Subscription Services Birmingham AL. [The following is extracted from an article by the same title appearing in EBSCO's _At Your Service_ June 1993. Used with permission of the editor.] Much discussion in the US library community has centered around the concept of "firm pricing." We at EBSCO have followed such discussion with interest. We hope most librarians understand that agencies generally do not begin to receive new pricing schedules from publishers until late summer (in North America). EBSCO requests new pricing information through a mass, interna- tional mailing each June. The reality that occurs each year is that some publishers do not set prices until late fall/early winter and some do not set prices until January of the following calendar year. Since many librar- ians prefer to receive renewal lists in late summer/early fall, their re- newal lists often cannot provide updated prices for some titles. Timing is the problem. In our ongoing dialogue with publishers throughout the world, EBSCO is urging publishers to understand the problem late price setting causes li- braries and asking them to provide new prices as early as possible so they can be included on customer renewal lists. Additionally, groups such as the Association of Research Libraries are taking commendable, positive steps to educate subscription agencies and STM publishers about the need for early, "firm" prices. Many of the larger STM publishers that do not currently follow this practice have already indicated to EBSCO that they are willing to provide new prices by Sept. 1. It is interesting to note, however, that most of the major STM publishers do indeed set prices and supply them to agencies (along with currency conversion rates) by September of each year. EBSCO generally receives price change information for more than 90 percent of the titles from these types of publishers by September. Conversely, less than one-third of the other 30,000-plus small-to-medium size publishers have set and sent prices to agencies by September in an average year. In essence,the dialogue and educational effort that must take place must be directed to a vast, heterogeneous audience of publishers around the world. It should be expected that results from this group will take time. As one example of the complexity of this issue, US librarians should also consider the fact that asking non-US publishers to set a "firm" price six or so months before the new subscription term also means that publishers must set an exchange rate for their publications if they bill in US dol- lars. This implies added risk for both the publisher and the library as currency situations might be drastically different at the time the library is invoiced in October from what they were when the publisher set the price and exchange rate several months earlier. Additionally, since the publish- ers will have to make an earlier estimate of the costs of operation for the next subscription year (paper costs, printing costs, number of manuscripts received, postal rates, labor costs, etc.), the new subscription price might have to include a conservative "hedge" (increase) large enough to anticipate unforeseen rises in these costs. In short, earlier prices might be higher and will involve trade-offs from year to year due to currency fluctuation that occurs long after prices have been set. For example, if publishers set rates in June and the British pound happens to be especially strong at the time, US libraries will pay more for British journals than they would have if the price were set in September when the dollar was stronger. If the situation were reversed the following year, they would pay less. However, this scenario of publishers setting early prices and fixed exchange rates will not be prevalent, as most non-US publishers (excluding most major STM publishers) currently do not set fixed exchange rates. Rath- er, they set prices in their native currency. In these cases, the renewal list or invoice cannot show a "firm" price, even if the publisher has sup- plied new rates, because the final price paid by the library will depend on the prevailing exchange rate at the time of invoicing. It is certainly conceivable that more publishers would shift to setting prices and conver- sion rates earlier in response to demand for such a practice. 90.3 ELEANOR COOK'S MYSTERY PUBLISHER'S LICENSE AGREEMENTS Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel, University of Texas System, Austin TX, gharper@utsystem.edu. [This message appeared in cni-copyright@cni.org and is reproduced with the permission of the author. -ed.] You asked what we think about an "institution-wide" license that, for dou- ble the price of a yearly subscription, would allow the institution to make unlimited copies for internal distribution, scan in or key in publications for internal use databases (why won't they supply the electronic text to begin with?) and extra copies of the hardcopy version. My thoughts are as follows: For me, the issue comes down to the value of fair use for my institution. I represent The University of Texas System, including both academic and health components with academic, research and special libraries. We accept that only a certain amount of copying is fair use -- more than the guide- lines limitations in the classroom context, but certainly less than all the copies we would like to make, including, but not limited to, electronic