======================================================================== Date: Mon, 13 Jan 92 19:07 EST Subject: PRICING NEWSLETTER, NS 16 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 16 -- January 14, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle BOOK ALERT: AN IMPORTANT NEW WORK ON COPYRIGHT, Joe Hewitt HUMANIST MESSAGES ABOUT COPYRIGHT MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY CANCELLATIONS, David L. Stonehill SISAC HOLDS X12 DEMONSTRATIONS AT ALA-MIDWINTER MEETING, Tina Feick PRICE WARS, Lelde Gilman CHARLESTON CONFERENCE ADDRESSES SERIAL CANCELLATIONS, Buzzy Basch ASTRONOMICAL AND ASTROPHYSICAL TRANSACTIONS, Brenda Corbin ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIANSHIP, Harry Llull PERGAMON EXCHANGE RATE CHANGE, Adrian Alexander FOCUSED CANCELLATIONS, Jim Thompson DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF SERIAL CANCELLATIONS, Alexander Gilchrist FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. Copyright issues occupy a large share of the newsletter's space this issue. Joe Hewitt urges us to read a new book on the subject, and members of the HUMANIST discussion group have had much to say. I am reprinting some of that discussion, as well as a comment from Chris- tian Boissonnas, my source for the HUMANIST material. I hope the dif- ferent perspectives will stimulate further discussion for our next issue. Copyright is something that most of us do not know nearly enough about, but with electronic transmission of articles and the coming of more commercial document delivery services, it is even more a necessary part of our professional lives. Donald Koepp, Princeton University Library, has distributed a second letter to Pergamon Press. We will print it in the next issue (out very soon), along with comment from a subscription agent and a librarian. BOOK ALERT: AN IMPORTANT NEW WORK ON COPYRIGHT Joe Hewitt University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UJHEWT@UNC. BITNET. All librarians interested in copyright, as well as others concerned for users' rights under the 1976 Copyright Act, should be aware of an excellent new book -- THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT: A LAW OF USERS' RIGHTS, by L. Ray Patterson and Stanley W. Lindberg (University of Georgia Press, 1991). Patterson is a well known scholar of copyright law and Professor of Law at the University of Georgia, and Lindberg is Profes- sor of English at Georgia and editor of the GEORGIA REVIEW. According to a PW announcement, an earlier work by Patterson was cited six times in a recent opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The following quote states one of the central themes of the book: Traditionally viewed as a law for authors and artists, copyright was actually originated by publishers and has a long history of having benefitted entrepreneurs much more than creators. A major purpose of this book is to explain the vagaries of history that caused this anomaly, and thus to justify a new -- and long over- due -- perspective of copyright law: copyright as a law for con- sumers as well as for creators and marketers. THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT is a work of legal scholarship, but it is not an in-depth treatment of case precedent nor a manual on copyright law; it is an excellent explanation of the underlying premises of copyright that is fully accessible to the layman. For librarians, I feel that Patterson and Lindberg provide a legal and historical interpretation that supports many of our views of copyright. I urge readers of the NEWSLETTER not only to read this book yourselves, but also to bring it to the attention of your university attorneys. It may be useful in counteracting some of the intimidating pronouncements of the publish- ing industry and its associations. Of particular interest to readers of the NEWSLETTER is the following quote from Patterson and Lindberg's discussion of the rules of fair use: Price of the work is relevant because a quid pro quo for the copyright monopoly is that copyrighted works be available at a reasonable cost to the public. In other words, a part of the copyright bargain is that the copyright owner shall not abuse the monopoly rights granted. Interesting... Most importantly, THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT may provide a solid back- ground for a more active lobbying agenda for users' rights. Robert W. Kastenmeier, who chaired the House Subcommittee that wrote the 1976 Act, hints at this need in his introduction to the book: I commend the book to copyright lawyers, to legislators and their staffs, to judges, and to all those whom copyright is ultimately intended to benefit -- the American citizens who use copyrighted materials for the promotion of their own learning, but who have no lobbyists in the halls of Congress to plead their case for the right of personal use in their homes, schools, libraries, and offices. One ploy of publishers is to promote the idea that theirs is the only legitimate view of copyright. Librarians and others who disagree with the publishing industry's interpretation of copyright are sometimes attacked for being "against copyright" which, it is implied, is equiv- alent to being against motherhood and apple pie concepts such as the rights of authors, private property, and constitutional law. The only thing that librarians are against is an unbalanced interpretation and enforcement of copyright law that emphasizes economic rights at the cost of all other public interests. Librarians are not against copy- right, but for the legal rights of users under the law and for the public interests that copyright is intended to protect. THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT is a work that not only helps to clarify the real issues involved in copyright, but can also assist librarians in developing their positions on users' rights into more substantive and effective forms. There are many striking quotes that I could pass on that would convey the style and substance of this book. I offer the following extended quote to whet your appetite for Patterson and Lindberg: Most Americans think of law as consisting of written rules in the form of legislative statutes or court decisions. But law also grows out of what people actually do, that is, out of custom. Even the most comprehensive legal statute is skeletal in content, while court decisions tend to be fact-intensive (resolving dis- putes between litigants over specific concrete issues.) Between these two poles, therefore, there is an enormous amount of room for private action, and consistent private action can essentially "make" law by reshaping existing customs (or even creating new ones) that may subsequently be honored by the courts. When the conduct in question involves economic interests, those most directly affected often take the lead in making private pronouncements concerning the kind of actions that are legal and permissible. This is precisely what has happened in the matter of the use and fair use of copyrighted materials. Corporate copy- right owners and others with vested interests -- including licen- sing agents, broadcasting and publishing associations, and so on -- have used the skeletal statute, section 107 of the 1976 Copy- right Act, to influence and promulgate guidelines that purport to implement that law but instead often constitute self-aggrandize- ment at the expense of the public interest. There is much for librarians to ponder in these words. I urge you to go out and help make THE NATURE OF COPYRIGHT the influential work it deserves to be. HUMANIST MESSAGES ABOUT COPYRIGHT Contributed by Christian Boissonnas, Cornell University, CBY@ CORNELLC.BITNET, and edited by Marcia Tuttle. [Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0533. Monday, 16 Dec 1991.] I just had a weird experience perhaps worth sharing with colleagues. I wanted to include one of my book chapters in a packet of readings for graduate students in my course next semester, but in the wake of the Kinko's ruling, my own publisher (which I won't name but will identify as owned by the late Robert Maxwell) informed me that the fee for reproducing this and one other chapter (in another book of mine they also published) would be $250. This was not their opening gambit, but came a week AFTER I beseeched them to be reasonable since it was my own work and I didn't want to see my students (to whom the copy serv- ice would immediately pass the fee) charged in this way. The best they could tell me was that if I waived MY part of the fee, then it would drop to $125. I replied that instead I'd copy my own typescript, avoiding extra fees for students. So today I "unpublished" or "depub- lished" the chapter, printing it out single-spaced in a microfont that is indeed small, but clear and readable, again the intent being to save my students money (I managed to print a dozen book pages onto five pages, notes included). What a weird experience: I had to "unpub- lish" my work in order to make it more easily accessible to students! How do you like that? Truly a postmodern, postlegal experience... Jim Cahalan, English Department BITNET: JCAHALAN@IUP 110B Leonard Hall, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA 15705-1094 Tel: (412) 357-2262 ---------- Selected responses from HUMANIST. From Peter Conn, University of Pennsylvania (PCONN@PENNSAS.UPENN.EDU): ....His experience may be post-modern, and even post-Maxwell; I doubt if it was in fact "post-legal." I would be surprised to learn that copyright holder can be deprived of those rights mere- ly through a change in the format of repoduction. The copyright covers the *content* of the text, not merely one particular pub- lished version. So, if Professor Cahalan's (unnamed) publishers wanted to pursue this matter -- which I assume they will not, given the modest size of the dispute -- presumably they could. From Paula Presley, Thomas Jefferson University Pres, Northeast Mis- souri State University (AD15@NEMOMUS.BITNET): I appreciated Jim Cahalan's tale of woe. It gives us yet another example of why universities need to support the publication of their own faculty's research. Nobody gets rich publishing with academic presses, but neither do they get gouged (especially for using their own stuff!!!). I applaud Jim for doing what he did; the alternative would have been to gouge the student. From Ann Okerson, Association of Research Libraries (OKERSON@UMDC. BITNET): The unpublishing maneuver was ingeious but flawed in that copy- right transfer covers the *expression* of an idea, not the idea itself (which continues to belong to the creator). In the print artifact, changing the font or format doesn't usually alter the wording or expression of the idea, so our creative colleague's new version is likely still owned by the publisher, who will keep an eye on the institution and like institutions to track on the level of copyright "infringement." Finally, and not from HUMANIST, Christian Boissonnas: I don't think you have an unqualified moral right any more than a legal right to stuff for which you have assigned the copyright to someone else. It would make the whole premise behind copyright (protection for the author's intellectual property) untenable. Part of the agreement for assigning the copyright involves a payment -- money, or being published at no charge to the author, which amounts to the same thing -- and protection -- the publish- er on his behalf, yes, but also on behalf of the author to whom he may be obligated contractually (royalties). The publisher takes on all the risks and the author none. He can't morally work against the publisher's best interest, especially when that pub- lisher also works for him. The copyright assignment forms that I have signed over the years are pretty specific. They clearly intend for me to relinquish ALL rights, not all rights except that of doing what I want with my typescript. And I knowingly sign them with that understanding. Also, to say that the typescript should have different treatment for copyright purposes from the published book is ludicrous. But others are addressing that issue. I don't know enough about the legal issues to address them. But people who teach other people should be held to a higher standard than what is merely required by the law. MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY CANCELLATIONS David L. Stonehill, Director of the MBL/WHOI Library, Marine Biolog- ical Laboratory, Woods Hole MA, DSTPME@HOH.BITNET. Congratulations on the Pricing Newsletter. The dialogue on systemic change is long overdue. The MBL in the name stands for Marine Biological Laboratory, the WHOI stands for Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The Library is a joint effort between the two insititutions. It is a research library with about 200,000 volumes, mostly journals. We have about 5,000 jour- nals in the collection, of which 2,000 are currently being subscribed. Our traditional strengths lie in a historical record of biology and ocean sciences, in our 24 hour open stacks, and in our small and friendly staff. Our current directions are to creat a geographically independent, retail, scientific communications resource -- ie, a li- brary in the modern sense. The Marine Biological Laboratory reduced its journal holdings by 10 percent in 1990. We cut the most expensive journals first, paying particular attention to foreign languages and basic science. Additions are judged with their prices in mind: we have not added a journal costing over $300/yr. Where the scientific community has requested a journal over that fig- ure, we have written to the publisher stating that we have the re- quest, but are not ordering the journal because of its cost. In the resulting correspondence the attitude reflected in the Pergamon letter has been universal. Responses from them were based on factors affecting the publisher and his staff; in no case did the publisher respond from the viewpoint of his customer. The publishers seem blind to the market orientation needed to compete. In the same period, from 1988 through 1991, that journal prices rose by over 10 percent/year, the average price of a German luxury sedan rose a total of 1.14 percent. It is possible to compete, if good man- agement and market awarness permeate an industry. May your newsletter help bring that awareness to the process of schol- arly communication. SISAC HOLDS X12 DEMONSTRATIONS AT ALA-MIDWINTER MEETING Tina Feick, Blackwell Periodicals and SISAC Chair, TINA@READMORE.COM At ALA Midwinter, SISAC (Serials Industry Systems Advisory Committee) will hold demonstration sessions on the draft SISAC invoice implemen- tation of the EDI (electronic data interchange) X12 standard. On an automated system, SISAC Committee members will show an invoice going from a subscription agency through an X12 translator over a VAN (val- ue-added network) to a library's automation system. This brief presentation (involving many of the subscription agents) will also include a discussion of the advantages of EDI and especially SISAC's development of the serials industry's version of the X12 standard. We invite everyone to attend and become aware. Questions, comments and discussion are all welcome. Two sessions will be for librarians (subscription agents, publishers, book vendors, etc.) and two will be for automation system vendors. SISAC needs the support and backing of all participants in serials business transactions: librarians, publishers, automation vendors, subscription agencies, etc. PLEASE COME AND GET THE HANDOUTS!! LIBRARIANS, PUBLISHERS, SUBSCRIPTION AGENTS, BOOK VENDORS: 1) Jan. 26 (Sunday) 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM MARRIOTT RIVERCENTER, CONFERENCE ROOM 3 2) Jan. 27 (Monday) 3:30 PM - 4:30 PM MARRIOTT RIVERCENTER, SALON B AUTOMATION VENDORS: 1) Jan. 28 (Tuesday) 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM MARRIOTT RIVERCENTER, SALON A 2) Jan. 28 (Tuesday) 11:00 AM - 12 NOON MARRIOTT RIVERCENTER, SALON A Any questions, please contact: Tina Feick, CHAIR, SISAC Serials Specialist, Blackwell's Periodicals 1-800-458-3706 (US); 1-800-458-3707 (Canada) PRICE WARS Lelde Gilman, UCLA Biomedical Library, ECZ5LBG@UCLAMVS.BITNET. Why should publishers lower prices until they have to??? Do we really expect them to? The process will change when all of us can support ONLY THE BEST JOURNALS (published by whomever!) and the standards for getting into PRINT (yes, print!) will be very, very rigorous and se- lective. I forsee a spate of stuff published electronically, etc. but what does make it into print will be culled, peer reviewed, and avail- able in much, much fewer (and expensive) journals. Publishers will vie with each other (as some are already doing) to have a monopoly on publishing these fewer journals. The "publish or perish" process will be severely affected (for the better) by this in that only the better and fewer articles will be a part of the printed, peer reviewed, ar- chival record. We will not see too many more years of the same study being published several times with a slightly different slant and a reordering of the author's names. Is this optimistic? No, it is just a reality that will arrive simply because everything (not just journals!) will cost too much. Books will be fewer, journals will be fewer and students at universities will be fewer. If those who have INFORMATION and can turn it into a desireable and marketable product (don't let's kid ourselves about this one!) are going to be the winners in the end-of-the-century economic sweep- stakes, then those who can and are willing to pay for this will be the ones to survive. I can assure you that it is not going to be East Europe and the Soviet Union and much of the third world. It is going to be Japan, parts of East Asia and a unified Europe led by a strong Germany. The US, currently without money, leadership or will, will founder. California (long said to be the bellweather state?) with the world's best university (some would say only best public universtiy) is a disaster area. Our Governor has just proposed some drastic measures for addressing this and they sound pretty serious. Isn't anyone look- ing at what is happening in the entire country and the world instead of bemoaning the cost of journals? Europe is on the rise (note the many journals in English with European journal of, etc.) and we are going to have to fight it out here if we really believe in education, scholarship and all that good stuff. CHARLESTON CONFERENCE ADDRESSES SERIAL CANCELLATIONS N. Bernard (Buzzy) Basch), Basch Associates, Chicago IL, and moder- ator of preconference. In the face of spiralling costs and the proliferation of new titles, static or diminishing budgets, a declining pool of students, and re- duced government support for education, academic librarians are no longer debating whether they should trim serial expenditures through cancellations. They ARE cancelling subscriptions and expect further substantial cancellations over the coming years. Five academic library administrators -- Jim Deffenbaugh (College of William and Mary), Susan H. Zappen (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), Connie Wu (Rutgers University), Paul Metz (Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute), and Deana Astle (Clemson University) -- shared their experi- ences of cancellation with an audience of sixty at a preconference Workshop on Serial Cancellations held in conjunction with the Charles- ton Conference on 6 November 1991. The good news is that it CAN be done. While each speaker described programs developed in response to unique local circumstances, all agreed that the experience had a number of positive aspects. The most significant were the importance of consultation and communication, and the strength of faculty support. The speakers agreed that consultation and communication was essential, both within the library and external- ly with faculty and administrators. All found a strong and supportive response. Faculty who were unaware of pricing policies such as differ- ential rates for individuals and institutions and the dramatic in- creases in serial prices, recognized the need for action when presen- ted with concrete data on serial prices and academic library budgets. In many instances, their support extended beyond the confines of the immediate serials issue to encompass active involvement in other li- brary-related issues, including funding. There is no magic methodology for success. Each library had practiced responsible serials management, regularly reviewing and rationalizing collections, and assessing access versus ownership options. The insti- tutions had used core list analysis, citation analysis, usage studies, and duplicate analysis, and had reviewed acquisitions procedures, resource sharing, and document supply alternatives. No one method proved superior or sufficient in cancellation analysis. Instead, mana- gers used the collection and cost data assembled from such studies to communicate the extent of the serials crisis to faculty and used the studies and informed judgment as the basis for cancellation decisions. The panelists urged the audience to use all available channels to communicate with faculty and administrators: newsletters, meetings, discussion groups, cost studies, and list review. They stressed the importance of political awareness in educating and activating their constituents and advised library managers to expect and plan for some negative responses. The most effective programs are ongoing: continuously reviewing sub- scriptions and other supply options as local needs and situations change, and using faculty interest in the serials issue to develop and sustain a broader base for ongoing interaction and consultation. ASTRONOMICAL AND ASTROPHYSICAL TRANSACTIONS Brenda Corbin, US Naval Observatory, LIB@PHOBOS.USNO.NAVY.MIL. Gordon & Breach has done it again. A new journal was recently announced: ASTRONOMICAL AND ASTROPHYSICAL TRANSACTIONS: THE JOURNAL OF THE SOVIET ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY (ISSN 1055-6796). The flyer listed the Individual price as $87 and the Academic Library price as $245 per volume. Nothing new here. However, when I ordered the journal through Readmore, the account agent called to say that the price was higher. It appears that Gordon & Breach have a Corpor- ate/Government rate and those libraries must pay $412 per volume!! This Corporate/Government rate was not listed on the flyer, and no indication was given at all that a 3rd tier of pricing was in effect. I will be writing to Mr. Harry Kirk in Reading, UK protesting this absurd pricing tier. P.S. Keep up the good work. The issue which just arrived was filled with interesting material. ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIANSHIP Harry Llull, University of New Mexico, ACRLSTS@HAL.UNM.EDU. **ANNOUNCEMENT**NEW/FREE ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION**CALL FOR SUBCRIBERS** ------------->>PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH THOSE WHO MAY BE * ----------INTERESTED IN SUBSCRIBING ACRLSTS@HAL.UNM.EDU * ---- * -- ##### ####### ##### - # # # - # # # S - ##### # ##### T ELECTRONIC - # # # S COMMUNICATIONS -- # # # ---- ##### # ##### ----------- ----------------------->> ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LIBRARIANSHIP December 1991 ACRLSTS@HAL.UNM.EDU Premier Issue __________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS: WHAT WE ARE/WHAT WE WILL BE--EDITOR RESOURCES ON WOMEN AND SCIENCE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN BY SUSAN SEARING, University of Wisconsin SCIENCE LITERACY AND INFORMATION SKILLS BY GREGG SAPP, Montana State University SYNTHESIS: A NATIONAL ENGINEERING EDUCATION COALITION -- RADICALLY RESTRUCTURING UNDERGRADUATE ENGINEERING EDUCATION BY JOHN SAYLOR, Cornell University SCIENTIFIC LITERACY AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY: FOUR REPORTS BY HARRY LLULL, University of New Mexico SERIALS CANCELLATIONS--STATE OF THE ART: A REPORT ON A PRECONFERENCE HELD AT THE 1991 CHARLESTON CONFERENCE BY LYNN KACZOR, Sandia National Laboratories, Technical Library, New Mexico COALITION FOR NETWORKED INFORMATION FALL 1991 REPORT BY CNI ***************************************************************** Issues In Science and Technology Librarianship is a publication of the Science and Technology Section of the Association of College and Re- search Libraries, a division of the American Library Association. The Editor: Harry LLull. Editorial Board: Lynn Kaczor and Gregg Sapp. This publication is produced at the Centennial Science and Engineering Library, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and sent out in electronic form only over the Internet. Opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Section or Division. Articles and requests for subscriptions may be sent to the editor at ACRLSTS@HAL.UNM.EDU. ***************************************************************** PERGAMON EXCHANGE RATE CHANGE Adrian Alexander, Faxon, ALEXANDER@FAXON.COM. Faxon's Chief Publications Officer, Joel Baron, announced that Perga- mon will change its US dollar exchange rate for pounds sterling on January 1, 1992. The new rate will be 1.815, which is a 13 percent increase over the current rate of 1.60, and which reflects the impact of the currently weak US dollar. Orders that have already been placed will be billed at the 1.60 rate. FOCUSED CANCELLATIONS Jim Thompson, University of California - Riverside, THOMPSON@ UCRVMS.BITNET. I want to second Chuck Hamaker's exhortation that librarians focus their serial cancellations on particular publishers, and that they be open about it. True, institutional lawyers may sometimes advise against it, but remember that institutional lawyers are paid solely to keep the institution out of trouble, which means that when asked, they will always advise against any proposed action. As one member of the fine company of people Gordon & Breach tried to sue, I can say from experience that it matters a great deal how controversial actions are described. You don't have to tell the world that you're 'targeting Publisher X in order to reduce their income and bring them around;' you can merely 'instruct your bibliographers to consider, among other factors, price and the probability of future inflation based on the publisher's past experience.' It produces exactly the same result, and can be meaningfully related to legitimate business necessity. DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF SERIAL CANCELLATIONS Alexander Gilchrist, University of South Carolina, ILIBT11@ UNIVSCVM.BITNET. The total dollar amount of serial cancellations by ARL libraries this year would seem to be something over $7,000,000. It would certainly be valuable in showing to the publishers the impact of serial cancella- tions if somehow the total value of cancellations by all libraries could be compiled for this fiscal year. As David Salt pointed out in issue no. 15, it is immaterial to us what the causes for the increases are, since we do not have the funds to keep up anymore. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET and ALANET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may re- ceive the Newsletter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respec- tively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 20 Jan 92 19:06 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: PRICING NEWSLETTER, NS 17 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 17 -- January 21, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle SECOND LETTER FROM PRINCETON, Donald Koepp LELDE GILMAN'S VIEW OF SCI-TECH-MED PUBLISHING IN COMING YEARS, Tony Stankus and Steven Rockey ACRL JOURNAL COSTS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES DISCUSSION GROUP, October Ivins REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON JOURNAL CANCELLATION PROJECTS, Jim Thompson LISTSERVER FOR SCIENCE CANCELLATIONS, David Stern PUBLISHING AND PRICING PERIODICALS AT THE IEEE FROM THE MAILBOX HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS, Chuck Hamaker FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. Another issue of _ARL_ (No. 160, January 2, 1992) has arrived, and it contains several items of interest. The lead article by Ann Okerson is entitled "Faculty Respond to Serials Prices." Here are the first few sentences: With serials prices projected to increase substantially, ARL libraries continue to respond with cancellations. According to a Quick-SPEC survey reported in ARL #159, planned cutbacks are at an all-time high level, and for three years in a row the ARL STATISTICS has documented an annual 1% decline in serial titles purchased by ARL university library members.... _ARL_ also reports (p. 2) faculty action taken at the University of Tennessee: An October 1991 issue of CONTEXT, a newspaper distributed biweek- ly to all faculty of the University of Tennessee, contained an open letter from the Faculty Senate Library Committee. Addressed to UT Knoxville Vaculty, from Mary Lue Jolly, 1990-91 Faculty Chair, Senate Library Committee, the letter was titled: "What You Can Do About Skyrocketing Serial Prices." In the letter, Ms. Jolly reported that the Faculty Senate Library Committee recom- mended an active role for members of the academic community to control the costs and quality of scholarly publications. The following is excerpted from her letter as it appeared in CONTEXT. It is time for scholars and academic administrators to voice their concerns and take steps to counteract these trends. On behalf of the Senate Library Committee, I offer these sug- gestions: - Say "no" to serving on editorial boards or as reviewers for jouranls ... whose track records are the worst of all. - Say "no" to starting new journals when others of good quality already exist in the field. - Support only good quality publications. - Resist opportunities to write articles in fragments ... refrain from submitting similar materials to more than one publication. - Refuse to purchase and refuse to recommend library pur- chase of materials of questionable value. - Educate members of your professional societies about the hidden danger in contracting with commercial publishers to publish society journals ... library subscription rates rise dramatically and quickly. We had hoped to have commentary from a library and a subscription agent on Donald Koepp's second letter to Pergamon Press, but it has not arrived. We don't want to hold the letter any longer; commentary will be in the next issue. SECOND LETTER FROM PRINCETON Donald W. Koepp, University Librarian, Princeton University, One Washington Road, Princeton NJ 08544-2098. Michael Boswood, Managing Director Pergamon Press Headington Hill Hall Oxford, OX3 0BW, UK Dear Mr. Boswood: I thank you for your letter of December 10. While I appreciate your restatement of why your invoice of September 1 involved an increase of almost 30% over the cost of the same journals last year, the fact remains that our cancellation decisions did not consider why the in- creases occurred. They reflected ONLY the consideration of whether or not the resulting price was one we were willing to pay. With respect to the particulars of the Princeton subscriptions men- tioned in your postscript, perhaps I can be helpful. As noted in my first letter, we did bring the cost for the journals on this invoice down to what they cost us last year plus the percentage increase we had in our acquisitions budget this year. Your invoice of September 1 included 73 titles with price increases of over 20%. The total invoice covered 130 titles. Twenty-one titles have been cancelled from that invoice. Another 149 Pergamon titles are handled for Princeton through subscription agencies. Because of the complications of our arrange- ments with these agencies, it was difficult to consider them fully at the same time we were considering the value of the titles listed in your September 1 invoice. Our bibliographers have been encouraged to look carefully at these other Pergamon subscriptions, and it is my estimate that approximately 20% of the 149 titles handled by subscrip- tion agencies will be cancelled over the next year or so. As a result of our inability effectively to consider our whole list at one time, we are changing certain practices in order to permit the maximum flexibility in the future. We find, for example, that we fre- quently make renewal commitments to subscription agents without having firm prices from them. We are told that many agencies, by the time we have firm prices, have already committed themselves to the publishers, thus making it impossible for us to cancel without financial loss to the agencies. We will discontinue this practice and require in the future firm prices before committing ourselves to the subscription agencies. We will also discontinue multi-year subscriptions, even though we realize such arrangements are to our financial advantage, because they also limit our flexibility. Again I thank you for your letter and I regret that your explanations do not change our posture with respect to your increases for 1992. Sincerely, Donald W. Koepp University Librarian Attachments cc: Association of Research Library Directors LELDE GILMAN'S VIEW OF SCI-TECH-MED PUBLISHING IN COMING YEARS Tony Stankus, Science Librarian, College of the Holy Cross, LIB_STAN@HLYCROSS.BITNET; Steven Rockey, Mathematics Librarian, Cornell University, rockey@math.cornell.edu. TONY STANKUS: Lelde Gilman's commentary sounds extreme but, in fact, is very close to the truth. At least three points in Gilman"s argument match the results of a paper of mine that dealt with identifying the top 5 journals in each of ten major life science specialties, and how the list has changed over the span of 1979-1989. Gilman's first point, that the number of significant publishers is small, almost monopolistic, is borne out. There is not a single new, for-profit competitor that cracked the top fifty. All the new journals were produced by old-line publishers. Indeed, Elsevier, through its acquisition of Pergamon, is more than ever the dominant for-profit publisher. Second place goes to Springer, and Springer's real strength lies in the physical sciences. Is there any not-for-profit press mak- ing waves? It all depends on whether you consider Oxford University Press a not-for-profit outfit. This repeated chorus of European publishers bears out Gilman's second claim: that an increasingly united Europe is going to lead world sci- tech publishing. This may not be so unless it can wrest the Pacific Rim from the American not-for-profit society publishers. Fortunately, American society journals are still the journals of first choice for the most rapidly growing segment of world science journal buying and manuscript submitting: Asia. Gilman's third point, that the US is surely slipping, is not quite as convincing, if only because we have to assume a certain perfect behav- ior on the part of the Europeans in order for them to pull ahead deci- sively. First we have to assume that they don't spend a lot of time and money buying junk journals from Eastern Europe. Second, we have to assume that they'll be heartless enough to start kicking out all those Third World papers that even now water down the genuine "Euroscience." Even now the typical Elsevier journal in the life sciences has about twice as much of it as its US competition. I do not make this point out of racism. I make it out of the observation that good scientists can come from anywhere but sustained good science comes from the de- veloped world. In summary, Gilman's piece sounds extreme, but it turns out to be much more likely than we'd like to admit. There may be more time and less finality than Gilman says, but not much! STEVEN ROCKEY: The posting "Price Wars," by Lelde Gilmen had one phrase that worried me. When we think of "The Best Journals" we need to include an evaluation of the cost effectiveness. The comparison can not be one to one or from a ranked list in order of intellectual con- tent or the price. A very good but very expensive journal has to be compared to the total "value" of several less expensive journals. There are also many cases where a very expensive journal may be very cost effective (better than less expensive journals) if you look at price per page and/or price per 1000 characters. The decisions will never be neat and scientific. Part of what makes journals attractive to the best authors and editors is widespread exposure. If we all try to cancel the least cost effective journals in time the best authors and editors may drift to other journals. In the interim we may not be getting what some would consider "The Best Journals." ACRL JOURNAL COSTS IN ACADEMIC LIBRARIES DISCUSSION GROUP October Ivins, Louisiana State University, NOTORI@LSUVM.BITNET. Two speakers will share a macro and a micro view of the impact of rising journal costs as an introduction to discussion. ANN OKERSON, Association of Research Libraries, will give an overview of 1992 cancellation projects, preview highlights from the annual statistics to be released in February, and update responses by ARL. TOM LEONHARDT, University of the Pacific, will discuss actions taken at his library in response to rising costs. WHEN: Monday, January 27, 11:30 - 12:30 WHERE: Marriott Rivercenter Salon A Please contact chair October Ivins, Lousiana State University Librar- ies, NOTORI@LSUVM.BITNET or (504) 388-4364 for more information. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON JOURNAL CANCELLATION PROJECTS Jim Thompson, University of California-Riverside, THOMPSON@UCRVMS. BITNET. In preparing for an upcoming seminar, I would appreciate hearing from Newsletter readers about: - journal cancellation projects they are or recently have under- taken, with estimates of dollars and number of titles cut; - particularly aggravating titles or publishers -- aggravating be- cause of high prices, rapid inflation, misleading communications, questionable practices, etc. - reactions of faculty members to the journal cost problem. I will keep responses as anonymous as you wish and will not attribute events to particular institutions. Send messages to me privately (not to the Newsletter) at: Thompson@ UCRVMS.Bitnet or Thompson@UCRAC1.UCR.edu. LISTSERVER FOR SCIENCE CANCELLATIONS David Stern, University of Illinois, STERN@UIUCVMD.BITNET. In order to track the cancellations in Physics, Astronomy and Mathe- matics journals over the past three years the P-A-M Division of SLA (Special Libraries Association) is attempting to create a listserver that will contain a file of those schools/institutions that have can- celled subscriptions in these areas. This list will be available via anonymous ftp. More details will be available as the project develops. If any schools/organizations wish to contribute data to this listing feel free to contact: David Stern Physics/Astronomy Library University of Illinois 204 Loomis Lab 1110 West Green Street Urbana, IL 61801 BITNET: STERN@UIUCVMD INTERNET: STERN@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU phone: 217/333-2101 PUBLISHING AND PRICING PERIODICALS AT THE IEEE: AN INTERVIEW WITH DON CRAWLEY. Submitted by Phyllis Hall, IEEE, [Excerpted from IEEE PUBLICATIONS BULLETIN, vol. 21, no. 4 (1991). Don Crawley is IEEE Associate General Manager, Programs.] Ten years ago the IEEE published 47 journals, transactions, letters, and magazines. The IEEE just announced that it will publish two new periodicals in 1992, raising its total to 77 .... PUBLICATIONS BULLETIN: Why is the IEEE publishing more periodicals? DON CRAWLEY: The reason for this "explosion" in the number of IEEE periodicals ... is the rapid, sometimes very rapid, emergence of new technologies. The primary goal of the IEEE is to disseminate key in- formation in the fields of electrical, electronics, and computer en- gineering. As technologies in these fields develop and multiply, the IEEE can provide forums for the discussion of these new technologies in ways that other publishers cannot. These forums may be journals with the latest research, letters providing communication, or maga- zines focusing on applications. PB: Who actually makes the decision to publish a new periodical? DC: The IEEE is a non-profit organization made up of over 330,000 members from 145 countries. These members are the strength of the IEEE. They suggest and determine what we publish through the Governing Boards of the various societies which are organized by areas of inter- est. The interests of IEEE members are diverse: from computers to telecommunications, from electron devices to power systems. The IEEE is decentralized and member-driven and proud of it. The Governing Boards of the 37 societies which comprise the IEEE decide to publish new periodicals as technologies emerge and develop. Then the new peri- odicals are reviewed by the Publications Board and approved by the Executive Committee of the IEEE. Once approved, they are priced and published. PB: In 1992 the IEEE raised its journal prices more than it has in previous years. Why? DC: The answer to that is very simple, and there are three points I'd like to make. The first is reflected in your question itself. The IEEE HASN'T raised periodical prices much over the past decade. In fact, our price increases were less than the increases in production costs, paper, printing, and postage. We may be a non-profit organization, but we live in the same economic world as everyone else. Because of our modest price increases in the past, we had to raise prices by a little more in 1992 to maintain our financial fitness. PB: And the second point? DC: Our library subscribers should keep in mind that, even with our 1992 price increases, the IEEE is still probably the lowest-priced major journal publisher in the WORLD today. Librarians do not have to take my word for it. They can check for themselves. Compare IEEE peri- odicals with those in the same fields from other journal publishers. On a cost-per-page basis, the IEEE journal will undoubtedly be the least expensive .... Our journals are ... often less than half the price of those put out by commercial publishers. So, when librarians look at the rate of increase in IEEE periodical prices in 1992, they should keep in mind the larger picture as well: IEEE JOURNALS STILL COST LESS. PB: And the final point? DC: The IEEE is a non-profit organization. Our income does not go to the bottom line of a corporation, nor is it distributed to sharehol- ders. Our income goes back into the IEEE. And it is this income that keeps us financially stable, enables us to support our membership, allows us to expand our publishing activities, and improves the dis- semination of our technical information. We want to be partners with librarians everywhere. Our mission is to make cutting-edge information on electronics and computing available around the world at a reasona- ble price. I hope the library community will understand this.... FROM THE MAILBOX The mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. From Brian Cox, Director of Journals Business, Pergamon Press, Head- ington Hill Hall, Oxford OX3 0BW, UK: SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS With reference to the recent correspondence in NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES, NS 15 (ISSN: 1046-3410) Monday December 16, 1991, I confirm that the combined subscription rate for 1992 is: SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS (including APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY) (1992) 24 ISSUES Subscription Rate L690.00 but these two journals may be ordered separately as follows:- APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY Volume 1 (1992) 12 issues ISSN: 0964-1807 Subscription Rate L345.00 SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS Volume 35 (1992) 12 issues ISSN: 0038-1101 Subscription Rate L448.00 Subscribers who wish to continue to subscribe to SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS separately may of course continue to do so. [As reported in the last newsletter, Pergamon's conversion rate has gone from 1.61 to 1.8. -ed.] From Michael Boswood, Managing Director, Pergamon Press, Oxford: I must take issue with the attitude reflected in Hamaker's Hay- makers about the Koepp letter. Chuck can shoot his mouth off to his heart's content so long as he casts himself as a lonely voice of dissent. What Mr. Koepp is talking about is a certain way of responding to continued increases in serial prices. His action will have consequences. What both I as a publisher and Chuck Hamaker as a librarian have to do is to examine the mechanism Mr. Koepp has chosen. In doing so we will probably have different points of view (although not always quite as different as some may suppose). What is not helpful either to publishers or librarians, is to talk about this being the first real shot in the 'serial wars' when what we are really talking about are changes in the market, brought about by the continued increase in the volume of scien- tific information worthy of publication according to the peer review process and the levelling of library budgets. Publishers do not own or control either of these elements. We are less in- fluential than Chuck chooses to think. But we are involved and we have to respond. For years there has been a call for candid dia- logue between publishers and librarians, not least from Chuck Hamaker. To associate that call with the opening of hostilities is silly. HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, NOTCAH@LSUVM.BITNET. I stand by my statement. I consider Princeton's actions a significant step in what has been until now a complete rout of library budgets. Princeton cut the gordian knot cleanly and clearly and sounded a clar- ion call. It may be unfair to single Pergamon out. But it had to begin somewhere. I hope libraries apply the same principle to the pricing behavior of other publishers. I don't know any other approach that has a prayer of working. Michael Boswood understands more clearly than many publishers and most librarians just what the stakes are. Many research libraries are giving up the dream of international based collections with hardly a whimper. Boswood does not want to give up his dream of international publishing with Pergamon and Elsevier as significant players on the stage of world science. To maintan it he must guarantee access for scientists to their peers. The major tools to that end have been increasing journal size and insuring investor profitability while maintaining publishing standards. Koepp's letter and methodology may well signal the end of his dream just as uncon- trollable price increases have forced the end of the dream for many research collections. I don't blame him for sounding peeved. