Re: Pricing of Journals

On 19 Jan 1999, C. E. Petit <cepetit[_at_]usa.net> wrote:
>
> 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:
> >

[snip]
> >
> > 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.

Was nothing learned from Sputnik? The first response by scientists was to blame Soviet success on their superior information resources. US libraries' funding paralleled the growth of research, both increasing about 2.5 times until an American walked on the Moon. From that point onward, support for libraries failed. Many studies, starting with the Fry-White research cited by the NATIONAL ENQUIRY INTO SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION (Johns Hopkins 1979) noted the declining quality and lagging financial support of libraries.

British economist David J Brown compares, "growth in university research in the USA (which closely correlates with the output of research articles) and the growth in library funding of the main 100 or so members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in the USA. [The imbalance] implies a growing 'frustration gap' between the supply of published items in journal format and the ability of the libraries to keep pace with this growth. ... the forces which generate the published research material are completely out of step with those which buy the material. The agencies which provide funds for research generation are often federal, with a commitment to the national good. The agencies which provide the library funds are totally separate." (ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AND LIBRARIES. London: Bowker-Saur 1996.

I might add that if academic R&D is worth the $22 billion of 'input' its information ingredients and product should be worth disseminating freely enough to contribute to effectiveness and productivity in research and education.

> > 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.

Arguments require facts. The facts indicate that cancellations, reduced circulation, increased numbers of pages printed, and devaluation of the US dollar -- not energy and paper cost, are the main contributors to journal price increases.

The "perception of reduced value" was more political than real. Libraries were forced to compete for resources with the very departments they were supposed to support. (Richard Talbot, in BOWKER ANNUAL 1984)

Recently David E Shulenberger, provost of U Kansas, confessed "the scholarship published in many academic journals has real economic value. While it is fashionable to characterize all scholarly journal articles as 'seldom read' and 'of primary value only in negotiating the academic credentialing game,' the truth is far different." (ARL PROCEEDINGS 133. Oct. 1998)

Where is science policy, which names "libraries" as an "indirect cost of research" and promises to support a fair share of library spending? During the period Stanford and a number of other universities were audited, they canceled thousands of subscriptions claiming there was no money. The audit forced them to reimburse the US Treasury millions of dollars. Why did they not use the money to restore canceled subscriptions?

> > 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.

The statistics are courtesy U.S. Dept. of Education National Center for Education Statistics which uses the Carnegie classification to count trade schools and liberal arts colleges separately from research and doctoral universities. The 236 universities account for nearly all Federally funded academic research, doctoral degrees and they are the major subscribers to esoteric science journals.

Your Ford analysis is inappropriate. Undergraduate students, who dominate higher education populations do very well without the huge collections found at research universities. On the other hand, postgraduate research is likely to fail if its relatively few researchers lack information.

> > 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.

Why invest if no return can be justified?

> > 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.

I recommend you read my article "The Incoherence of the New Science Policy" in SOCIETY (Sept/Oct 1998:38-43), particularly the passages about the three "Grand Canyons of Incoherence."

> > 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.

Digest of Education Statistics includes public and private universities in its tables. I referred to table 322 and 334 of the 1995 edition. The public research university I category led with $1.6 billion profit.

> > o Their combined endowments exceed $100 billion.
>
> COMMENT: So what?

Is it not clear? They are HOARDING CASH! They have put financial surpluses above goals of research, education and public services. They are investing in financial markets at the expense of knowledge. Research universities' endowments (in constant dollars) doubled over the last nine years, faster than growth of research and far faster than growth of library spending. In spite of pleas from faculty Senates, administrators claim they can't afford decent libraries!

> > 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.

I never said that. My information is (and I can document it at some length) that libraries have been forced to cancel subscriptions considered "essential" by faculty and researchers. There is a crisis. Furthermore, the impoverishment of the market discourages indexes and reviews which distill and otherwise aid readers in considering the primary output of research.

> Henderson's argument also ignores other real costs of purchasing
> journals that libraries must consider -- indexing, shelving, shelf
> space, etc.

Not at all. My statistics (and Brown's) refer to total library spending, not collection development.

> 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.

Unfortunately, the quality of the $22 billion spent on academic research is affected by the $2 billion not spent on libraries. Relevance is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. You probably couldn't give your journals away in to K-MART shoppers, even with special announcements as a "blue light special."

Albert Henderson, Editor,
PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu Jan 21 1999 - 18:10:47 GMT