distribution, downloading, printing, etc. So, the question is, does the seemingly unlimited copying license take into account that some amount of our copying can be done without permission and without fees of any kind? Thus, for example, the license fee for Texaco (if American Geophysical Union were to win on ultimate appeal) would be more than the fee for the University of Texas System -- that is until the pub- lishers extend the reach of Texaco to cover The University of Texas System since, among other things, there is no principled way to draw a line be- tween profit making research at Texaco and profit making research at UTSys- tem. At that point, I suspect that the license fee will just go up and up each year just like subscription fees go up now. I suppose I think that the mere existence of the concept of fair use (in the iterative context) gives us some quantum of leverage in negotiating and that if we allow publishers to do away with fair use entirely, we will see a rather major shift of resources from the resource community to the publishing industry at a time when we certainly can't afford it individually or as a nation. I am encouraged by the discussions in the research community of the possi- bility that scholarly publishing in the electronic medium may give research institutions a little more control over the costs of journal subscriptions/ licenses. If you think about it, though this may be somewhat simplistic, if we don't need commercial (for profit) scholarly publishers, then what can they charge us for? We are the ones with the stuff to be published and we are the readers. I'm sure they have already thought of that and are posi- tioning themselves to offer something, either by limiting access to elec- tronic scholarly publication channels that are at this time wide open (wit- ness the forthcoming "privatization" of the internet), or, preferably, thinking up some real service that they can offer that really is worth something. Right now, I think we pay for something we don't really need anymore, but we just haven't realized it yet. There are bugs to be worked out, but that's small potatoes compared to the benefits to be gained. See "University Libraries and Scholarly Communication" published by Association of Research Libraries November 1992 and "Visions and Opportunities in Elec- tronic Publishing; Proceedings of the Second Symposium" published by Asso- ciation of Research Libraries March 1993. So, in answer to your question, because I believe that significant amounts of public funding for research should not be shifted to the publishing industry, I am not in favor of any license agreement that assumes away fair use because such an assumption will facilitate the aforementioned shift. Similarly, I do not believe that the lower court's decision in Texaco is correct or desirable because it will facilitate that shift of resources by nullifying fair use (iterative context) for the research community. I be- lieve fair use was precisely meant to cover the research community's normal use of its own material. 90.4 HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, notcah@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu. Elsevier and Pergamon have set exchange rates as of June 15. The purpose of the Elsevier setting was to insure that there would be no change in dollars between last year's price and this year's. In effect, as of right now, they have mandated that ALL vendors pay them in dollars for US subscriptions no matter where the vendor is located, at the price they established based on the June 15th rate. The dollar has increased almost six percent in value since then. They are telling us we cannot take advantage of the stronger dollar. Pergamon is worse. They have set this year's prices based on last year's dollar value. That is, since the dollar is 20% stronger against the pound, the price to the UK and essentially to the rest of the world is being set based on LAST YEAR'S DOLLAR RATE. Once again, their publicity is that US prices won't go up -- aren't we grateful. In fact, with their normal 12% increase in price, US Libraries should expect to be able to buy Pergamon journals at at least 8% LESS than last year. Springer Verlag went to US dollar price as the only payment they will ac- cept from vendors, last year and are continuing that practice this year. In spite of the upbeat letter from Mr. Kels of Elsevier of July, 1993 US libraries, because of these policies, pay more when the dollar is weak (as we did last year) and have no opportunity with these policies to benefit when the dollar rises, as it is right now. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Statements of fact and opinion appearing in the _Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues_ are made on the responsibility of the authors alone, and do not imply the endorsement of the editor, the editorial board, or the Uni- versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 Science Center), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Divi- sion). The Newsletter is available on the Internet, Blackwell's CONNECT, and Readmore's ROSS. EBSCO customers may receive the Newsletter in paper format. 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. 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). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ *****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****ENDOFFILE*****