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the News- letter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET3209-3209; 552 LINES); Tue, 18 Feb 92 11:04:16 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Tue, 18 Feb 92 04:33 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0011 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Tue, 18 Feb 92 04:32 EST Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 04:28 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: PRICING NEWSLETTER, NS 18 To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 18 -- FEBRUARY 18, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle BERGER ASKS FOR HELP FOR DISCUSSION WITH AIP PUBLICATIONS BOARD LIBRARIAN'S RESPONSE TO THE PRINCETON LETTERS, Siegfried Ruschin SUBSCRIPTION AGENT'S RESPONSE TO THE PRINCETON LETTERS, Adrian Alexander SERIALS CANCELLATION NEWS FROM AMERICA'S PREMIER RESEARCH LIBRARIES, Tony Ferguson 20-YEAR-OLD PRINT JOURNAL IS OFFERED ELECTRONICALLY, Lon Savage FROM THE MAILBOX FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. Welcome to the 75+ new subscribers to the newsletter. No, this is not a normal between-issues increase. Embarrassing though it is, for the sake of these 75, I feel I must explain. Contrary to what people con- tinue to write and say, the newsletter is NOT on a listserver. Howev- er, for some reason known only to my postmaster, it was possible to subscribe through a message to LISTSERV@UNCVX1. But several months ago I took over maintenance of my mailing list, and issues are sent to addresses on that list. At the same time, the listserver continued to accept subscribers, telling them that they were on the list. The only thing is, nobody -- or no thing -- told me! Thus, none of these sub- scribers has received a single issue, unless they sent me a message asking why. A few weeks ago, out of curiosity, I asked the listserver for a copy of my mailing list. Bad surprise! No one knew how to merge the two lists, so yesterday I manually added the new addresses, bring- ing our direct distribution list close to 950 subscribers. Siegfried Ruschin and Adrian Alexander have responded to my request to comment on the "Princeton letters," from librarian Donald Koepp to Pergamon president Michael Boswood, published in NS 14 and 17. I am grateful to both of these men for contributing to this discussion. I hope their remarks will aid librarians in their cancellation/retention decisions. Did you see the list of The World's Most Prolific Scientists in the January 11, 1992 issue of SCIENCE (p. 283)? Number one is a Russian chemist who authored 948 papers between 1981 and 1990, an average of 3.9 days between papers! The source was SCIENCE WATCH, from the Insti- tute for Scientific Information, and data are from ISI's article data- bases. BERGER ASKS FOR HELP FOR DISCUSSION WITH AIP PUBLICATIONS BOARD Marcia Tuttle, with information from Pat Berger. Pat Berger (National Institute of Standards and Technology) called the other day to ask for our help. She has been invited to meet with the American Institute of Physics Publication Board on April 3, and dis- cuss with them librarians' concerns about society journal pricing. She sent the draft minutes of last year's meeting. The Board recognizes that libraries, "who are their main customers, are caught between rising prices and constant or decreasing budgets." A particular concern is "cheating" by libraries; i.e., ordering jour- nals at the member price. AIP has attempted to minimize this practice by writing letters to individuals ordering four or more separate jour- nal subscriptions at the member rate. "Of the 200-300 letters, 20 responses were received, and only one respondent admitted "'cheat- ing.'" In order to combat the problem of rising subscriptions, it was sugges- ted that members' copies "be produced with inferior quality (of paper and binding) compared with those copies intended to be archived in libraries...." When the matter of increasing page charges was brought up, one response was "We should not be subsidizing the commercial- publishers' journals." The Publications Board also discussed electronic publishing. Their journals are online, but this format has brought little financial success. They are concerned about cost recovery and copyright protec- tion. These draft minutes show that AIP is concerned, as are librarians, about excessive publication. One editor lamented that "the information content in manuscripts was decreasing, despite a growth in the number of pages per paper; slicing of pieces of research into LPU's ('least publishable units') was on the increase, and scientists were publish- ing more than they were reading." With this information as background, please help Pat respresent the library profession as we need her to. She wants to hear from newslet- ter readers as to the specific topics she brings up with the AIP Pub- lications Board. Her FAX number is 301 869-8071, and her e-mail ad- dress is pberger@enh.nist.gov. And while you're at it, how about sending a copy to the newsletter at TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET or FAX: 919 962-0484. LIBRARIAN'S RESPONSE TO PRINCETON LETTERS Siegfried Ruschin, Librarian for Collection Development, Linda Hall Library, Kansas City MO Much has been said and written about serials prices in the past few years. Little has changed. Differential pricing continues. We find that when prices are adjusted or equalized, they are usually raised to their higher common denominator, as we have recently seen again; when the dollar is relatively weak, it serves to justify higher prices; when it is strong, paper prices are lower, and inflation is generally modest, prices rise nonetheless in unexplained and nonexplainable fashion. Nothing seems to stem the trend. But in the absence of compe- tition or any other truly countervailing force, we should not be sur- prised by this absence of noticeable change. Some action is inescapable. Donald Koepp's letters to Pergamon seem to me clear, straightforward, and an attempt in the proper direction. Commenting on his letter of November 12, 1991, I wrote to Mr. Koepp in part: I have often felt that the response from librarians to the poli- cies of some publishers was surprisingly ambiguous, weak, and ineffective. What is less surprising is that, consequently, the publishers give little weight to us and to our opinions. Perga- mon's latest sharp price increases are not only hard to justify on any grounds, but after all that has been said, written, and promised, these increases, at this time, are astounding, as you say, if not challenging and provoking.... It seems to me that we continue to support a process that has gotten out of control and ultimately will break down at great cost. I would agree with those who argue that we should make some of these difficult, but necessary decisions, even when, or per- haps precisely when, temporary, slightly less unfavorable cir- cumstances give us a short respite from immediate financial strictures. Not everybody would agree, and I realize that there are no obvious, simple answers. But I was glad and reassured to see that you, as the director of the libraries of a most distin- guished university, share some of my opinions and that, in an undeniably difficult and complex situation, you have apparently received some substantial support from the university's faculty. It is difficult and perhaps not entirely fair to propose solutions, when we do not have all the pertinent facts. I agree that more fact finding is desirable. But many facts that would be pertinent are not available to us, and so we are forced to evaluate and decide matters on the basis of the best available evidence, by drawing logical con- clusions, and by using common sense. We are, moreover, not dealing with something recondite. Lacking the training and wisdom of profes- sional economists does not necessarily prevent one from drawing valid conclusions. Without trying to find an explanation or to get into the apparent reasons for Pergamon's decision to equalize subscription prices in various countries, the rationale for Princeton University's reaction is simple to understand. The steady increase of prices is impossible to sustain in the long run. It is only prudent to impose limits on the increases that we will allow, no matter what the reasons for those increases may be and without assessing responsibility for them to anybody in particular. We may not have been trained in the intricacies of the business world, but it seems to me that librarians who are responsible for acquisi- tions of library material and for the dispensing of funds have a fidu- ciary responsibility. Simply stated, we should act as we would (or should) in our personal affairs. When a product is too expensive, we should not buy it; with limited funds, we should first abstain from buying those products that we consider overpriced. At Linda Hall Library we have on occasion taken some action, not in unseemly or hasty angry retribution, but in reaction to publishers' or agents' specific policies, the consequences of which we considered actually or potentially onerous to the library's operation and long term aims. We have changed some traditional practices and procedures and modified others. Perhaps it is easier (though by no means easy) for us to do this than for other libraries, where responsibilities may be more dispersed and hinder the perception of a problem and limit the possibility as well as the imperative for action. In the last few years, we have had to cancel many subscriptions, and, to be effective in reducing costs, these cancellations had to include expensive journals. I could not agree more with those who argue that more research is necessary to establish valid criteria of "cost effec- tiveness," quality, or whatever truly solid standard one could apply in this work. When arguing for the cancellation of this journal rather than that one, most of us will be too aware of our inadequacies to be happy with the process or its results. But decisions appropriate for each library have to be made. We cannot continue to simply accept the word of publishers whose interests -- let's honestly admit this basic fact -- are not fully identical to the ones we are responsible for. While Mr. Koepp's proposed solutions may not be ideal, they are rea- sonable and logical. Some of my colleagues may be surprised by his decision not to accept in the future invoices that do not state firm prices. We have tried to do this at Linda Hall Library and, frankly, given the existing system, have run into some difficulties. But the idea is sound. Can anybody imagine a business that, except under ex- traordinary circumstances, would firmly commit itself to buying a product without a binding price quotation? In most commercial trans- actions such proposition would be considered preposterous. Yet, these are the conditions under which much library business has been conduc- ted. Mr. Koepp is proposing to address this astounding condition. The wide- spread implementation of his proposal would go some way in getting control of our library affairs. Singly implemented it currently cre- ates some difficulties for subscription agencies who try to get orders in early enough "to avoid interruption of service." If libraries would as a matter of course expect to be billed at definite and binding prices, workable and effective solutions would be found. As major customers, libraries should expect procedures to be accommodated to their needs and convenience. Another way of dealing with the problem is to order subscriptions directly from the publisher rather than through an agent. After more than thirty years in serials work, I am quite aware of the arguments for and against this choice. But it does not have to be an absolute one and can be restricted to all or parts of a publisher's products. At Linda Hall Library nearly one half of our subscriptions, including most for Pergamon journals, have traditionally been placed directly with publishers. This indeed gives one the greater flexibility that Mr. Koepp suggests we seek. A major objection that I can foresee is that the implementation of these proposals would increase our work, when we are already overbur- dened, and that ultimately it would increase cost. I am not swayed by either argument, but am convinced that, if librarians want to be treated as serious partners in business transactions that they neces- sarily have to engage in and want to be respected as professionals, it is imperative for them to assume fuller control over procedures and expenses that they are responsible for. There may be some outcry against my saying that the responsibility for the present situation lies largely with us librarians, who out of fear to see an "interruption of service" have authorized too many blank checks that have only encouraged and aggravated a situation that we rightly bemoan. Every time we place a standing order, and you can be sure that I understand the expediency and occasional need for doing so, we relinquish our prime responsibility to select and choose. I know that this oversimplifies a very complex problem, but I am not willing to concede that this diminishes the validity of my arguments. SUBSCRIPTION AGENT'S RESPONSE TO THE PRINCETON LETTERS Adrian Alexander, The Faxon Company, ALEXANDER@FAXON.COM. Mr. Koepp's references to renewal of subscriptions without "firm pric- es" raises some interesting questions, as always, about the timing of several facets of the subscription order process. First there is the library's order to the agent, which typically can take place anytime between May and October, although many agents have experienced more late renewals this year than normal. Generally, the earlier the order, the less chance there is that the invoice from the agent includes the final "firm" price from the publisher for the coming year. The majori- ty of those new prices usually don't get posted into the agent's title file until August, September, and October, depending on the publisher in question. Orders then start going out from the agent to the pub- lishers in October and November. It is important to remember, however, that publishers often require a renewal commitment or new order any- where from 1 to 3 months in advance of the start date of the new sub- scription, but may not set the new "firm price" until the beginning of the new subscription period. From the standpoint of cancelling a "renewal commitment" to an agent, to use Mr. Koepp's phrase, the key factor is whether the cancellation request was received by the agent prior to having sent money to the publisher. My experience has been that most agents will issue a credit to the library for a cancelled title any time the cancellation request is received before payment had been sent to the publisher. Even after payment has been made to the publisher, most agents will probably ask the publisher for a refund if the new subscription has not yet star- ted, and some publishers may even grant that request. The crux of Mr. Koepp's dilemma, however, probably lies in the phrase "by the time we (the library) have firm prices." If the library has already sent the renewal list back to the agent prior to the new pric- es being available from the publisher, then whose responsibility is it to advise the library of the new prices in the event that the library may wish to cancel some titles if the prices are too high -- the pub- lisher or the agent? What responsibility does the library then have to make this particular need known to the agent and the publisher so that one or both of them can address the need? Both the vendor and publisher communities are constantly looking for ways to improve and expedite the flow of pricing information to the library. Some new procedures have proved highly effective, while oth- ers actually have delayed the process, at least in the initial stages of implementation. On an industry-wide basis, however, I think we are making sincere and earnest efforts to respond to the needs of the marketplace. SERIALS CANCELLATION NEWS FROM AMERICA'S PREMIER RESEARCH LIBRARIES Tony Ferguson, Columbia University Libraries, Prior to the San Antonio meeting of the Chief Collection Development Officers of Large Research Libraries Discussion Group, a survey was distributed to discover the breadth and depth of serials cancellation going on among these libraries. It asked whether a serials review project was underway, and, if so, what was being reviewed and the expected level of expenditures to be cut. Seventy-four percent (28) of the 38 libraries responding indicated they were conducting a project. Of those indicating no project (10), two said they were always reviewing titles, another indicated publish- ers which discriminated against it (a national library) because of its size would be reviewed, and another indicated it was too early to tell. Interestingly, the cutting this year appears to be hitting both peri- odicals and monographic series. Seventy-nine percent of the libraries (22) indicated they were reviewing both types of serials. Another seven percent (2), monographic series only. This seems significant since most book publishers do not acknowledge any deterioration in revenues as yet. Finally, fourteen percent (4) said that they were reviewing periodicals only. In general the cuts seem to be across the board in terms of subject. Most libraries, seventy-nine percent (22), indicated that they were reviewing all subjects, eleven percent (3) focusing on the sciences, and another seven percent (2) focusing on other subjects. Irrespective of subject, only three other libraries besides Princeton have decided up to this point to target a specific publisher. The survey allowed libraries to categorize their expected level of expenditures to be cut in $50,000 increments. In terms of a worst case scenario, from three to four million dollars worth of serials will be cut this year. This will not only be lost publisher-vendor revenues, but it also represents decreased access to information. Range No. Libraries Percent Libraries Cutting Cutting $50,000 or less 8 29 $50,001 to $100,000 4 14 $100,001 to $150,000 6 21 $150,001 to $200,000 3 11 $200,001 to $250,000 2 7 $250,001 and above 5 18 The question that many of those responding must have in their minds is, what will they do next year? 20-YEAR-OLD PRINT JOURNAL IS OFFERED ELECTRONICALLY Lon Savage, Virginia Tech, SAVAGE@VTVM1.BITNET. The Community Services CATALYST, a refereed print journal that has been serving community college educators for more than twenty years, henceforth will be distributed as an electronic journal in addition to its print version, its editor has announced. Subscriptions to the electronic version of the journal are now availa- ble free of charge via Bitnet and the Internet, according to Dr. Dar- rel A. Clowes, editor of the journal and a member of the faculty at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Already, interes- ted persons may receive the last two issues of the journal by entering an electronic subscription, and plans are to make all future issues, and perhaps all past issues, available electronically, as well. The quarterly journal is published by the National Council on Communi- ty Services and Continuing Education, an affiliate council of the American Association of Community, Junior and Technical Colleges. The journal is being made available in its electronic form by the Scholar- ly Communications Project of Virginia Tech, which is seeking to ex- plore some of the new frontiers in electronic communication of schol- arly work. CATALYST currently is distributed in its print form to dues-paying members of the Council, as a benefit of their membership, and to li- braries and other non-members at subscription prices of $20 per year in the US, $25 outside the US. The journal has a paid circulation (including members) of approximately 1200. When offered via BITNET and the INTERNET, the journal has the potential of reaching many new read- ers worldwide. It is believed to be one of the first traditional journals, distribu- ted in print at subscription prices, to be offered electronically at no charge. Clowes said the Council approved offering the journal electronically last summer. One reason for the action was to make the journal more readily accessible to academic libraries, an under-utilized market at this time. The Council is not concerned at this time that the elec- tronic version may undercut paid print subscriptions, Clowes said, because most circulation is a function of members' dues. If the elec- tronic version should prove to cost the journal significant numbers of paid subscriptions for the printed version, Clowes said the Council will address that situation at the time. The Council is a non-profit organization. To subscribe to the electronic journal, one need send only the command "SUBSCRIBE CATALYST Firstname Lastname" [where Firstname Lastname are the first and last names of the individual subscriber] by electronic mail to the address: LISTSERV@VTVM1 on BITNET and LISTSERV@VTVM1.CC. VT.EDU on the Internet. Electronic subscribers will receive instruc- tions on how to order a list of available articles, how to retrieve full texts of those articles, and how to cancel their subscriptions. Electronic subscribers, in addition to having access to past issues of the journal, will be sent the Tables of Contents of future issues as those issues are published; the subscribers then may order full texts by electronic mail from their own computers of any and all articles they wish to read. Currently, all articles from Issues Number 3 and 4 of Volume 21 (1991) are available online. Consideration will be given to adding all articles from the remaining back issues to the archive. With all parts of the journal online, electronic subscribers anywhere in the world at any time of day or night would be able to obtain at their own computers full texts instantly of all the articles the jour- nal has published. To make access to the journal more manageable, access is provided to individual articles, rather than to entire issues. Interested readers, of course, may order all articles from an issue, on an individual basis. CATALYST is reviewed and indexed in the CURRENT INDEX TO JOURNALS IN EDUCATION and in ERIC and is available in microfilm and microfiche from University Microfilms International. Articles submitted for pub- lication are reviewed by the editorial staff and editorial board. Initiated in 1971, CATALYST is the second oldest continuously pub- lished journal in the community college field. It publishes practi- tioner-oriented articles on practices in continuing/community educa- tion as delivered by community colleges, including papers on research in the field. The journal is printed at Virginia Tech, a fact that makes it easier to coordinate the printed and electronic versions. FROM THE MAILBOX The mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. From Fred Friend, University College London, (ucyl@ucl.ac.uk): I am puzzled by Lelde Gilman's and Tony Stankus' worries about the future position of the US in the world of information. I agree that information and economic strength will probably in- creasingly be linked, but surely the key test is where the re- search is undertaken and where it is applied rather than where it is published. Is it not irrelevant whether for-profit publishers are based in Europe or the US? I do not think Europe is any stronger for having Elsevier, Pergamon and Springer based over here nor do I think the US is any weaker. They are international companies probably responsible to shareholders all over the world. However I do support the view that more research should be published by not-for-profit publishers, not for reasons of patri- otism but because learned societies are responsible to their members (academics) and not to accountants or shareholders. From Cindy Hepfer, SUNY-Buffalo Health Sciences Library, (HSLCINDY@ UBVM.BITNET): There's an article entitled "Copyright Law Needs to Include 'Fair Use' for Course Materials" by Raymond Tackett (faculty-publishing coordinator for Kopies & More) in THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION v. 38, no. 23 (Feb. 12, 1992). In the article, Tackett describes how difficult it is for faculty to comply with copy- right law and request permission to use articles or book chapters in course packets. He also discusses using Copyright Clearance Center. If anyone in libraries is not already aware of this prob- lem, it's a pretty good summary of the situation that exists. From Donna Lively, University of Texas at Arlington (B366DPL@ UTARLVM1.BITNET): About three years ago, I attended a certain conference in Oklaho- ma. There I listened, with growing dismay, to a certain dynamic speaker who had a lot to say about the serials pricing crisis and the role that certain European publishers were playing in goosing it along. After his talk, I asked him, "Aren't they (European publishers) afraid of killing the goose who lays the golden egg? Pretty soon few libraries in the US will be able to afford their product. What will they do for business then?" He answered that he himself had put that very question to a representative of one of the Euro-biggies who smirked at him and said, "If you Americans can't afford us, the Japanese will." As is typical with most Americans these days, I became immediate- ly depressed at the mention of the Japanese (to the point where I wished to think no more of the matter, and tried not to for a long while after). However, of late, I have begun to wonder if the Euro-biggie rep was not merely counting unhatched chickens. (Aesop is so useful.) The Japanese are known for adopting industrial and business prac- tices that are proven to work extremely well. It seems unlikely that they would buy heavily into a highly expensive research and information delivery system whose cost-effectiveness and effi- ciency are so very debatable for the buyer. And if they are not aware of the serious drawbacks to this system, then, perhaps, we should be making serious efforts to so inform them. From James Mouw, University of Chicago, (mouw@midway.uchicago.edu): Just received on STBS letterhead. 