Re: Snooze/lose (Was: Academics and coursepacks)

On 31 Aug 1998, Bert Boyce <lsboyc[_at_]lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> "Data from the Library Journal suggest a more than eleven-fold increase
> in the price of scientific and technical journals between 1970 and 1990,
> which is equivalent to an average price increase of 13.5 percent per
> year" quoted from
>
> http://www.lib.virginia.edu/mellon/ch6.html
>
> University Libraries and Scholarly Communication
>
> A Study Prepared for The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
>
> by Anthony M. Cummings, Marcia L. Witte, William G. Bowen, Laura O.
> Lazarus, and Richard H. Ekman
>
> Published by The Association of Research Libraries for The Andrew W.
> Mellon Foundation November 1992,
>
> a publication I recommend to anyone who wants to know about University
> Library costs.

The annual LJ / AMERICAN LIBRARIES price indexes and the underlying ANSI standard Z29.20-1983 have been roundly criticized (A) for omitting increases in pages and (B) comparisons with the Consumer Price Index. The latter is based on stable purchase quantities while science journals get larger every year. I think PHYSICAL REVIEW, in multiple sections for about 30 years, may have exeeded 80,000 pages. Even its larger sections are no longer fully browsable. In doing this it has achieve some price- -page economies of scale. Such savings in real-life context do not help. The researcher is forced to wait to consult and the library is forced to purchase abstracts and indexes as a substitute for well-focused niche journals.

I analyzed the periodicals price index and CIP for SERIALS LIBRARIAN (1992,12:4 33-43). Two findings resulted. First, an inflationary took spike two years to show up in publishers' prices. Second, after adjusting for CPI inflation, publishers' prices rose about 5% annually, the average increase in numbers of articles discovered by Derek de Solla Price and discussed in his books.

The Mellon Report was interesting but I found its coverage spotty. It expressed surprise at finding libraries were getting less each year. Every librarian and publisher member knew it. A study by Fry and White for the National Science Foundation reported it. The American Council of Learned Societies sponsored the NATIONAL ENQUIRY ON SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION in the late 1970s. The National Enquiry indicated poor collections were the greatest challenge facing researchers. Mellon doesn't mention that report or the significance of the Higher Education Act of 1965 Title II-A (college library materials) which pumped millions into collection development for a few short years.

Even the Mellon Report demonstrates (p. 33) that total library spending as a percentage of total educational and general expenditures declined, on average, 19% among 24 top universities.

> Mr. Henderson's figures show LSU's materials budget as essentially flat
> during the period while journal costs increase 11 fold. I don't know if
> that is a sky rocket or fast elevator but it can sure take your breath
> away. I certainly don't want to be on the side of reduced library
> budgets, but it is journal cost and fixed budgets, not copying that is
> hurting book sales to academic libraries.

Curtis G. Benjamin explained in detail how copying contributes to declining sales and rising prices in SCIENCE 183 (1974):282-284

My thesis is proved by eliminating copying. Fremont Rider measured the growth of libraries before copying. He found collections of academically effective universities doubled every 15 years. Collection growth has been half that rate after the mass marketing of the Xerox model 914 in the 1960s.

Price rises that create considerable antagonism are a publisher's last resort. Unit sales of academic books and journals have plummeted. Prices are _forced) upward. Photocopy statistics of, for instance, OCLC increase 5 times during the 1980s. ARL issues a similar report on interlibrary borrowing every year. A new "document delivery" industry trading in photocopies is flourishing.

By the way, according to XEROX: AMERICAN SAMURAI, by G Jacobson and J Hillkirk (Macmillan, 1986) the Xerox 914 "eventually became the single most profitable product in American history." (5)

Albert Henderson,
<70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu Sep 03 1998 - 15:42:43 GMT