2 messages, 83 lines:

(1)---------------------------
Date:         Thu, 18 May 2000 21:58:20 -0400
From:         David Goodman <dgoodman@PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Comments: To: Kathleen Thorne <kathleen@sjsu.edu>
Subject:      Re: Harnad vs. Henderson: A view from the bleachers

Writing from one of the larger ARL libraries, I do not think there is one
of us that does not feel the same pressures as smaller institutions.
Publishers should no longer feel confident that any library will not
respond to cost pressure.

Neither they nor Al Henderson should be deceived by the statistics that
show that many of our parent institutions are in a healthy economic
condition. Most university administrators, many faculty, and not a few
librarians are convinced that a large part of library expenditures,
especially for scientific journals, are for materials whose costs are not
justified by their use to anyone.

In past generations, the most enlightened administrators in the wealthiest
institutions were willing to support such costs if they had the financial
resources, because they knew that the results of research could not be
disseminated otherwise. Now they know perfectly well that there are good
alternatives. Whether they are willing to change their ways in the
evaluation of faculty for appointment and promotion in a manner that will
encourage these alternatives remains to be seen.

David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-3235

(2)----------------------------
Date:         Thu, 18 May 2000 19:10:46 -0400
From:         Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Harnad vs. Henderson: A view from the bleachers

on 18 May 2000 Kathleen Thorne <kathleen@sjsu.edu> wrote:

> Albert Henderson wrote:

> > If you would look at the skyrocketing of academic R&D funding,
> > rather than publishers' prices, you might see that it was the
> > universities that betrayed you and your patrons -- not the
> > publishers.
>
> Skyrocketing of WHAT R&D funding???  Perhaps the ARL libraries have such
> funding, but please, Mr. Henderson, wake up and understand that ARL
> libraries are only a small minority and are >very< different from most of
> us.  Many of the university libraries, such as mine, are funded by the
> state and most certainly do NOT have the enormous amount of grants and
> bequests and slush funding that those few big ones do. Our spending is
> closely watched by state governments and there are many fewer ways our
> administrations can hide or syphon off monies from the library to their
> own pockets or to pet projects.  Reserves? Profits? We have none. If we
> don't spend the budget we receive this year, the legislature will
> certainly give us less next year. [snip]

My point was that firing up R&D generates more papers.
This factor forces science publishers' prices up 5 to
10 percent a year before inflation and other factors.
Look at PHYSICAL REVIEW. When I first saw it, it was
"almost browsable." Today browsing is a joke. You need
an index for access to only one of its several sections.

The imbalance between the growth of R&D and libraries
is a chronic policy defect that has everything to do
with the management of higher education and science
policy. A fundamental error was made at the top. The
worst of it is that the loss in research and education
productivity is likely to be greater than whatever
angst you and I may feel.

It is time they admitted their error and applied remedies.

Libraries and publishers, in my opinion, would fare better
as "comrades in adversity" than as "hostiles."

Thanks for your comments.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>