2 messages:

1)____

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:47:42 -0600
From: Alfred Kraemer <akraemer@POST.ITS.MCW.EDU>
Subject: Re: Periodicals Prices (Simone Jerome)

Simone,

Let me assure you that Mr. Henderson's views do not represent those of
many if not most librarians who have to deal with stagnant budgets and
serials price increases several times the rate of cost of living increases.

After having read numerous contributions by Mr. Henderson it is my
distinct impression that he perceives an unwillingness on behalf of
academic institutions to fund the research needs of faculty and students
sufficiently. This is my impression based on the messages Mr. Henderson
has sent to this list or published in other places where serials pricing
was addressed. While he has certainly contributed interesting arguments,
I feel his views are one-sided.

In my view, serial prices that increase at a rate which is several times
the rate of inflation are unlikely to be matched by equivalent budget
increases. Many libraries have resorted to internal fund re-allocations
to absorb such price increases, e.g. reducing the book budget. Of course,
this provides only temporary relief.

Most academic libraries here have been at a point where the only way to
balance the budget required often significant serials cuts. Given the
many awkward methods of justifying which journals to cut, this certainly
is an exercise most librarians would rather do without.

At our institution, we made the decision several years ago to barcode all
journals and keeps use statistics for every title. Before reshelving,
every issue, bound volume, etc. is scanned for inhouse use. Certainly,
some uses escape, e.g. patrons may reshelve, etc., however, it is fair to
assume that such 'misses' are rather evenly distributed and do not put a
particular journal at a disadvantage. Once a year the use data is
retrieved and  analyzed (overall uses for a title, cost per use, etc.)

We use our Innovative integrated library system to record usage
information and Microsoft Access to analyze the data.

Our faculty are pleased with this method for determinig titles to be cut.
It certainly allows us to allocate our serials funds for maximum benefit
and to find alternative solutions for titles with lower use figures, e.g.
interlibrary loan, document delivery.

In essence, my view of the economics of journal publishing is this:

a. Journal publishing is largely a for-profit business. Some honorable
   society-published journals form an exception, but have only a mildly
   moderating effect market-wide. University-presses have shown very little
   promise of having a price-curbing effect.

b. Journals are prime examples for what economists call 'imperfect
   competion' which is found if the choices of 'consumers' are not truly
   interchangeable. Although, there is always a level of difference among
   market choices, e.g. cars, if one cannot afford X one may be able to
   purchase Y and still obtain something that performs the basic functions.
   There is really nothing like this type of alternative in the serials
   market. If 'Brain Research' gets too expensive get another similar title?
   That just does not work.

c. Given this unusual market, publishers have (had) considerable leeway in
   setting prices and passing on costs as the nearly decade-long history
   of price increases far above the rate of inflation shows. Journal cuts
   are probably necessary to indicate a ceiling price which the market is
   going to support for a particular journal. If the market does not support
   a particular price, publishers have to cut costs(e.g. not increase
   pagination etc.) and not increase the price for remaining subscribers
   which in the present situation would likely further erode the subscriber
   basis. And yes, publishers, researchers, and librarians will in some
   instances have to accept that some journals may no longer be viable.

The above is somewhat simplified to stress certain aspects. In short, we
believe in the importance of use data to justify adding and cutting
journal titles as a fairly good method for optimizing the allocation of
our journal funds.

I'll have to cut short here. With regard to the European perspective, I'd
like to point out that many colleagues in my native Germany, are facing
similar choices. Their solutions are often different, e.g. consortial
agreements, ceiling values set regionally for  publicly funded
institutions, etc., but they are just as often faced with stagnant or
slowly increasing budgets and rapidly increasing journal prices.

                Sincerely,

                                Alfred B. Kraemer
                                Head of Technical Services
                                Medical College of Wisconsin Libraries
                                8701 Watertown Plank Road
                                Milwaukee, WI 53226
                                (414) 456-4273
                                E-Mail: akraemer@post.its.mcw.edu

2)____

Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:19:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Albert Henderson <70244.1532@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Periodicals Prices (Simone Jerome)

Simone JEROME <sjerome@ULG.AC.BE> disagrees with the following:

>>Subscription cancellations have forced
>>prices more sharply upward than would be the case if cost variables were
>>confined to increased numbers of pages, foreign currency values, and
inflation.
>>I think that libraries' budgets have had a greater impact on pricing than  the
>reverse.
>

>>As long as universities fail to support their libraries as they do their
>>research programs, supply and demand will be out of balance and prices will
>>continue to surge upward just as a constriction creates a fountain.

[snip]

He writes:

> I cannot agree with Mr Henderson when he is advocating more budgets
> for the library. In a finite system, more budgeting for one part is
> depriving another and it is education and research which may be
> affected if more budget is devoted to libraries. And what is a
> library without its patrons ?

This is correct, but something is missing here. The US Dept. of Education
gives us the following share of expenditures for higher education (excluding the
"other" category which did not change very much):

                                          1946         1993       +/-
LIBRARIES                                 3.24%       2.86%      -12%
INSTRUCTION                              45.73        39.03      -15
RESEARCH                                 10.58        11.86      +12
ADMINISTRATION                           12.78        18.15      +42% !!!!!!!!

> Doing so would be possible only in a socialist-type planned economy
> as it consists in supporting overpriced and underused periodicals
> which I fear, are doomed to disparition if every library applies
> the free market laws of offer and demand.

The planned economies also suffered from highhanded administrators who took more
than they needed and gave less than they could. But so, according to Max Weber,
did the Tsar, whose administrators did as they pleased.

With respect to "the systemt," there is a good economic analysis in SCIENTIFIC
JOURNALS IN THE UNITED STATES, by Donald W. King et al (Stroudsburg Pa: Dowden
Hutchinson & Ross, 1981; dist by VNR I believe) which was developed when the
National Science Foundation took an interest in knowledge. King points out that
the economic contribution of the reader to the journal system far exceeds that
of the library. The important question is: how much have canceled subscriptions
cost our research and education efforts in lost productivity and effectiveness?

Another cost function of this situation has been the growing requirement for
authors to provide subsidies to publishers in order to report research that has
already consumed hundreds of thousands of dollars. This has clearly been
justified as a means to make prices more affordable. Yet prices have soared
except where there is plenty of advertising income.

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