27th January, 1992 Dear Subscriber, RE: PAYMENT OF 1992 US$ RENEWALS Since we sent you our August 1991 Annual Billing Invoice there has been a depreciation of the Dollar against the ECU. Our prices are linked to the ECU so to bring these values back into alignment we are increasing our prices by an aver- age of 14.3% as from the 1st March 1992. Therefore a new invoice reflecting this increase will be sent to you on 1st February 1992. However, you will still have until 28/2/92 to pay the original invoice at the old price. Yours Sincerely, J. Walker Subscription Operations Manager ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET and ALANET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may re- ceive the Newsletter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respec- tively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET6158-6158; 118 LINES); Sun, 23 Feb 92 09:31:16 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Sun, 23 Feb 92 08:17 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0006 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Sun, 23 Feb 92 08:17 EST Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 08:16 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: BRIEF QUESTIONNAIRE To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 TO: Direct Subscribers to NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES FROM: Marcia Tuttle, Editor DATE: February 23, 1992 SUBJECT: Brief Questionnaire In late March I am speaking at the United Kingdom Serials Group on the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES. This gives me an opportunity to collect some data I have been wondering about for some time, namely, what you do with the newsletter and how you use its content. I will appreciate your help in answering these questions, and I will plan to summarize your responses in a future issue of the newsletter. I'd like to hear from you by March 6. You may return the questionnaire electronically, but please DO NOT "reply." If you do, your answers will go to more than 950 subscribers, and that would not be a good thing. To respond electronically, send or forward the completed questionnaire to: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. You are also welcome to respond by FAX to: 919 962-0484. Or by mail to: Marcia Tuttle, Serials Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938 USA. Thank you for your help! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES USER SURVEY 1. What do you usually do with issues of the newsletter (please check all that apply)? ___ read and delete ___ print and read ___ read and print (to keep) ___ print and route ___ read and print (to route) ___ log online and read ___ read and log online ___ download to disk and read ___ read and download to disk ___ read and forward electronically ___ other (please specify): 2. Approximately how many others see your copy of the newsletter? ___ 1-5 persons ___ 11-15 persons ___ more than 20 persons ___ 6-10 persons ___ 16-20 persons 3. What action have you taken in response to information in the newsletter (please mark all that apply)? ___ responded to the newsletter ___ discussed with coworkers ___ discussed with institution faculty/administration ___ discussed with colleagues located elsewhere ___ used in budget planning ___ used in cancellation/retention decisions ___ responded directly to a newsletter contributor ___ responded to the subject of a news item or article ___ cited in talk or article ___ other (please specify): 4. What do you like best about the newsletter? 5. It is apparent that we have occasional distribution problems, and we're working on resolving those (more about that in an upcoming issue). Aside from distribution, what could be improved (content, format, etc.)? 6. What changes would you like to see in the newsletter? 7. Other comments: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION Occupation: ___ librarian ___ faculty member/researcher/administration (nonlibrarian) ___ subscription agent ___ publisher ___ student ___ other (please specify): Location (state, province, or country): (Optional) Name: Title: Address: THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! PLEASE RETURN TO: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET, OR TO FAX NUMBER OR MAILING ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE. END OF QUESTIONNAIRE. ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET3467-3467; 444 LINES); Tue, 25 Feb 92 13:48:29 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Tue, 25 Feb 92 08:54 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0014 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Mon, 24 Feb 92 19:27 EST Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 19:26 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 19 - PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 19 -- February 25, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle PERGAMON PRICES IN FAXON DATABASE, Marcia Tuttle AMPLIFICATION OF THE REPORT ON AIP'S PUBLICATIONS BOARD IN NS 18, Ken Ford EUROPEANS, THE JAPANESE, AND SOCIETIES AS PUBLISHERS, Tony Stankus FROM THE MAILBOX FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. I sent a questionnaire to all direct subscribers of the newsletter on Sunday. For a talk I am giving at the United Kingdom Serials Group Conference in late March, I asked you to tell me what you do with the newsletter and how you respond to the information it contains. Thank you for the ones already returned; I'm listening! If anyone did not get a copy of the questionnaire or has "lost" it, I'll be happy to send you another. PERGAMON PRICES IN FAXON DATABASE Marcia Tuttle, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, TUTTLE@ UNC.BITNET. [On January 16 I FAXed the following letter to Michael Markwith, Re- gion Manager, The Faxon Company.] ---------- Dear Mike: I am working on UNC-CH's Faxon supplementary invoice dated 12/13/91, and I notice that once again my library is paying added charges for Pergamon titles. That happened last year, when our renewal invoice was dated September 18. Pergamon personnel told me then that they had already sent the 1991 prices to Faxon before that date. Faxon's re- sponse to my complaint was that updating the database was delayed for a few days, and the Pergamon (electronically-transmitted) prices were entered just after my invoice was run. This year the invoice was dated October 16, four weeks later. It again had out-of-date Pergamon prices. Another domestic subscription agency had the 1992 Pergamon prices on August 9, 1991 (and I assume that Faxon did, as well), and had them in their database by August 21. I must conclude that for some reason Faxon is deliberately delaying updating Pergamon prices, among the highest in the world and with the highest rates of increase. Is it to hide the true prices from librar- ies so they will order Pergamon titles, or so they will not cancel those they already subscribe to? Is it for use in competitive bidding against other subscription agents? This experience makes me question whether this practice is widespread with Faxon; have prices for other major publishers also been deliberately delayed? As a result of the publicity given Donald Koepp's action involving Pergamon titles and his resolution not to renew until he has firm prices, I have been instructed to consider taking similar action. Based on the last two years' experience, if UNC-CH followed Prince- ton's practice, our Pergamon titles with Faxon would be transferred to another subscription agent, one who will give me current pricing in- formation as soon as it is available. If, in fact, Faxon is deliberately withholding information from li- brarians about the actual cost of journals, I will feel obligated to share this concern with my colleagues through the NEWSLETTER ON SERI- ALS PRICING ISSUES. I will be happy to publish Faxon's reply as well. Sincerely, Marcia Tuttle, Head Serials Department ---------- [On February 12 I received the following letter from Mike Markwith] ---------- Dear Marcia: I am responding to your letter of January 16 and our discussions at the ALA Conference regarding: (1) Faxon's handling of 1992 Pergamon prices, and (2) the question of renewing without firm prices. The first is an operational question, the second a more philosophical one, and both are relative to timing issues. Faxon was late by two months in entering Pergamon 1992 prices in our databases. Quite honestly, we did not respond effectively to the ini- tial tape-load problem of August 23 as Jim [Smith] and I explained in detail during our meeting at ALA. According to Joel Baron, Vice Presi- dent and Chief Publications Officer, "we had some technical problems with the coding and were unable to read the (initial) tape." There were reprogramming requests of Pergamon, and other attempts to machine load the rates failed. We believed that the technical problems would be resolved quickly. Hindsight is 20-20. We were wrong, but not delib- erately so. I think the proof of our commitment to load new rates is in this year's electronic posting of rates for Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, and Springer to cite comparable publishers. I want to be clear and emphatic that there was no "deliberate delay" in updating Pergamon prices! As you know, we began advising our clients before ALA in June, 1991, of Pergamon's intention to revise U.S. pricing to a single worldwide exchange rate standard for 1992 renewals. During ALA and after, our client communication updates tried to continually keep everyone in- formed on latest price increase projections. It is ironic that we were trying diligently to load rates earlier and to keep everyone informed, yet the new Pergamon tape problems caused a longer delay than if we had manually keyed the new rates. All 1992 rate changes from Pergamon will be loaded into our database immediately upon receipt, regardless of any potential technical problem. Your concern for delayed pricing raises the larger question about renewing without fixed prices. This demands the attention of all par- ties in the "serials chain" -- publisher, library, vendor. As long as libraries ask us to renew early in their fiscal year, the availability of fixed prices is problematic. Many publishers, as you know, do not set their rates until they have a picture of projected orders or other influencing factors. This is a classic Catch-22. Faxon is working with publishers to provide earlier rates to better coincide with renewal patterns, i.e., June/July/August. To set the context, approximately 75% of our libraries normally renew by mid-August. Therefore, even a flawless Pergamon pricing tape-load by the end of August would result in 75% of our clients who would have supplemental billings on the Pergamon titles. I would like to pursue the possibilities of finding solutions to the "fixed price for renew- al" question. Could this be a Newsletter topic? A joint article? NASIG workshop? Would you like to pursue developing together a proposal or pilot project? As you know from our years of working together, I am committed to maintaining a long term client relationship based on honesty and pro- fessional service partnership. So is Faxon. The Pergamon tape load process was an anomaly in our standard operating procedures. In truth, our s.o.p. is to learn from all mistakes and implement rigorous best practice procedures for all business operations. As I mentioned on the phone, you have an open invitation to review our Total Quality program in person at Westwood or I could arrange for Rich Lynch, the manager of our Quality Program, to come to Chapel hill and share with you all our TQM experiences, programs, and future plans. With best regards, Michael Markwith Region Manager ---------- [I FAXed both my letter and Mike's response to a director of Pergamon Press in Oxford, England, for possible response. On Februry 18, I received the following letter.] --------- Dear Marcia, RE: Your correspondence with Faxon Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. I refer to the delay you have experienced in getting firm 1992 Pergamon prices from Faxon. Pergamon's 1992 prices were despatched to all major agents by courier on 16 August 1991. We are not aware of similar delays in updating Pergamon's prices with other agents. We hope to have 1993 prices available to agents by end July 1992. Yours sincerely, Mayur Amin General Manager, Market Research SPRINGER-VERLAG REORGANIZATION Press release dated February 12, 1992. In early January 1992, Springer-Verlag made the corporate decision to reorganize the international editorial activities. This consolidation, basically a concentration of acquisition efforts, will, undoubtedly, lead to stronger, more focussed programs in more Springer-Verlag of- fices around the world. It was necessary to attain the best results for our financial and human resources. As a result of our decision to combine some editorial programs, fif- teen people (6%) of Springer-Verlag New York's work force have been laid off, the first staff reduction in the twenty-eight-year existence of our house. In no way should this step be misunderstood by our loyal customers in libraries, bookstores, wholesalers and subscription agents. The new Springer office in Santa Clara, opened in November 1991 and dedicated to editorial activities in scientific computing and statistics, shows that, in its 150 years existence, Springer-Verlag is more than ever committed to publish the best and most up-to-date sci- entific, technical and medical materials and to provide support and service to all our customers. AMPLIFICATION OF THE REPORT ON AIP'S PUBLICATIONS BOARD IN NS 18 Kenneth Ford, Executive Director, American Institute of Physics, kwf@pinet.aip.org. AIP's Publications Board brings together once a year all of the edit- ors of our journals and the journals of our Member Societies. It is a valuable forum for the editors to discuss common problems, share ideas, and give advice to AIP and to each other on all manner of things from plagiarism to page charges. Newsletter NS 18 mentioned an idea that came from one of our editors at last year's meeting: that we produce member copies of journals with cheaper materials than are used for library copies. We did not follow up on this idea. With relatively short print runs, it is not a practi- cal step even if it were determined to have some merit otherwise. The report mentions "the problem of rising subscriptions." If only we had that problem! The report also says that our journals are online. So far only the abstracts and bibliographic information are online. Needless to say, we are talking about and thinking about the day when the journals will be fully online. An advanced composition system that has recently become operational at AIP will hasten that day. [My apologies to Ken Ford, AIP, and the AIP Publications Board for being in too big a hurry to get the last newsletter out. I omitted the word "prices" (rising subscription PRICES), and I misread ACS for APS.-ED.] EUROPEANS, THE JAPANESE, AND SOCIETIES AS PUBLISHERS Tony Stankus, Holy Cross, LIB_STAN@HLYCROSS.BITNET. Your latest Newsletter contained a particularly good comment on the remarks of Lelde Gilman and myself on shifts in world publishing of science. Owing to technical difficulties, I couldn't print the news- letter today and the name of this observer is lost to me, as was the exact wording of his or her comments. Nonetheless, here is my reply: 1. Where scientists choose to publish is surprisingly sociological. They do not always choose to publish in American journals, although these remain quite strong. The biggest change over the last ten years has been the return of many of the best European papers to pan-Europe- an Eurojournals. This is not a delusion. At least the Continental Europeans (as opposed to the British, in particular) have decided to cast their individual national society lots together and have genuine Eurojournals. There are practical financial reasons for this (with few exceptions like VCH among German chemists). Most individual European national societies have not been doing very well fielding respected titles on their own. Many were not widely taken outside of their own countries and many had been doing badly in perceived ratings services such as citation rankings. The solution was not usually to give one national society press the job of issuing the consolidated Eurojour- nal, it was to turn the Eurojournal over to one of the European-based corporate publishers who had the distribution network, technical know- how, and the financial resources to "do it right." This means that Elsevier, Springer, Karger, Kluwer, IRL, etc. now control more and more of both the loyalty of an increasingly proud Euro-community of scientists and the ultimate access to those journals. The idea that the shareholders of these corporations are widely spread across many countries, including a substantial bloc of US shareholders with Ameri- can perspectives and loyalties, is simply not true. They are almost exclusively "Euro"-held and "Euro"-minded. I am not surprised by the anecdote concerning the notion that if the Americans won't pay maybe the Japanese will. As the American share of their subscription bases shrink, American reactions to their price increases may become less important, rather than more important. The EC is feeling and flexing its muscle these days, and looking out for itself. 2. Having said all this, I agree heartily that some Europublishers are making a mistake "counting eggs that may not have hatched" as real, live chickens. I have very heavily researched not only Japanese, but several other Pacific Rim publishing patterns and find that there is a reassuring conservatism out there: for Asian scientists, and for their librarians, US society journals are very much number 1. The sociocul- tural traditions that bind together Europeans both in the past and in their EC reincarnation of today are alien to most Asians. They worry about "keiretsu's and "Zaibatsu"s" forming scientifically that will make it harder from them to crack the "Eurojournals" with their manu- scripts. They know that they are neither Belgians, nor Germans, nor French, nor are they "Eurocitizens," and they feel that it might be best to avoid complications. By contrast, they know that the Americans have few prejudices with regard to their scientific manuscripts and will handle them very well. The most cited papers from Japan, year- after-year, are the ones that appear in American journals. "Why tamper with a winning formula?" they ask themselves. Curiously, owing to historical bad experiences, there is very little feeling that Japan ought to be the nucleus for any "Asian Co-Prosperi- ty Sphere" that matches the rise of the Europublishers. The Koreans, Taiwanese, Singaporeans, Hong Kong Chinese, and Malayasians like and trust Americans more than they like and trust the Japanese both indus- trially and scientifically. The sentiments that the Japanese have expressed concerning the Anericans are nothing like the epithets that the Japanese have long made well-known for their Asian "brothers." Ironically, the Japanese are not offended by being seen as somewhat feared and disliked by other Asians (it makes them proud even now) nor by being seen as somehow dependent on American journals in order to be published (they view that as long as the article is well-circulated, let the American societies bear the journal infrastructure costs of publishing). They don"t need to own all America to sell all those cars! FROM THE MAILBOX The mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. From Helen M. Shuster, (hshuster@wpi.WPI.EDU): Do have any specifics on how the periodical prices are affecting small to medium sized college libraries? I read about the huge cuts that large University libraries are implementing, and this is interesting, but we would be interested in other smaller col- lege libraries' specifics on dealing with the price increases. For example, we subscribe to approximately 1450 periodical titles at a cost last year of $395,469 and 760 standing order titles at a cost of $75,743. We have been cutting our periodical costs between $20,000 to $25,000 for each of the last few years with the input and cooperation of faculty, but have been able to add some new titles up until this current fiscal year. We have cut our standing orders about $5,000 for the past two years. We pur- chased 2 passwords to CARL Uncover a year ago -- the access is available over the campus network -- and this year we also are paying for the cost of faxing articles located in Uncover to see whether this is useful in light of having to cut subscriptions. From Deana Astle, Clemson University (DLAST@CLEMSON.BITNET): Just got the following letter from Faxon. RE: Bio/technology The publisher has notified Faxon that their 1992 subscrip- tion rate information upon which we based our 1992 subscrip- tion payments is incorrect. Although the publisher has accepted our orders at the incorrect price for your 1992 subscripitons and YOU WILL NOT BE BILLED FOR THE BALANCE, we feel that this information should be noted in your files for future reference. The publisher is Nature Publishing Co., a US subsidiary of Mac- millan, London. The old rate is $98; the new rate is $198. This is a refreshing change. From Fred Friend, Librarian, University College London (ucyl@ucl.ac. uk): My message to the AIP if I were addressing them would be to urge them to get into their hands an even higher proportion of the good quality publication than they have now. Nobody will miss the poor quality work if it is never published but we must ensure that the good quality work is published by publishers with aca- demic interests at heart. From Jim Thompson, University of California at Riverside (THOMPSON@UCRVMS.BITNET): In regard to the last item in No. 18: not all your readers may know, though some who don't know may be interested to learn, that STBS is a Gordon & Breach affiliate. From David Foott, Caulfield Campus, Monash University, Victoria, Aus- tralia (DFOOTT@fcit-c1.fcit.monash.edu.au): In a previous life [as a Systems Librarian] I'd massaged 4 years' data to produce a pricing model that was pretty hopeless at an- ticipating price variations [always upward?] for individual ti- tles, but managed a global prediction of +/- 1.5% for a small library with about 2,500 subscriptions. The Australian situation is made even more complex by the fact that our currency fluctu- ates against every other currency -- at least in the US your US prices don't have that variable. My model was a simple one, look- ing at price variations over previous years, and weighting the influence of more recent changes. There were other variables built in -- currency of country of origin, currency of country of agency, etc. The type of data your Newsletter produces would've been realy useful to me then, as I was always worried that the projected prices were inaccurate, and an outside reliable source to confirm trends would've helped. From: hshuster@wpi.WPI.EDU(Helen M Shuster) We received a four paragraph letter from Pergamon yesterday (not to us specifically, just addressed "Dear Librarian") and the whole letter concerned SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS. The last para- graph clearly states that libraries can choose to subscribe to each title together or separately. I called our account rep at Faxon again and told her about the letter. She still said that all the information they had was that the added charge was for the original title -- SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS. So I faxed her the letter. She called me to say that she had received my two faxes (one a copy of the information from this newsletter on the separate pricing of SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS and APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY; and the other the letter from Pergamon stating that separate pricing was available). She told me that their rate sheets from Pergamon call for one price for SOLID STATE ELECTRONICS including APPLIED SUPERCONDICTIVITY and a separate price for APPLIED SUPER- CONDUCTIVITY by itself. So as we still wanted SOLIC STATE ELEC- TRONICS, under this scenario we had to get (and pay for) APPLIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY as well. Anyway, Faxon is going to contact Pergamon, and offer refunds...... