Pricing of Journals

Albert Henderson's letter to Science contains a number of leaps of logic that, while I don't say they're wrong, seem based on some rather strange assumptions and poor use of statistics. I've quoted the letter below.

On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> Letters Science 8 January 1999
> 1200 New York Ave NW
> Washington DC 20005-3941
>
> Dear Letters Editor:
>
> The preoccupation with "price-per-article," in letters (283:33;
> 282:1643) following David Malakoff's coverage of the SPARC publishing
> project (282:853-854), does not help understand the crisis in
> dissemination. I offer more basic and disturbing facts:
>
> o Universities contained the growth of their libraries at half the
> increase of academic R&D and its production of journal articles over
> the last 30 years.

COMMENT: The critical unstated assumption is that the status quo in the mid-1960s was a fair statement of the real value of the library acquisition budgets. There are arguments on both sides; I'm just pointing out the unstated assumption.

> o The shrunken ability of those libraries to absorb and disseminate
> the output of research (A) created a bottleneck that handicaps
> effective research and education; (B) propelled nearly all
> publishers' prices upward; and (C) devastated formal dissemination
> in all arts and sciences.

COMMENT: Confuses the cause for the effect. One can as easily argue that inflation in energy and paper costs, driving up the costs of journals, in the early and mid 1970s created a perception of reduced value in the journals, which then resulted in lesser ability of university libraries to convince other departments of the university to spend an increasing budget per item (in excess of the rate of inflation, I might add) on the acquisition of more journals and journal articles.

> o 236 universities, representing only seven percent of all academic
> libraries, control half of academic library spending and half of
> their current subscriptions.

COMMENT: Egregious misuse of statistics. Let's assume that the 236 universities are, in fact, only 7% of all academic libraries. I suspect that they're over half the total number of students, or total number of scholars, served. That's the only relevant figure. Then there are the multi-campus systems, like the University of California, that may well count as only one of the 236 in Henderson's numbers. Basically, this is like saying sub rosa that Ford, because it is only 2 brands, representing only 17% of the US car industry (12 "brands"), has an inordinate influence on vehicle parts prices--when Ford's actual sales are close to 40% of the domestic share.

> o Impoverishment of this market discourages new ventures and compels
> commercial mergers.

COMMENT: Assumes that economic value is the only motive for "new ventures." Assumes that commercial mergers are "compelled" only by companies having financial difficulty, ignoring the Textron model of conglomerate growth.

> o Universities benefit from over $12 billion Federal research grants
> based on trust that they maintain adequate dissemination resources.

COMMENT: Define "adequate dissemination resources," please.

> o Universities reported $3 billion surplus revenue in 1992-3.

COMMENT: Umm, I have no idea where he got this number, or whether it is from a select group of private schools--but the public universities as a group have run deficits for years after accounting for tax subsidies.

> o Their combined endowments exceed $100 billion.

COMMENT: So what?

> Rather than face responsibility for inducing the journals crisis,
> universities complain. They have transposed their priorities, becoming
> financial organizations that grudgingly produce research and education.
> I find outrageous CalTech's (283:33) demand, while hoarding last year's
> surplus revenue of $100 million, that Elsevier institute page charges
> to reduce the price of Tetrahedron Letters by a thousand dollars or so.
> Page charges are a relic of New Deal largess! The assault by Bachrach
> et al. (285:1459-1460) and others on the copyrights that secure
> publishers' investments confirms my belief that universities' interests
> have moved far afield. Their managers can sustain only the most
> primitive theories of formal dissemination, theories contrived to
> support selfish administrative interests.
>
> We should take pause at suggestions that faculty publishing agreements
> be diluted or subjected to the administrative authority of the
> university. In fact, I would say that the concept of "academic
> freedom," which was invented to protect scholarship from religious and
> political patrons, should be refitted to address interference by
> university managers.

COMMENT: All of this assumes that a library is obligated to purchase every available journal, regardless of its quality or potential value to students or scholars. Henderson's argument also ignores other real costs of purchasing journals that libraries must consider--indexing, shelving, shelf space, etc.

CAVEAT: I work for a publisher that publishes academic journals. Our experience has been that quality and relevance are far more determinative of subscriptions than cost. And I'm not saying that libraries shouldn't be buying more than they do, just that Henderson's arguments fail to persuade.

C.E. Petit, Esq.
<cepetit[_at_]usa.net>

"This is not fine prose nor, by itself, terribly clear. It would appear to have been drafted by lawyers."

Bourke v. Dun & Bradstreet, No. 98-1163 (7th Cir. Oct. 27, 1998) (Cummings, J.) Received on Tue Jan 19 1999 - 14:34:23 GMT