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET and ALANET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may re- ceive the Newsletter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respec- tively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET4457-4457; 273 LINES); Tue, 03 Mar 92 08:59:37 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Mon, 2 Mar 92 20:47 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0015 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Mon, 2 Mar 92 20:46 EST Date: Mon, 02 Mar 92 20:44 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 20 - PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 20 -- March 4, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle LETTER TO FACULTY OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY, Emily Mobley HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS, Chuck Hamaker FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. You'll notice that this issue of the newsletter is shorter. By re- quest, via the questionnaires! Next issue very soon. LETTER TO FACULTY OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY Emily Mobley, Dean of Libraries, Purdue University; mobley@mentor. cc.purdue.edu. [Reprinted with permission of the author.] January 22, 1992 The Faculty of Purdue University Dear Colleagues: Continuing increases in the costs of scholarly journal/serials sub- scriptions have caused great debate in many disciplines and certainly in library science literature. Unfortunately the search for solutions has caused tensions among publishers, librarians, faculty, and admin- istrators. These increases are due to a complex set of events. Some of the reasons include: increased production costs due to the size of the scholarly output, postage, devaluation of the U.S. dollar, changes in pricing policies, more publication abroad, and the number of mergers and acquisitions among publishers. Regardless of the reasons, the cost of purchasing scholarly journals has well outpaced inflation for a number of years. Research libraries throughout the nation have been grappling with the problem of serials inflation for years. Unfortunately the issue is still very much here, and while in some years the price increases ameliorate somewhat, the price trend is continually upward beyond normal inflation. The situation is exacerbated because these increases come during a period when higher education in general is faced with shrinking resources. My purpose in writing you at this time is to make sure you are aware that the Purdue University Libraries are suffering the same increases in serials prices. Like other libraries, we have purchased fewer books, received additional funding, secured more resource sharing agreements with other libraries, decreased personnel, and used other creative approaches. Until now, we have avoided reductions in serials subscriptions. We find that we no longer can avoid this measure. Pur- due has been extremely fortunate, because we are the only Big Ten institution which has not embarked on a serials reduction project in the last eight years. The more common occurrence in the Big Ten and other research libraries, both large and small, has been yearly reduc- tions with accelerating amounts in the last two years. This academic year alone, reductions total well over $1 million in the Big Ten, even though Michigan, Ohio State and Purdue do not have reduction projects underway. Michigan State has cancelled serials every year since 1984. MIT, in reporting that faculty has selected over 1,000 titles for cancellation, states that this was the second major cancellation proj- ect in the last three years. Purdue's serials expenditures doubled between 1986 and 1991, from $1.5 million to over $3 million annually. The Libraries closed out 6 of the last 7 years with deficits in the serials budget, even though extra monies were allocated at the beginning of a year and additional monies were received during the year. Some examples are -- in FY88, we re- ceived a 10% increase in the serials base budget, received another $223,000 during the year and still closed the year with a $351,000 deficit; in FY89 we received a 15% increase in the serials base bud- get, received another $175,000 during the year and still closed the year with a $189,000 deficit; and in FY91, the deficit was $186,000 even though there was a 7% increase in the base budget and additional monies were received during the year. This year, FY92, the base budget was not increased (nor was it reduced by the mandatory 2% applied to other budget units). Inflation is now estimated at an average of 11% although I have examples of 30-80% increases for some titles published by Pergamon. The University administration has made provisions to help cover the $530,000 projected deficit by June 1992. Early projections for FY93 suggest average price increases in the range of 10%. Without a reduction in serials expenditures, the deficit in June 1993 will approach $1,000,000 for that one year alone. Clearly we have a serious problem on our hands. Many of you may feel that since overall library expenditures at Purdue place us at the bottom of Big Ten institutions, any attempt to reduce serials should be resisted. However, the situation is quite different if only serials expenditures are considered. Our current serials expenditures place Purdue just below the mid-point in the Big Ten. Additionally, the ratio of Purdue's expenditures for serials versus those for books and other materials is higher than any major library, including MIT. We have the highest ratio among Big Ten universities of undergraduate to graduate students (undergraduates typically use more books), yet our expenditures for books are only 21% of total materials expenditures, while expenditures for serials are 78%. The final 1% is spent on mic- roforms, documents, audio-visual, and other miscellaneous materials. An Ad Hoc Serials Committee, with faculty representatives from each School, was appointed late last summer by Vice President Donald R. Brown to make recommendations concerning the serials problem. The Committee met throughout the fall and came forward with recommenda- tions which included a serials reduction project of $500,000 to take effect with 1993 subscriptions, a formula for reduction, and other recommendations for developing longer range solutions. The Committee felt that it was important that all faculty have an opportunity to participate, particularly if one's literature needs are served by a library other than one's primary library (e.g., Technology faculty outside of Aviation Technology do not have a School Library and are served by the Engineering, HSSE, or Krannert Libraries; Pharmacy fac- ulty are heavy users of the Chemistry Library). With these recommenda- tions in mind, a serials reduction has been planned by the Libraries. The serials reduction project will begin the first week of February. Each library has a target figure to meet based on the formula devel- oped by the Committee. The formula "taxes" a library according to its overall serials expenditures and the amount of its expenditures for titles duplicated in other libraries. The timetable for the serials reduction project is as follows: 2/1-3/15 Librarians will work with their library committees and other interested faculty to prioritize titles. 3/15-3/30 Draft cancellation lists ready for all librarians to review. 4/1-4/15 List of all cancellation recommendations will be avail- able in each library for faculty review. 4/15-4/30 Deadline for faculty comments 5/1-5/15 Libraries Serials Review Committee will do final review and negotiate any difficult decisions remaining. 5/15-6/30 Serials acquisitions will verify accuracy and begin process of cancellation. 7/1 Project completion. If you wish to have a voice in this project for those titles which are not held in your primary library (e.g., your School or Departmental Library), please contact the librarian listed on the attached page. If you use only your primary library, you need to do nothing further, as your desires should be made known via the process set up by your li- brary. The tear-sheet on the attached page may be used for your con- venience. Please send it directly to the librarian listed. Serials reduction is never a pleasant task. Many hard decisions must be made and the work is frankly labor-intensive and thankless. Howev- er, we have reached the end of our ability to absorb the continually escalating prices. And again, I must iterate that even after this major cancellation, we still project a significant budget deficit. Thanks in advance for your understanding and participation. The uni- versity administration has been extremely supportive through these many years of deficits. The problem has reached such dimensions that there is no alternate recourse. Of course, if you wish to discuss this with me, or communicate otherwise about the state of affairs, please don't hesitate to contact me. My extension is 4-2900. Sincerely yours, Emily R. Mobley Dean of Libraries HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, NOTCAH@LAUVM.BITNET. On March 5th and 6th there will be a meeting of the International Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM for short) in Amsterdam. The agenda is Document Delivery and Electronic Storage. This is may be the single largest concern facing publishers, probably even more threatening than serials cancellations, at the moment. Right now they don't know how to respond to requests from FAXON and CARL and, even more than those two, many of the largest corporate librar- ies, for the right to scan and store texts electronically. Thinking goes something like this. Because you can do more with the digitized text than you can with the printed text (and more than with the bitmapped page which is being used in ADONIS and Elsevier's TULIP project, because it costs less to send than the bitmapped page), you should pay more for copyright fees for having the right to scan and send electronic text. We don't have it right now, but if a SISAC standard were evolved for article level identifiers, ordering articles could be automated to the point where no human hands are needed once the article is in "your" database. The fear is of course that the commercial services will make a killing off of this format. Storage needs for digitized text are considerably less than bitmapped pages, and instead of slowing down the networks, digitized text even with current phone systems, would move smoothly along. Digitized text is also much more indexable than bitmapped text, so holders of digitized text could develop in-context indexing (cutting out other players in the field). That, from my perspective is a reactionary approach. It is fearful not only of income stream, but of textual "integrity." So why shouldn't I as a librarian applaud publishers for this approach? Because they are missing the obvious. Libraries have a much different approach in the electronic world than commercial entities. First, let's talk about preservation. Because long term access to text is the primary respon- sibility for libraries, we are as committed to protecting the text from change as any publisher. Wouldn't it make just as much sense for publishers to establish, in cooperation with libraries, primary text banks at different nodes in the electronic network, read-only nodes, where the individual could purchase the text (in digitized form, please, bitmapped is just asking for high-priced destruction of the system)? And could always go to get the "Original" when she needed it?? With libraries and their institutions as guardians of the sacred text, there is a built-in institutional guarantee of that. And as for charging on what I often call a pay-per-peek basis, this mechanism with guaranteed access to a stable text, could actually result in a regular and predictable income flow for the publisher. I'm sure there are libraries out in libraryland right now who would be delighted to establish such electronic archives with individual pub- lishers and would be willing to work to establish access and charging systems. Several library-related consortia, I would guess, would also be interested in some real pilot projects that weren't intended to bankrupt computer systems. What's the alternative? Let me suggest the worst case scenario. Only large and well funded corporate libraries "buy" electronic rights. What happens to Professor X or Ms. Jones who wants a text in electronic format? The simplest case is the same as we have seen in the video industry. The cost for individual scanners drops to humane levels and the individual buys his own for his own use. The copyright arguments are similar to those used in the case of VCR's. Instead of time-shifting, which is the rationale for taping on- air programs, we have the much simpler rationale of format-shifting, which lets the individual run his own indexing, cut-and-paste, and archival operation on his personal desktop. Without a readily availa- ble "official" and inexpensive electronic format, then comes the pub- lisher's worst nightmare. The text gets kicked up on a phone line to Dr. Smith on the other side of the world. And from there who knows where it goes or in what form. But with readily accessible, reasonably priced, "official" electronic archive nodes, the nightmare scenario doesn't have to exist. My guess is that most publishers will have to have the nightmare before they come out of their reactionary dreams. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the News- letter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET4066-4066; 345 LINES); Tue, 10 Mar 92 00:04:10 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Mon, 9 Mar 92 20:36 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0004 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Mon, 9 Mar 92 20:35 EST Date: Mon, 09 Mar 92 19:54 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 21 -- PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 21 -- March 10, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS WHAT SHOULD PAT BERGER TELL THE AIP PUBLICATIONS BOARD? FURTHER TO FAXON/PERGAMON/PRICING COMMENTS ON "HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS" HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS, Chuck Hamaker WHAT SHOULD PAT BERGER TELL THE AIP PUBLICATIONS BOARD? Various subscribers. From Theresa Connaughton, Los Alamos National Laboratory (theresa. connaughton@hyperion.lanl.gov): Our Librarians and scientists are quite concerned about the rising costs of physics journals. We spent $132k last fiscal year for AIP journals. The Laboratory also had an institutional membership (in flusher times) but AIP did not allow the lower membership rates to be applied to the Library's subscriptions. Therefore, we pay full price not only for Library copies but for dozens of subscriptions that go directly to our scientists but are paid for through programmatic funds. We have never "cheated" AIP by getting member copies of any of their journals for the Library but we are concerned that maybe we are paying twice for the same information. That is, we do our share to support AIP as our authors spent $77k last year for reprints and page charges and then we pay again to receive the journals themselves. I'd like to see some financial break granted to those institutional sub- scribers like us who routinely support the activities of AIP through its various publications programs. ---------- From Siegfried Ruschin, Linda Hall Library (NDAY@NMKCVAX1.BITNET): With reference to your request in no. 18 (February 18) of the NEWSLET- TER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES, I would like to comment on the high subscription prices that some professional societies charge to librar- ies. We tend to assume, and some studies reinforce this assumption, that journals published by societies generally cost less than similar jour- nals produced by commercial publishers. But it must not be overlooked that the policies of many societies also raise serious questions. It is perhaps egotistical to quote oneself. In 1985, I said in an article in the SERIALS LIBRARIAN It seems pertinent, at this point, to reflect on some basic ques- tions, including the purpose of scientific communication, partic- ularly as promoted by learned institutions. Many of the scientific societies in the U.S. as well as in other countries have largely transferred their publishing responsibili- ties to commercial enterprises or have in fact themselves become major publishing houses. Historically, the purpose of these soci- eties was to serve their members and the scientific community at large. It was to this end that they founded and supported their own journals. In a questionable reversal, journals now help sup- port many societies. Who benefits, one asks, and who should pay? This still seems to me to be the crucial question. Should it be up to libraries to underwrite the publishing activities of professional societies whose members, after all, benefit from the services of the same libraries and in many instances admittedly could not do their work without these services? This touches, of course, on broader ques- tions about the equity and efficiency of the present system of distri- bution of scientific knowledge. FURTHER TO FAXON/PERGAMON/PRICING Various subscribers. From Robert Stafford, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (ROBERTS@VAX7.cc.monash.edu.au): Adrian Alexander of Faxon and other serial agents may indeed be "con- stantly looking for ways to improve and expedite the flow of pricing information" (Newsletter 18). But his assurance that this enthusiasm extends to publishers is not so convincing. It does not sit well with his own observation that publishers often require us to renew sub- scriptions before telling us the price. Do major publishers not know how much they will charge for their prod- ucts? More importantly do they not decide on the price? One gets the impression of rather hapless large corporations who are entirely at the mercy of powerful researchers, insistent on publication. Thus the reluctant publishers are forced to increase prices. If this happens after most of the orders are in, well that is just unfortunate. Further evidence of some serial publishers' enthusiasm for spreading price information can be adduced from the policy favoured by some of omitting all mention of price from the text of their journals. Others only publish the price to individuals, while some show only a volume price without indicating the large number of volumes published per year, and that these volumes are comprised of issues bound together. This Library has been the victim of such freeflowing information in too many cases. We are currently reviewing our use of serial agents and will look favourably on those who can tell us the price of what we are buying, before we decide to buy. When prices of our existing sub- scriptions are increased beyond what appears to be reasonable, we will review our need for the titles invoiced as if considering them for the first time. ---------- From Pamela Bluh, University of Maryland Law Library (PBLUH@UMAB. BITNET): Read with interest your correspondence with Faxon/Pergamon. Don't know if this comment is relevant, and you may already be aware of this. When we bid our periodical subscriptions, we have asked for bids based on both supplementary billing and no supplementary billing, and then have made our decision. While the quotes are usually higher if the vendor offers to absorb price increases after the annual invoice has been paid, we like to have the chance to weigh that against the staff time required to enter data more than once. Up until now, I think going with the higher service charge has been worthwhile for us. Whether we continue that once we are able to load invoice tapes (or transmit them electronically) is questionable, because then hopefully some of the human element will be removed from the transaction. Just a thought. ---------- From David Shontz, University of Florida (DAVSHON@NERVM.BITNET): I admire Mr. Koepp and the Princeton Libraries' response to the pric- ing policies of Pergamon, and believe it was a reasonable measured response to the situation. But I don't know that it will be suffi- cient. The reason is the "unit price" relationship. Let's say that Princeton has been subscribing to 10 Pergamon journals at a cost of $300 per journal. Pergamon doubles its rates to $600 per journal. Mr. Koepp responds by cutting 5 journals, paying Pergamon a total of $3000, just as before the price increase. Pergamon now receives $3000 for 5 journal subscriptions instead of 10. Their "unit cost" is now lower than before the reduction. At least, they have saved on printing costs for that particular subscription. Over time, if enough subscribers drop those same titles, Pergamon can save the entire overhead of producing the ceased titles without reduc- ing its revenue, generating more profit. If Pergamon and other publishers do not respond to the first measure of "No new money," the next step must be to a "no new profit" strate- gy, where subscriptions are reduced to the point where a publisher actually suffers a reduced profit. This is a somewhat trickier strate- gy since it requires some knowledge of journal production costs, but it can be approximated. ---------- From Jim Mouw, University of Chicago (mouw@midway.uchicago.edu): I have been following the saga of Faxon's input of Pergamon prices with great interest. Not necessarily because of the vendor and pub- lisher involved in this case, but rather because of the broader ques- tions raised by this specific example. Let's ask ourselves "Is there any reason a vendor would possibly wish to delay the input of current prices?" Think of the following scenario: A publisher will have large price increases for the next year. Vendors know about this anticipated in- crease through preliminary information received from the publisher. [A side question here, "Do vendors know preliminary pricing information before libraries?] This publisher's titles represent a significant portion of the ven- dor's business. In addition, these are high profit titles since the vendor receives a large discount from the publisher. The vendor knows that many of its customers are involved in cancella- tion projects and are targeting those titles with the largest percen- tage increases. At the same time, the vendor is preparing proposals for several major accounts, and is using current prices from its data- base as the basis of those proposals. By delaying input of new prices the vendor has prevented the (signifi- cantly higher) new prices from displaying in its online system and from printing on reports. This will result in old information to pre- sent customers, and will result in bids being run from old prices. This period extends into the time in which most renewal invoices are processed. This vendor's policy is to invoice either the new price if known, or to invoice at last year's price (with a supplemental to follow). The vendor does not "estimate" prices. The result of this is that all libraries are invoiced at the old price. The supplemental invoice, with new prices, arrives after the cancellation date. The present customers are notified about these large price increases when it is too late to cancel using normal procedures. It may still be possible to cancel, but the vendor will keep the entire service charge because they have already "serviced the title." The new custom- ers, who selected the vendor based on the bid proposal, are hit with a large, unexpected, supplemental invoice. Now, the question for all of us is: "Is this a legitimate scenario, and is the potental for backfiring worth the gamble for any vendor?" I believe that the case in point is simply an example of Faxon's mis- management of the Pergamon pricing information. However, I do find the questions raised by this episode to be most interesting, and I hope to see more discussion on these issues. COMMENTS ON "HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS" Various subscribers From Joe Santosuosso, Faxon (SANTOSUOSSO@FAXON.COM): This note is to remedy an impression that readers may have received from a recent item in HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS concerning document deliv- ery and electronic storage where Chuck Haymaker writes "We don't have it right now, but if a SISAC standard were evolved for article level identifiers, ordering articles could be automated to the point where no human hands are needed once the article is in 'your' database." In fact, there is an ANSI/NISO standard, developed by a SISAC subcom- mittee, for article level identifiers: ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1991, Serial Item and Contribution Identifier. ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1991, commonly referred to as "the SICI standard" defines the requirements for unique identifiers for serial items and the contributions contained in them. The standard covers popular magazines as well as scholarly journals, newspapers, and non-print serials. To date discussion and implementa- tion have focused on the serial item portion of the SICI. Publishers from the ICEDIS group (International Committee for EDI for Serials: Elsevier, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, John Wiley & Sons, Kluwer, Perga- mon, Royal Society of Chemistry, Springer Verlag, Taylor & Francis) are sending agents dispatch advice with SICI's as serial item identi- fiers. ICEDIS requires the presence of a SICI in the dispatch message. The contribution identifier portion of the SICI is well provided for in ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1991, and the SISAC subcommittees that are working on EDI/X12 conventions for transactions such as orders, claims, can- cellations, and invoices are making provisions for those messages to carry both the serial item and the contribution identifier portions of the SICI. ---------- From Peter Sutherland, American Institute of Physics (peters@AIP. BITNET): In NS20 Chuck Hamaker wishes for a SISAC standard for article level identifiers. Please be advised, this does exist. It is very new, but very real. As a participant in SISAC, I would like to spread the word about ANSI/ NISO Z39.56-1991 Serial Item and Contribution Identifier (SICI). This is designed to be an article level identifier, and was approved on July 15, 1991. We do now have a national standard for the unique identification of all serials articles. This, coincident with the market pressure to- wards electronic document delivery of journal articles, should lead to some interesting new ways of moving information. We shall see. The ANSI/NISO Z39.56-1991 standard document is published by Transac- tion Press, Rutgers - the State University of New Jersey New Bruns- wick, NJ 08903; tel 908-932-2280; Fax 908-932-3138. HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, NOTCAH@LSUVM.BITNET. Just wanted to let you all know that the "possible" use of scanners to input text is not a maybe-it-will-happen-someday situation. I read one listserver that is offering the introduction and summary in scanned format of a book published in 1991 by Oxford University Press. The individual who scanned the text does make a case for buying the book, so OUP might see this as free publicity. But since actual text was scanned and offered to other readers of the list, my "prediction" of last week was barely ahead of reality. Widespread use of scanning equipment for specialist reader groups is not just a possibility but a very likely scenario. It is happening now. And available in networked form to anyone who can handle FTP. Some of the "standard" texts, (i.e., King James Version of the Bible) are of course also available on various listserver/file server bases. We are going to be seeing much more of this, I would guess, as books or articles come along that are of special interest to narrow groups of people. Because the technology is available now, and the practice is happening now, reactionary tactics from publishers need to be changed rapidly to prevent the same disaster that struck the big three television net- works. The advent of cable and VCRs radically changed both market share or viewer share and revenues. I think it very likely that the same dynamics that broke television viewership down (i.e., choice (cable) and ease of use (VCRs)) will soon be at work in the electronic information environment. And the mechanisms are remarkably similar, (i.e., networks and PCs with various enhancements). All it will take is a little technical experience and, voila. I repeat my warning. Publishers need to cooperate (not just create costly alternatives) with libraries and library systems or we will see increasing textual anarchy. And ultimately tighter revenue streams for traditional publishers. Information is viewed by individuals as a public good. If pricing and availability make information elitist, the tools exist to challenge and gut traditional distribution and pricing methods. Many individuals are using them already. In addition to the book intro. I just mentioned, I read today on one list full text of an editorial from a student newspaper. Once again, it's an isolated inci- dent, but I believe it is the future. Science and technology journal articles could be prime candidates. In opting for narrow audience, prohibitive pricing and lack of ready access, STM journal publishers have set the stage for such behavior. I suggest publishers look at Ken Auletta's new book THREE BLIND MICE for an inside look at how a sure thing can be lost very quickly when technological change and lack of vision combined to hamstring the Big Three networks' monopoly posi- tion. It took less than ten years. My guess is the STM system as we know it has much less time than that. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the News- letter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET6098-6098; 346 LINES); Sat, 14 Mar 92 12:02:16 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Sat, 14 Mar 92 08:46 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0043 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Sat, 14 Mar 92 08:45 EST Date: Sat, 14 Mar 92 08:43 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 22 - PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 22 -- March 14, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS , Marilyn Geller E-JOURNALS: STIRRING THE WATERS, Birdie MacLannan SUBSCRIPTION RATES, Danny Jones LIBRARIES AS ARCHIVAL NODES, Peter Graham FROM THE MAILBOX Marilyn Geller, MIT, MGELLER@ATHENA.MIT.EDU CITATIONS FOR SERIAL LITERATURE Purpose: To identify literature related to the serials industry To disseminate this information in a timely manner To create an index with electronic searching capabilities Scope: Complete table of contents (and abstracts when available) for: Serials Review Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues Selective table of contents for: Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory College and Research Libraries CITATIONS FOR SERIAL LITERATURE is an electronic serial which publish- es the table of contents and abstracts, when available, for articles related to the serials industry. It is not an electronic discussion list. Messages sent to the list will be received by the editor but will not be passed on to subscribers. The value of this electronic serial is in the creation of a database of citations pertaining to the serials industry which can be used for both current awareness and research. The format of this database will allow subscribers to take advantage of the electronic medium's speed of information dissemination and searching capabilities. Currently this database includes table of contents for all issues of NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (in CSL volume 1, no. 1-19), table of con- tents and abstracts for SERIALS REVIEW, volume 17, no. 4 (in CSL vol- ume 1, no. 19), and selective table of contents and abstracts for LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS: PRACTICE AND THEORY, volume 16, number 1 (in CSL volume 1, no. 19). It is the intention of the editor to expand the number of journals included in this database. Editors and publishers interested in par- ticipating in this project should contact the editor at: sercites@ mitvma.mit.edu or mgeller@athena.mit.edu to discuss the possibility. To subscribe to CITATIONS FOR SERIAL LITERATURE: BITNET: send a one line message to sercites@mitvma that reads: sub sercites Internet: send an email message to: listserv@mitvma.mit.edu in the body of the message: sub sercites CITATIONS FOR SERIAL LITERATURE is edited and published by Marilyn Geller. E-JOURNALS: STIRRING THE WATERS Birdie MacLennan, University of Vermont, BMACLENN@UVMVM.BITNET. [Reprinted from SERIALST.] Electronic publications were the topic of lively and provocative dis- cussion at at least two of the meetings I attended at ALA- Midwinter: the LITA/ALCTS Serials Automation Interest Group, and the recently formed ALCTS Electronic Publishing Discussion Group. Both forums were filled to capacity. In the first forum, Gail McMillan (Virginia Tech) and Marilyn Geller (MIT) gave an overview of work being done at their institutions to facilitate public awareness of, and access to, e-jour- nals. In the second forum, Barbara Winters (Wright State U.) led a discussion that underscored the need for an ALCTS group to monitor developments in the area of electronic publishing. A healthy show of hands, in this forum, indicated that a large number of people in the audience were involved in some kind of work to accommodate this rela- tively new medium at their home institutions. Having easy access to an e-mail account and being a beneficiary of information from numerous e-publications and discussion forums, I do not question the ripening of the e-medium and/or the promise that it holds as an alternative to printed sources -- particularly as I watch this year's round of subscription cuts. Nonetheless, an innocent con- versation with colleagues from reference and collection management departments at my home institution has led me to wonder if I might not find some tactful way to play devil's advocate in the current wave of e-journal controversy. Here goes: While many institutions seem concerned with a need to dive head first into making e-journals as accessible as possible, I wonder if there are institutions out there that are purposefully dragging their feet on this issue because: (a) they lack staffing and/or resources to make e-journals available, (b) they're not convinced that e-journals could/ should fall into the scope of their missions, (c) they're not con- vinced that the medium is "there" yet (i.e., too much text; not enough easy translation of a graphics capability that is so often necessary in science & technical literature), or (d) other reasons that haven't been named. Informal dialogue with public services staff has indicated that there's been no demand for public access to e-journals here. My per- ception is that people are encouraged to get e-accounts, offered guid- ance on use the networks and the resources they offer, and taught to go after whatever interests them in a given, or variety of subject area(s). If and when there is a need to do more than this, presumably we'll hear about it and move to make a more public form of access available.... In the meantime, we're watching... and waiting... and involved in many other projects that demand our attention. What are other people/institutions doing? I'd be particularly interes- ted in hearing from some of our overseas colleagues on this one... P.S. This commentary is my own and does not necessarily reflect the views of my institution. SUBSCRIPTION RATES Danny Jones, University of Texas Health Science Center, JONES@ UTHSCSA1.BITNET. Date: February 25, 1992 To: Carleton C. Stewart Editor-in-Chief Journal of Leukocyte Biology From: Daniel H. Jones, M.L.S. Assistant Library Director for Collection Development Subject: Subscription cost of the journal I am writing to express grave concern about the pricing structure for the JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY. According to a recent mailing I received the subscription rates are as follows: _____________ Domestic rates for 1992: Regular membership (includes JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY) $48 Institutional subscription to the Journal $696 Foreign rates for 1992: Regular membership (includes JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY) $96 Institutional subscription to the Journal (Canada & Mexico) $716 Institutional subscription to the Journal (outside N Am) $816.50 _____________ At these rates I must wonder if libraries are not substantially under- writing the cost of the society's journal and other activities as well. Having examined an issue of the journal I am confident that individual subscribers cannot be paying the cost of the twelve high quality issues they receive yearly and I can only conclude that the difference is being made up by gouging libraries. While the practice of separate prices for individual and institutional subscribers is becoming more widespread, it is unusual to see institutional rates of 14.5 times the individual rate as is the case with the JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY; I consider this an abuse of institutional pricing. It is difficult to imagine a practicing scientist who is unaware of the difficulties their libraries are facing because of the rapidly escalating prices of journals. And it is most distressing to see a journal published by a scientific society behaving in such a predatory fashion. While the JOURNAL OF LEUKOCYTE BIOLOGY did not increase its price for 1992, it seems clear that institutional subscribers are carrying an unfair share of the cost of publishing the journal. We will be reviewing our subscription for 1993 and will not make a renew- al decision until we have a firm price. LIBRARIES AS ARCHIVE NODES: THOUGHTS AFTER READING HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Peter Graham, Rutgers University, GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET. Hamaker's comments are very interesting and pointed. Let me enlarge on one issue he raises. The idea of official archive nodes is an interes- ting and good one, and has come up before; he has fleshed it out use- fully. The point I'd like to make is that I observe that university computing centers have not typically been interested or particularly expert in maintenance of data on line for long periods, i.e., archiv- ally (many do well at providing tapes for long periods, e.g. of ICPSR data). This seems to me in the current electronic information to be precisely the role for libraries -- that is, to assert their archival role in the electronic format. This would mean the library systems groups and collection development group working on providing a file server that from day one was inten- ded to archive data for long periods of time; thus file integrity and upward compatability in the future would be important as original design specifications. For example, it would militate against the use of specialized library systems and in favor of the use of de facto or de jure industry data standards, e.g. files that could be shipped using NFS or using standard IBM software. These details are not the point of my present comment; the point is that here is a very real case of the generality we've talked about, that is, the need for libraries to get into the electronic information provision activities in a dirty-hands way. My own argument has been that this is exactly the useful role for the technical services people (working with library systems people and university computing people), as they have the skills and analytic capabilities that will be re- quired. FROM THE MAILBOX The mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. From Hannah King, SUNY HSC Library at Syracuse (KINGH@SNYSYRV1): We need to prepare a budget by the beginning of April and we're trying to figure out what kind of increase in serials prices we can look forward to. Faxon says they're coming out with a predic- tion next week. But I'm wondering what you and your contacts are predicting. From Christine Christiansen, University of Miami (CCHRISTI@UMIAMI. BITNET): It seems to me that there is a recent increase in order direct policies from publishers. In particular, publishers of low cost journals. I am refering to Playboy magazine's recent announcement that all orders must be direct. It hardly seems worthwhile for them to process so many orders direct and it is definitely not cost effective for us to handle such titles this way. I am contacting you because I am curious to know if anything can be done about this or if anyone or any group is working with this issue. I know that a few years back Reader's Digest caused a great deal of commotion by converting to order direct and we at least still handle this title directly. I would be interested in working towards changing publishers' minds but I don't know where to begin. Any information or assis- tance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. From Keith Stetson, Fairfield University (KSTETSON@FAIR1.BITNET): From APSNEWS, vol.1, no.3 (March 1992), p.1-2: The American Phys- ical Society Council has approved pilot programs to suspend page charges for PHYSICAL REVIEW C for manuscripts submitted using the APS Comuscript Program, and for all manuscripts submitted to PHYSICAL REVIEW D starting in July 1992. This pilot program will be evaluated after three years for possible continuation or ex- pansion to other APS titles. "To ensure that the journals remain financially solvent, the task force also recommended an increase in the library subscription rate compensating for the estimated loss of page charge in- come..." It was recommended that the changes be phased in slowly "...to avoid abrupt, intolerably large price increases for li- brary subscribers... the maximum extent of an increase will not exceed 13 percent." Our 1992 subscription for PHYSICAL REVIEW A,B,C,D increased 14.7% from 1991! From Katy Ginanni, Auburn Unversity (KATYG@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU): I just happened to see the latest issue of NURSING TIMES (ISSN 0029-6589, v.88 n.7) as it came in today. The lead cover story is entitled "Libraries at the limit: can they cope with future de- mand?" "Ah ha," I thought to myself. "Someone in nursing education has become aware of the rising subscription prices and is informing her/his colleagues." However, even though some valid problems with nursing school library services were cited (among them: unskilled library clerks, books:student ratio, ILL policies, etc.), no mention was made specifically about the rising costs of journal subscriptions. Underfunding was cited, especially in a sidebar story which was a survey of nursing educators, but noth- ing about journal subscriptions, or the proliferation of STM titles. From Jim Mouw, University of Chicago (mouw@midway.uchicago.edu): We have received two separate mailings announcing Gordon & Breach's acquisition of 17 Akademie Verlag journals. This pur- chase is effective with the 1992 subscriptions. The announcement reads, in part: Gordon and Breach has purchased 17 journals from Akademie Verlag, formerly with East German Academy of Sciences publishing unit. G+B has opened an editorial office in Berlin to expand its German language program and local distribution of books and journals. Journals acquired from Akademie Verlag-- Archives of Animal Nutrition Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science Archives of Nature Conservation and Landscape Research Archives of Phytopathologie and Plant Protection Asia, Africa and Latin America Biomedica Biochimica Acta Antiquity Nutrition Isotopenpraxis Pediatrics Journal of Information Recording Materials Journal of New Generation Computer Systems Systems Analysis-Modelling-Simulation Optimization Statistics Studia Biophysica ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the News- letter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET3806-3806; 412 LINES); Thu, 19 Mar 92 22:48:32 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Thu, 19 Mar 92 19:17 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0026 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Thu, 19 Mar 92 19:16 EST Date: Thu, 19 Mar 92 19:14 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 23 -- PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 23 -- March 20, 2992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS PHILOSOPHICAL, ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF EDITING REFEREED SCIENCE JOURNALS, Bill Robnett POSTAL SUBSIDY ENDANGERED? Charlotte Derksen and Ann Okerson NORTH AMERICAN SERIALS INTEREST GROUP CONFERENCE, Ann Okerson FROM THE MAILBOX PHILOSOPHICAL, ETHICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF EDITING REFEREED SCI- ENCE JOURNALS: A WORKSHOP FOR EDITORS, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, MARCH 4- 7, 1992 Bill Robnett, Vanderbilt University, ROBNETTB@VUCTRVAX.BITNET. The topics discussed at the workshop were: - functions of refereed science journals - strengths, weaknesses and functions of refereeing - how editorial panels and advisory boards meet the responsi- bilities of editing journals - editors' responsibilities - editing as a function of discipline and ethnicity - ethical standards for editors in resolving conflicts of interest - relations between editors and publishers - are editors guardians of scientific excellence? - articulation, if possible, of universal guidelines for edit- ors The keynote address of the conference was presented by George Lund- berg, editor of the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. He established that quality control for peer review and editing is the continuing scrutiny of current practices and cited the workshop as an example of such self-examination. Lundberg described the peer review process as paradoxical; it involves secret deliberation prior to pub- licizing knowledge. As more is expected of scientists and scientific findings, this review has been criticized in the lay press due to its secretive nature. Lundberg concluded that there is no appealing alter- native for peer review, and the process ensures quality for all con- cerned. Sessions were begun by invited lecturer/chairs. Their addresses estab- lished the framework for each aspect of the refereeing process under discussion. Three to four papers were then presented, and each session concluded with discussion by conference participants. The session topics and chairs were: SESSION I: REFEREEING, Daryl Chubin, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress SESSION II: EDITORIAL PANELS, ADVISORY BOARDS, AND ROTATING EDITORS, Allan Schell, Editor, PROCEEDINGS of the IEEE SESSION III: RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS, George Lundberg, Editor, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION SESSION IV: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES, E.A. Davis, Editor, PHILOSOPHICAL MAGAZINE SESSION V: GUARDIANS OF SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE, Fred Gorstein, Editor, HUMAN PATHOLOGY, and Bernard Wagner, Editor-in-Chief, MODERN PATHOLOGY SESSION VI: ETHICAL CONCERNS OF EDITORS, Allan Bard, Editor, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY SESSION VII: THE PUBLISHER'S ROLE IN THE EDITORIAL PROCESS, Karen Hunter, Vice President, Elsevier Science Publishers SESSION VIII: GUIDELINES FOR EDITORS: PRESENT AND FUTURE, Philip H. Abelson, Deputy Editor, SCIENCE The international conference was sponsored by Vanderbilt University, American Institute of Physics, American Oil Chemists' Society, Butter- worth-Heinemann, CRC Press, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, In- stitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Institute of Physics and Publications, Materials Research Society, Oak Ridge National Lab- oratory, Pergamon Press, Springer-Verlag, Taylor and Francis, United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, John Wiley and Sons, and Williams and Wilkins. Co-Chairs were R.A. Weeks, Editor, and D.L. Kinser, Co-Editor, JOURNAL OF NON-CRYSTALLINE SOLIDS, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, Vanderbilt University. Conference proceedings including discussants' comments will be pub- lished. POSTAL SUBSIDY ENDANGERED? Charlotte Derksen, Stanford University, CN.HUT@STANFORD.BITNET and Ann Okerson, Association of Research Libraries, OKERSON@UMDC.BITNET. [The editor has received three copies of the following message and seen it on other lists. Ann Okerson was kind enough to do some checking and to respond from the perspective of the Association of Research Libraries.] To: Geonetters From: Charlotte Subj: GSA Today article: Congress Considers Eliminating Nonprofit Postal Discount March 1992 p. 59. This may be old news to you, but I just heard about it. According to the journal "GSA Today", there are two bills before Congress (in the Senate S.1846 and in the House H.R.3680) which propose to eliminate the postal subsidy for nonprofit organizations, both charitable and educational. If these bills are passed it means that all society journals will have an increase in cost for mailings. The article that I read estimated that the bill for mailing GSA Today would run $8000 - $10000 per an- num. I would assume that these bills would impact us in two ways: an in- crease in the cost of society published journals, books, and maps; and increased costs for the libraries in particular and the university in general for all of the mailing that is done. The way I understand the article the bills would eliminate the cheap book rate we use. ---------- From Ann Okerson, Association of Research Libraries (OKERSON@UMDC. BITNET): Below are ARL's Prue Adler's comments on the postal matter that has made its way to some lists today. Prue's in-depth familiarity with issues on the Hill sheds (as always) useful insights for us. "The two bills were introduced last fall, late in the session. In the House, Russo is the sponsor (FYI, he lost his primary bid last night). His bill is a family relief tax act, referred jointly to 6-8 commit- tees. Referral to that many committees can slow down the movement of a bill if any one committee takes issue with a provision in the bill. An initial read of the bill: it seeks to modify the tax and budget prior- ities and provide some relief to the middle class. To do this, it calls for terminating some programs, so savings could be applied else- where. One such cut would be the postal subsidy (not for the blind). I've not seen the Senate bill, but understand that Bradley is the sponsor and that it is similar. But again, I need to track that. "What is very important in this discussion is the yearly battle over the administration budget request, vs. what is actually needed. The newsletter [NB: This is a reference to the new ARL newsletter #161] going out today has the figures: $470,000 in '92 appropriation vs. $121,912 requested by Bush. There is a postal revenue foregone coali- tion and although we are not members, we benefit from their work and news. Also, re. the earlier figure: the Postal Service estimates that $481,912,000 is required to maintain preferred rates at current lev- els. "If these bills were on a fast track, I am confident that the postal coalition would be actively working this issue. Instead, mailings to date have focused on the budget issue." To put a "positive spin" on this news, should the subsidy be in real danger, we would be alerted and it would be a good opportunity to write letters to the appropriate legislators in support of maintaining it. NORTH AMERICAN SERIALS INTEREST GROUP CONFERENCE Ann Okerson, Association of Research Libraries, OKERSON@UMDC.BITNET. June 18-21, 1992, University of Illinois, Chicago We are pleased to bring you information about the Seventh Annual NASIG Conference. This conference features a shared program with the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP), and gives librarians the opportunity both to meet and to network informally with the publishing community. This is a first-time event and both organizations are excited by the energizing and excellent program, discussion, and vision that will ensue. Programs and full details will be mailed to all NASIG members by the end of March. For further information or to register, please contact: James Mouw, Chair, Local Arr OR Elaine Rast, Registrar 929 N. Belleforte 304 Forsythe Lane Oak Park, IL 60302 DeKalb, IL 60115 Phone: 312 702-8767 Phone: 815 753-9854 Fax: 312 702-0853 Fax: 815 753-2003 e-mail: mouw@midway.uchicago.edu e-mail: C60ekrl@NIU.BITNET THEME: IF WE BUILD IT: SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING TECH- NOLOGIES NASIG Program Committee, 1992 Conference: Mary Beth Clack, Cindy Hep- fer, October Ivins, Teresa Malinowski, Ann Weller, Patricia Scarry (SSP Program Chair and NASIG Liaison), and Ann Okerson, Program Chair. SCHEDULE: Thursday, June 18, 1992 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Electronic Networking Workshop, Conducted by Birdie MacLennan, Chair, NASIG Electronic Communications Committee and List- Owner, SERIALST (LIMIT: 50 people by advance registration) 6:00 - 7:30 p.m. Opening reception/dinner 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Opening festivities and welcome 8:30 - 9:30 p.m. NASIG Annual General Meeting Friday, June 19, 1992 8:45 - 12:00 noon NASIG PLENARY SESSION I Clifford A. Lynch, Director, Library Automation, University of Cali- fornia, Office of the President: "Entwined: transforming scholarly communications and libraries in the age of networked information" James J. O'Donnell, Professor of Classics, University of Pennsylvania: "St. Augustine to NREN: the tree of knowledge and how it grows" Julia Blixrud, Program Officer, Council on Library Resources, Washing- ton, DC: "Webs that Link Libraries, Librarians, and Information: evolving technical standards for a networking age" Anita Lowry, Director, Electronic Text Service, Columbia University Libraries: "Landlords and Tenants: who owns electronic information, who pays for it, and how?" 2:00 - 5:30 NASIG Workshops 5:30 - 6:30 Informal Discussion Groups Night on the town; CHICAGO WHITE SOX Saturday, June 20, 1992 - JOINT MEETINGS, NASIG & SSP 8:00 - 9:30 a.m. NASIG Workshops 9:45 - 10:45 a.m. JOINT SESSION, NASIG and SSP Charles, Reed, Chancellor, State University System of Florida, "Higher Education in the 90s: growth, regression, or status quo." 11:15 - 12:30 p.m. CONCURRENT SESSIONS I, Choose from EIGHT 2:15 - 3:30 p.m. CONCURRENT SESSIONS II, Choose from EIGHT New Strategies for Publishing Price Studies: Why and How Copyright and Licensing in the Electronic Environment Preservation: Future Strategies for Retaining the Past Regional Library Networking Z39.1: Periodicals Format and Arrangement Marketing to Libraries Article Delivery Willard McCarty, Assistant Director, Centre for Computing in the Hu- manities, University of Toronto: "A Potency of Life: scholarship in an electronic age" Evening: Joint NASIG/SSP Reception at the The Mid-America Club Sunday, June 21, 1992 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. NASIG Workshops 11:00 - 12:30 p.m. NASIG PLENARY SESSION II Karen Schmidt, Head, Acquisitions Systems, University of Illinois: "Professionals or Profession-less, Information Engineers or ???: transforming technical services librarianship." Gary Brown, Regional Manager, Faxon, "From Past Imperfects to Future Perfects," Conference Wrap-up Session --- NASIG WORKSHOPS will give a chance to attend four of the following 18: -Alternatives in serials cataloguing, organization and workflow -Automating binding procedures, using INNOVACQ vs. in-house -The footbone's connected to the anklebone, or enumeration, checking-in and labelling instructions -Game shows, elevators, full plates: a look at LC subject headings -The changing role of the vendor: developing new products and services -Check-in with the SISAC symbol: implementation and uses for libraries, publishers, and automation vendors -Publishing opportunities: getting into print or getting involved -Fine-tuning the claims process -Basic training for survival on the frontlines -Cataloguing serial computer files -Working together for the future: librarian/publisher/agency -Role and responsibilities of the professional serials cataloguer -How to plan and deliver a great workshop -Fewer subscriptions = increased ILL services -Managing "pseudoserials" -Collection development assessment for biomedical serials -Auditing the automated serials control system -Cost-effectiveness of claiming and replacing journal issues --- CONFERENCE FEES: (a partial listing follows; contact Elaine Rast or Jim Mouw for additional information) Residential rate, Single: US $275.00 Residential rate, Double: US $225.00 (Wednesday and Sunday night accommodations, extra) Non-residential Rate: Full Conference, US $175.00 Thursday or Sunday, US $45.00 Friday or Saturday, US $90.00 Baseball tickets: US $20.00 each --- REGISTRATION DEADLINE is May 25th, 1992, although later registrations may be possible upon application. FROM THE MAILBOX The mailbox is: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. From Margie Axtmann, University of Minnesota Law Library (M-AXTM@ UMINN1.BITNET): I want to point out an article that is must reading for anyone interested in collection development and acquisitions. It is by Peggy Johnson, "When Pigs Fly, Or When Access Equals Ownership," TECHNICALITIES, v.12 no.2, February 1992, pp.4-7. It is very provocative and I think rightly points out that we have to stop talking about this issue and start doing something about it. As we face increasing demands to buy more with less, I hope that my library will take this seriously and start planning for new strategies. From Cindy Hepfer, SUNY Buffalo Health Sciences Library, (HSLCINDY@ UBVM.BITNET): One of the advantages of doing checkin is that you get to see titles you want to see sooner rather than later! There's an arti- cle in the March 18 CHRONICLE "Many University Presses Are Forced to Put New Emphasis on the Bottom Line," pp.A31-A33. The tale this article relates is a pretty dire one: "As many as 20 univer- sity presses may see cuts in their subsidies this year, and a few may be eliminated..." It's unfortunate that at a time when we need university presses to engage in more, rather than less, pub- lication, and to assume responsibility for more journal publica- tion, they may not be able to publish at all! From Katy Ginanni, Auburn University (KATYG@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU): We've received several issues of APS NEWS without having sub- scribed to any such thing. After closer investigation, I noticed in an editorial note that "a combined subscription to APS NEWS and the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY is availa- ble...." We paid $310 for 1990, $350 for 1991 and $400 for the 1992 subscription. I called the member and subscriber services department at APS, and they confirmed my fear that neither title is available indi- vidually. A library must pay $400 for the both of them. When I asked to whom I should address a complaint letter, I was given the following name and address: John DiCaro, Manager Member & Subscriber Services 500 Sunnyside Blvd. Woodbury, NY 11797 Time to crank up the old word processor, again.... From Kate Herzog, University at Buffalo (UNLKH@UBVM.BITNET): The first thing I (and probably every other subscriber to the Newsletter) did was look to see what the result of Gordon and Breach's acquisition of the Akademie Verlag titles (announced by Jim Mouw in Newsletter no.22) was in terms of dollars. I breathe a sigh of relief. I only subscribe to STATISTICS, which went from one volume in 1991 costing $122 to 2 volumes for 1992 costing $557, an increase of $435 or 357%! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Paper mail: Serials Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State Universi- ty), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Black- well's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET. EBSCO and Readmore customers may receive the Newsletter in paper for- mat from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newslet- ter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVAX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET4166-4166; 180 LINES); Mon, 06 Apr 92 18:08:24 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Mon, 6 Apr 92 15:57 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVAX1 with Jnet id 0671 for PRICES-L@UNCVAX1; Mon, 6 Apr 92 15:56 EST Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 15:56 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 24 -- PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NUMBER NS 24 -- April 6, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle AQUEDUCT ACTION AGENDA FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. Printed below is the action agenda formulated at a February retreat by nineteen librarians concerned with serials pricing and access. It is the subject of an article in the April 8 CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION (pp. 33-34). Because the article does not give the entire agenda, we want to make it available quickly to interested persons and groups. I will be happy to consider for publication in the newsletter your re- sponse, be it comment, criticism, elaboration, or any other reaction. AQUEDUCT ACTION AGENDA INTRODUCTION From February 7-9, 1992, nineteen serials, acquisitions, and collection development librarians met in Chapel Hill, North Carolina for a retreat at the Aqueduct Conference Center. They discussed pres- sing issues in regard to serials acquisition and scholarly communica- tion. Participants in the retreat came from ten states and the Dis- trict of Columbia. After fifteen hours of intense discussion on five topics (strategies for counteracting high prices, the library's role in docu- ment delivery, library treatment of electronic journals, serials can- cellation projects, and copyright), the retreat participants developed the following action agenda. The points are directed to individual librarians and their libraries, and to library organizations. The issues must be addressed at a grassroots level, as well as by organi- zations. ACTION AGENDA The Aqueduct participants urge all librarians to discuss, adopt, and promulgate the points in this Action Agenda. 1) Examine carefully all of the implications and ramifications of the access versus ownership debate. Access and ownership are both critical library functions. While access has many advantages, a critical mass of library ownership must be maintained as ownership is the ultimate form of access. 2) Article delivery services using research libraries' journal col- lections are becoming highly effective. If libraries are to maintain a competitive role in information and article delivery they must enhance technical and human resources to speed and improve interlibrary ac- cess. Likewise, libraries relying on article delivery from other li- braries must accept the costs incurred by the supplying library in providing access. 3) Standards, strategies, costs, and responsibilities for archiving electronic journals are uncertain. Librarians should respond to this opportunity by working with publishers and computer centers to create standards and cost-effective strategies, and to determine libraries' role in storing, accessing, and archiving electronic journals. 4) Donald Koepp, Director of Libraries at Princeton University, tar- getted Pergamon Press journals for cancellation because of inordinate- ly high price increases on top of already high prices. His action is an example of focused cancellations intended to send a message to publishers. Librarians should share the Koepp letter with library users and pursue additional measures of focusing attention on the expensive prices of some publishers. 5) In selection and cancellation decisions, openly acknowledge jour- nal price and price history as significant criteria. 6) Notify journal editors and publishers directly of reasons for cancelling journal titles. 7) Share cancellation lists and criteria for cancellation within a consortium or region in order to promote cooperative collection devel- opment. 8) Research articles produced by federal employees as a consequence of their employment are exempt from copyright. Likewise, librarians and library organizations should seek regulations which prohibit copy- right of written reports of all publicly funded research. 9) Encourage authors to retain the rights to their written work for their own use, for teaching, and for use by their libraries and insti- tutions. 10) Engage library users in a continuing dialog about the issues associated with serials pricing. Among these issues is the wide dis- parity between individual and institutional prices. Devise strategies for identifying excessive institutional journal prices and seek user support in eliminating these journals from our collections. 11) Encourage authors and editors to consider price-competetive pub- lishers for dissemination of their research. 12) Inform subscription agents that firm prices must be distinguished from preliminary prices on all invoices. Further, inform vendors that additional billings will not be accepted on titles where previous billings indicated firm prices. 13) Analyze subscription invoices carefully and verify the accuracy of vendor service charges. 14) The Aqueduct group will compile and produce a benchmark list of 100 journal titles for comparison of prices paid to various subscrip- tion agents and directly to the publishers. AQUEDUCT PARTICIPANTS Astle, Deana - Clemson University Boissonnas, Christian - Cornell University Crump, Michele - University of Florida Early, Caroline - National Agricultural Library Farkas, Doina - University of Florida Freeman, Suzanne - Virginia Commonwealth University Hamaker, Chuck - Louisiana State University Hepfer, Cindy - SUNY - Buffalo Health Sciences Center Ivins, October - Louisiana State University Jones, Danny - University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Lonberger, Jana - Georgia Tech McLaren, Mary - University of Kentucky Martin, Sylvia - Vanderbilt University Mouw, Jim - University of Chicago Murden, Steve - Virginia Commonwealth University O'Neill, Ann - University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill School of Information/Library Science Okerson, Ann - Association of Research Libraries Robnett, Bill - Vanderbilt University Tuttle, Marcia - University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished as news is available by Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BIT- NET; telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Paper mail: Serials Department, C.B. #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938. Editorial board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer-Verlag New York), Chuck Hamaker (Louisiana State University), Jim Mouw (University of Chica- go), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The News- letter is available on BITNET/Internet. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the Newsletter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET9187-9187; 285 LINES); Sat, 11 Apr 92 16:57:46 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Sat, 11 Apr 92 13:49 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVX1 with Jnet id 0077 for PRICES-L@UNCVX1; Sat, 11 Apr 92 13:48 EST Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 13:47 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 25 -- PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 25 -- April 11, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS FROM THE EDITOR, Marcia Tuttle FACULTY MEMBER RESPONDS TO NEW SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL LAUNCHING, Kimberly Parker CLARIFICATION OF PERGAMON/PRINCETON CORRESPONDENCE, Donald Koepp PETERSON'S STUDY OF ECONOMICS JOURNAL PRICES, Richard Meyer HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS, Chuck Hamaker FROM THE EDITOR Marcia Tuttle, TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET. A lot of editorial material for the newsletter was waiting when I got home from the UK Serials Group meeting, plus matters I was given or picked up there. In the interest of shorter newsletters, we will have several issues coming out very close together. I estimate that I have material for three more issues RIGHT NOW! Thanks, and keep it coming. FACULTY MEMBER RESPONDS TO NEW SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL LAUNCHING Kimberly Parker, Yale University Chemistry Library, kimberly_parker @yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu. I recently had a conversation with one of my junior faculty members (Kurt Zilm, Yale Chemistry Department) regarding a new journal that Elsevier is about to publish: _Solid State Magnetic Resonance_. His comment was that when he first heard about this intention, he sent a letter to Elsevier saying that he didn't think this field needed an- other journal, and that if they published it, he would refuse to cite it, submit papers, or buy it. He just received notice of its first issue, and though he still feels strongly, he let me know that he may have to cite papers from the journal. I asked him if he would mind my quoting him, and received the following response: ---------------------- Kim - ....I have attended three different conferences where members of the editorial board have been allowed to address the participants to encourage them to submit papers to the new journal. Each time I have stood up to air my views that we should only support journals owned by professional societies, as this is the only way we can hope to keep journal costs within reason and can prevent the spread of superfluous publications. I have also allowed that I don't intend to publish in or to quote materials from these new journals and have encouraged my colleagues to follow suit. Two out of the three times other academics also stood up to support my views. Unfortunately, I find my community fairly evenly split on this partic- ular journal. While most agree with my views in general, many of my colleagues believe this particular journal is needed. I suppose it would have never been started by the publishers otherwise. They always do a market study before launching a journal and usually have a fairly large editorial board signed up at the beginning to use in advertising their product. When a publisher offers cheap publication costs, facul- ty compensation or secretarial salaries for journal editors, etc. many academics have a hard time saying no. While I still don't intend to publish in these new journals, I probably will not be able to avoid quoting literature from them. Maybe science librarians need to take an even more active role in lob- bying their clients to keep journal costs down? Publishing a list of the instititutional subscription rates for our journals along with guidelines of what the librarians think are reasonable costs might help. The librarians could also enlist the aid of professional socie- ties such as the ACS and APS in dealing with this issue if they aren't already. Please feel free to quote my views in any of your discussions if they can be of any help. - Kurt ---------------------- I guess we can feel good that our message is getting across. Now it may be up to us not to drop the ball. CLARIFICATION OF PERGAMON/PRINCETON CORRESPONDENCE Donald Koepp, Princeton University Library, Princeton NJ. I would like to clarify the Pergamon/Princeton correspondence regard- ing the cost to Princeton of the 130 journals invoiced to Princeton on September 1, 1991. Our intention in analysing the invoice was to identify the increased cost to Princeton of those 130 journals over the cost of the year before. That increase was 32 percent. Fifty-four of those journals had in 1990 been renewed on a two year basis. For those journals we, in calculating our 1991 cost, used one half of the amount paid in 1990. Pergamon has recalculated these costs and believes that the increase would have been 19 percent had we used what the 54 journals would have cost had we not had two year subscriptions. That may be so. However, it was not our purpose to determine what our cost increase would have been. We were interested in and our correspondence is focused on what our cost increase actually was. PETERSON'S STUDY OF ECONOMICS JOURNAL PRICES Richard W Meyer, Trinity University, RMEYER@TRINITY.EDU. For the first time I have ever seen it, a statistical analysis has been applied to a group of periodicals that is appropriate to reveal- ing the real(!) determinants of price. I direct your attention to H. Craig Peterson's "The economics of economics journals: a statistical analysis of pricing practices by publishers," C&RL 53/2:176-181 (March 1992). In contrast to most studies, Peterson has used the most relia- ble statistical technique available for prediction of journal price. His model clearly indicates with evidence that can only be refuted scientifically, that publishers establish prices on the basis of fact- ors other than cost. No other study I have seen really does this. His analysis is powerful and very helpful. It is the kind of analysis that I would like to have done for our entire collection, but haven't due to lack of time. A concerted effort to extend the analysis across all disciplines by some element of the profession would serve us all well. Furthermore, one of the things that Peterson doesn't mention is that the analysis can be extended to reveal the outliers. That is, regres- sion analysis is capable of predicting a price for each journal indi- vidually. That predicted price can then be compared with the actual price to reveal the journals that are statistically significantly over (or under) priced. This is a powerful model for collection develop- ment. Unfortunately, his study is limited to a small segment of ti- tles. Anybody game to extend it? HAMAKER'S HAYMAKERS Chuck Hamaker, Louisiana State University, NOTCAH@LSUVM.BITNET. Four years ago it would have been denounced as heresy to suggest aca- demic and research libraries could pay less than list price for many of their most expensive titles. But with the emphasis publishers like Pergamon have put on their titles being handled at ZERO percent serv- ice charge to libraries, a change in philosophy has been apparent for some time with several subscription agents. By now, the stories of 0 percent and even discounted charges on large competitively bid lists are making the rounds, and Buzzy Basch's programs have raised aware- ness of some of the options available. Less well known are the efforts of foreign companies in this arena. They are unusual because many libraries are getting DISCOUNTS from list with ordering levels well within the range of medium size academic and research libraries. I have information (thanks to October Ivins, Tina Feick and Jane Maddox) from three European companies LSU does business with, and I would like to share that with you. For HARRASSOWITZ titles we received a DISCOUNT of 3.57 percent for 1992 and from SWETS a DISCOUNT of 2.55 percent. Those are DISCOUNTS -- NOT service charges. Harrassowitz and B.H. Blackwell's have published the details of most of their offers in their company literature. Their offers are open to all libraries meeting fairly minimal criteria. B.H. Blackwell's periodicals division has two advertised programs. Their standard service charge is 4 percent. However, many factors may lower charges below that level, such as a large volume of business with certain publishers and business with other Blackwell companies including Readmore. The most common option is their "Overseas Sub- scription" program. Although the maximum service charge is 4 percent, payment by April 17 will reduce that to .5 percent; by June 17 to 1 precent; by July 17 to 1.5 percent; by August 17 to 2 percent and by September 17 to 2.5 precent. Rates on their "EUROPLAN" are even more generous. By "placing all your British and European Subscriptions" with Blackwell, the base service charge is 2 percent. But prepayment by April 30 reduces it to -2.5 percent; by May 31 to -1.5 percent; by June 30 to -1 percent; by July 31 to -1 percent. Prepayment under their Europlan package before July 31 results in a DISCOUNT from list. Prepayment by August 31 provides a 0 percent service charge. OTTO HARRASSOWITZ of Germany has a special catalog of 2,500 titles from 26 publishers. In 1989 there were 9 publishers on the list and in 1993 there will be at least 32. They will supply any of the 2,500 titles at a 0 percent service charge. Prepayment for the "estimated annual expenditures for journal sub- scriptions and/or standing orders" creates an "extension of credit ranges." For accounts under 100,000 DM, payment prior to June 1 re- sults in an extension of credit of 4 percent of the payment. For ac- counts over 100,000 DM, it means a credit of 5 percent; prior to July 31, 3 percent for under 100,000 DM and 4 percent for over 100,000 DM. From August 1 to September 30, 2 percent credit under 100,000 DM and 3 percent over 100,000 DM. From October 1 to October 30, 1 percent cred- it under 100,000 DM and 2 percent over 100,000 DM. Although their maximum service charge is 3.85 percent, our service charge, because of the number of 0 percent titles we have, is well below that, and as I noted above, we actually achieved a significant discount from list with prepayments. A third European vendor with a prepayment program is SWETS SUBSCRIP- TION SERVICES. Our total account with them is approximately $93,000. For 1992, our "handling charge" was .95 percent and we received a dis- count of 3.5 percent for early payment of the 1992 "One-Line Invoice." We were credited $3,283 for that payment and thus received a DISCOUNT of 2.55 percent on these titles. Many vendors have prepayment programs, and as you can see from Black- well's, and particularly from Harrassowitz, some payment dates are fairly late in the year. No matter when a library pays its annual invoices, it should ask about credit for early payments. Some programs have fairly complete public documentation and are explained in detail in printed information from the company. Others have to be negotiated. Ask and you shall receive. There are two very different philosophies with regards to placing subscriptions with vendors. One calls for consolidation of all titles with a single source; the other stresses variety of vendors, often through sourcing by country or continent of origin. Both approaches necessitate staying abreast of the marketplace and aware of incentive and service charge variables. Even smaller libraries can benefit from many of these programs. Certainly the Blackwell's and Harrassowitz programs are well within the reach of many small to medium size aca- demic libraries. Some programs are offered to all who meet the basic criteria, others may take careful attention by the library to match the best deal with local circumstances. One approach to figuring actual service charge was recently explained by Marcia Tuttle, who noted that she deducted any 0 percent service charge titles from the list she was analyzing and calculated the serv- ice charge on the rest of the titles. The results can be astounding! But they may also be a truer indication of what libraries are actually paying for handling charges. Another variable that too often gets short-shrift or mistaken action is the list price. Though many agents like us to believe they all have the same list price, it just ain't so. In the arena of European ti- tles, knowing what exchange rate the agent is using for major coun- tries or publishers is critical. For US titles a difference in com- parable list price may signal a quote that is based on last year's prices. At least one library asked for actual invoices, rather than "quotes," as quotes often have problems. In my experience, library di- rectors, when they get involved, sometimes think that lower "prices" on a quote mean they should switch vendors. Oh, if it were that sim- ple. It takes a great deal of care to find out when "lower" prices are really lower or just a result of a quote based on non-current prices. CAVEAT EMPTOR. PERGAMON. Is Pergamon Jinxed or what??? Another company that didn't get the US list price right for Pergamon for 1992 was EBSCO. They input the new 1992 Pound Sterling prices from Pergamon and had those prices right. But they did not update last year's exchange rate in calculating the dollar price for customer billings. The error was caught before orders or payments were issued to Pergamon, but after customers were billed. EBSCO customers received letters explaining the error. Normally they only issue Credit Memos in the regular billing cycle but did a rush computer program to adjust the prices and get credit memos out as quickly as possible, rather than waiting for the normal billing cycle. This is old news to EBSCO customers, but I thought other readers would be interested. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the News- letter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE******* ======================================================================== Received: (from MAILER@UNCVX1 for TUTTLE@UNC via NJE) (JNET4367-4367; 291 LINES); Sun, 12 Apr 92 15:02:38 EST Received: from JNET-Daemon by UNCVX1.BITNET; Sun, 12 Apr 92 11:57 EDT Received: From UNC(MAILER) by UNCVX1 with Jnet id 0031 for PRICES-L@UNCVX1; Sun, 12 Apr 92 11:56 EST Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 11:55 EST From: Marcia Tuttle Subject: NS 26 -- PRICING NEWSLETTER To: PRICES-L@UNCVX1 ISSN: 1046-3410 NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES NS 26 -- April 12, 1992 Editor: Marcia Tuttle CONTENTS AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY RESPONSE TO NEWSLETTER ITEMS, Harry Lustig BLOEMBERGEN'S LETTER ABOUT _APS NEWS_, Nicolaas Bloemberg- en ANOTHER FAXON LETTER ABOUT PERGAMON PRICES IN DATABASE, Joel Baron AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY RESPONSE TO NEWSLETTER ITEMS Harry Lustig, City College of New York and the American Physical Society, APSAP@CUNYVM.BITNET. I am the Treasurer of the American Physical Society and a former Pro- vost of the City College of New York who is sadly acquainted with the serials pricing crisis faced by librarians. I was, however, greatly distressed to see (for the first time) the APS criticized (twice!) in the Newsletter. In issue NS 23, Katy Ginanni states that she has received several issues of APS NEWS without having subscribed to any such thing. She implies that APS NEWS is a new publication that was added to existing subscriptions to the BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY at additional cost. I can see how she could have been led to this conclusion by an ambigu- ous phrase in the 1992 AIP price list of publications. However, the conclusion is quite erroneous. What happened is that the former BUL- LETIN was divided into two parts, in order better to serve APS members and meeting attendees and to save paper. During the changeover year 1992, libraries are being mailed both parts at the price that would have been charged for the former single journal. Because he was afraid that such a misunderstanding might occur, Prof. Nicolaas Bloembergen, the President of the American Physical Society, sent a letter to all library subscribers, explaining in detail what was being done and why. Evidently Katy Ginanni did not see this let- ter. Because it is possible that other important librarian-colleagues are in the same boat, I am faxing the letter to you in the hope that it or excerpts can be published in the Newsletter. I will be glad to send copies to anyone else on request. Katy Ginanni, however, does have a point. APS has always priced its journals, so as not to oblige or even encourage librarians to purchase a journal they did not want or need. Even the sections of THE PHYSICAL REVIEW -- A,B,C and D -- have been available separately and the sub- scription price for them together has been exactly the same as the sum of the prices for the individual sections. With APS NEWS and the BUL- LETIN now separate journals, I shall recommend to the Council of the American Physical Society that, beginning in 1993, they also be separ- ately subscribable by libraries as well as by APS members. In issue NS 22, Keith Stetson summarizes a two page article that ap- peared in APS NEWS in eight lines. The article deals with the diffi- cult and contentious issue of page charges, assessed to authors' in- stitutions for publishing their papers in the PHYSICAL REVIEW and in PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS. Page charges are used to help finance the cost of journals by many US not-for-profit scholarly societies (par- ticularly in the physical sciences), but not by commercial and other European publishers. Arguments over page charges have taken place for many years among APS' authors, readers, subscribers and members -- most of them university faculty members and many of them university administrators -- who decide APS' policies. The main arguments for page charges are that 1) helping to defray the cost of publication is a legitimate -- and usu- ally minor -- cost of research and 2) they help to keep down the sub- scription prices to libraries. The chief arguments against are that 1) with sharp cuts in research budgets, scientists are increasingly una- ble or unwilling to pay the page charges and 2) they are therefore sending articles that would qualify for publication in THE PHYSICAL REVIEW to lower quality journals, which, on a per page basis, cost the libraries much more. Thus everybody loses, except the commercial pub- lishers. Over the last ten years, first one side and then the other has carried the day in the APS councils, resulting in seemingly irrational fluctu- ations in our page charge policy. At present page charge income covers about 13 percent of the cost of APS' journals. What the APS NEWS article reports is a decision to experiment for a limited time with suspending page charges in one section of THE PHYSI- CAL REVIEW and for electronically submitted manuscripts in another section. In conducting the experiment, we will try to avoid loading most of the 13 percent loss onto the libraries and we will certainly not do so abruptly. Keith Stetson then goes on to contrast the 13 percent limit with the statement that the 1992 subscription price for PHYSICAL REVIEW A & B & C & D increased 14.7 percent from 1991. But the two numbers have noth- ing to do with one another. The increase from 1991 to 1992 was mostly due to the increase in costs as a result of growth in the size of the journals and not at all due to the suspension of page charges, which has not yet happened. We know that this "natural" increase is a big problem for the librar- ies, but we don't know how to avoid it. Refusing to publish the papers that have passed our rigorous refereeing process would only result in their being published in more expensive journals. Perhaps going to a different mode of publishing can help. It is a problem whose solution should cooperatively engage the scientific and library community. BLOEMBERGEN'S LETTER ABOUT _APS NEWS_ Nicolaas Bloembergen, Harvard University; President, American Physi- cal Society, 335 East 45th Street, New York NY 10017. December 1991 To: Librarians and Other Non-Member Subscribers to the _Bulletin of The American Physical Society_ Dear Colleagues: Beginning on January 1, 1991, [sic] the venerable _Bulletin of The American Physical Society_ will be produced and distributed in two parts: the _Bulletin of The American Physical Society_ (BAPS) and _American Physical Society News_ (APS NEWS). This action will have no effect on your subscription price, even though as a library or other non-member subscriber, you will receive both parts. We would like to explain the reasons for this new arrangement and its consequences. For many years the Bulletin has had a variegted content, serving sev- eral purposes. Most monthly issues have included abstracts of papers to be given at upcoming APS meetings, announcements of future meet- ings, and Society news and reports, considered to be of interest to the general membership. Several issues each year have carried the abstracts of past meetings that were not available for advance publi- cation, and there have been occasional articles of general interest to physicists and other readers. In addition, one issue each year was reserved solely for the Membership and Governance Directory of the APS, or the Directory of Physics Faculties and Staffs (produced by the American Institute of Physics). The new BAPS will consist entirely of abstracts and programs of meet- ings. Each issue will be devoted to only one meeting and there will be one issue per year that will contain "delayed" abstracts and programs. _APS News_ will contain all the remaining items published in the old Bulletin in a much more readable format. The December issue of _APS News_ will be the Directory issue. While we believe that all of the content is of archival interest and should be available in libraries, individual APS members do not need, or wish to receive indiscriminate- ly, the frequently massive volume of abstracts for those meetings in which they have no interest. Yet in the past, the Bulletin has been sent to all 42,000 APS members at an unnecessary cost to the Society and to the environment. The split will permit us later on to make individual issues of BAPS available on subscription to those members who are interested in the particular meeting whose abstracts are published in a corresponding issue. All APS members will receive _APS News_ as a membership bene- fit. Because most APS members will no longer receive most abstracts and programs of meetings, we believe it is more important than ever for this informational and archival material to be available in li- braries. BAPS and _APS News_ will have individual Library of Congress numbers and will be paginated separately. BAPS will retain bibliographic con- tinuity with the old Bulletin, as well as its ISSN number: 0003-0503. The ISSN number for _APS News_ will be 1058-8132. In 1991 [sic] you will receive nine issues of BAPS and twelve issues of _APS News_, as compared to eleven issues of the Bulletin in 1990 [sic]. The combined subscription price to BAPS and _APS News_ -- $400 -- is exactly what it would have been without the split. The repackaging will thus have no financial or other effect on library subscribers. We hope this information is of interest to you. If you have any ques- tions or comments, please let us know. On behalf of all the officers of The American Physical Society, let me assure you of our concern and consideration for all the members and components of our community. ANOTHER FAXON LETTER ABOUT PERGAMON PRICES IN DATABASE Joel Baron, Faxon Company, BARON@FAXON.COM. 1 April 1992 Dear Marcia, As the person at Faxon with ultimate global responsibility for the rate data in our Title File as well as for our publisher relations, I have been following with great interest the online discussions about Faxon's policies and practices related to publisher price changes, and in particular related to Pergamon's price changes this past fall. It seems as if it is now time for an official response from Faxon. First of all, Pergamon released its 1992 rates on Friday, August 16, 1991 and were received in my office first thing Tuesday morning, the 20th. We proceeded immediately to incorporate into our Title File the bibliographic changes associated with those rates; what delayed the inputting of the rates themselves is explained later in this letter. Second, when Faxon's Mike Markwith quoted me in his February 12th letter to you, the quote read "we had some technical problems with the coding and were unable to read the [initial Pergamon 1992 pricing] tape." That is also true. What has led to some confusion is Mike's next statement: "There were reprogramming requests of Pergamon, and other attempts to machine load the rates failed." For the record: the requests we made of Pergamon were responded to in due course; the failed attempts at uploading were solely Faxon problems, and had noth- ing to do with anyone intentionally attempting to withhold rates. Third, Faxon's Adrian Alexander wrote to the Newsletter on February 18th saying that there are publishers who "require a renewal commit- ment or new order anywhere from 1 to 3 months in advance of the start date of the new subscription, but may not set the new 'firm price' until the beginning of the new subscription period." That is quite true. Despite the fact that Adrian's article was entitled "Subscrip- tion Agent's Response to the Princeton Letters", we would like to make it quite clear that he was not talking about Pergamon. This is not nor to my recollection has ever been either Pergamon's policy or its prac- tice. For a number of years Faxon's Publisher & Publication Services group has been reworking some internal systems as well as working with our top 1,000 publishers in order to find ways of inputting new rates at earlier and earlier dates; our eventual goal in doing this would be to eliminate all supplemental invoices. For subscription year 1991 we had a moderate degree of success; this year our success rate was extraord- inarily high: our 1992 Elsevier rates were active in the Title File 57 days earlier than our 1991 rates, Springer rates were active 24 days earlier, Taylor & Francis rates were 72 days earlier, John Wiley 55 days earlier, and so on. Faxon has been involved in many experiments and pilot studies during its history -- most have benefitted all the participants in our indus- try: librarians and publishers as well as our fellow subscription agents. For the past several years Pergamon had been working with us to find ways of transmitting prices electronically so that this annual event could occur as quickly as possible. As I'm sure you know, exper- iments usually have their ups and downs, and this year for Faxon, this particular experiment had a series of downs. But they were just prob- lems, not intentional acts aimed at slowing down client access to new prices. Pergamon's prices are always available in the summer, and Faxon goes to extremes to get prices into its database as quickly as possible. Faxon's work in this area has now proceeded through two recent pilot projects, and has now evolved into an international program involving publishers, libraries, and serials agents working together to develop transaction sets that will allow for the electronic transmission of claims, prices, and orders using the EDI X12 standard. Faxon has always been clear about its responsibilities to its clients, and works closely with publishers in carrying out those responsibili- ties. We will continue to work with you, with our other clients, and with our suppliers to develop better ways of addressing the difficul- ties libraries are facing in these complex times. We hope this public conversation can now move toward developing the ways in which we can all work together more efficiently and effectively in serving our constituencies. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Readers of the NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper meth- ods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The NEWSLETTER ON SERIALS PRICING ISSUES (ISSN: 1046-3410) is pub- lished by the editor as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, BITNET: TUTTLE@UNC.BITNET; Faxon's DataLinx: TUTTLE; Paper mail: Seri- als Department, CB #3938 Davis Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599-3938; Telephone: 919 962-1067; FAX: 919 962-0484. Editorial Board: Deana Astle (Clemson University), Jerry Curtis (Springer Verlag New York), Charles Hamaker (Louisiana State University), James Mouw (University of Chicago), and Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division). The Newsletter is available on BITNET. EBSCO and Readmore Academic customers may receive the News- letter in paper format from EBSCO and Readmore, respectively. Back issues of the Newsletter are available electronically free of charge through BITNET from the editor. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ******ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE***ENDOFFILE*******