College and Research Libraries Resolving the Acquisitions Dilemma: Into the Electronic Information Environment Eldred Smith Editor's note: This article is the second part of a series on scholarly communications and serials prices. This paper analyzes the present serials acquisitions crisis as the latest manifes- tation of the instability of the economic system supporting scholarly communi- cation, which places an increasingly intolerable burden on the research library. It reviews various solutions that have been proposed to solve this crisis, arguing that none is achievable as long as the present economic system continues. It - proposes a resolution to this dilemma, drawing upon the capabilities of new electronic technology, through which the economic burden on the research library will be reduced or even eliminated, and the system of scholarly commu- nication improved. • esearch librarians once again confront a serious acquisi- tions crisis. Their continuing, historic struggle to maintain the strength, quality, and effectiveness of their collections is jeopardized, as it has been periodically in the past, by their in- ability to meet expanding prices and pro- liferating publication with relatively stable budgets. The present crisis has been pre- cipitated by recent, quite substantial in- creases in the cost of scientific, technical, and medical journals. Various suggestions have been made for dealing with this crisis. They range from proposals to control the cost and prolifera- tion of journals; to increased resource shar- ing; to changes in the practices of scholars and scholarly publishers. Unfortunately, each of these solutions presents its own difficulties. Moreover, none of them prom- ises more than a short-term adjustment, a period of temporary equilibrium until the problem arises again. Consequently, the crisis precipitates a dilemma, a problem with no satisfactory solution. Indeed, it is simply the latest episode in the re- search librarian's long, heroic, but inev- itably losing struggle to acquire, organize, and preserve the record of scholarship. But is there no satisfactory solution? Can this struggle be brought to a suc- cessful conclusion? Yes, it can, through proper employment of new electronic information technology. Indeed, in this respect, the current serials crisis may, ironically, have a substantial value: not only does it demonstrate how serious the acquisitions dilemma has become, but it also shows how that dilemma may fi- nally be resolved. THE SERIALS CRISIS The present research library serials crisis is now widely recognized. Identi- fied initially by acquisitions and serials librarians, through their journals and meetings, it now has the attention of re- Eldred Smith is a professor at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455. 231 232 College & Research Libraries search library directors and their organi- zations. The American Library Association (ALA) established a blue-ribbon task force, chaired by a former executive director and including publishers and book trade repre- sentatives in ALA's membership, to work on the problem. The Association of Re- search Libraries (ARL) has sponsored two major studies of serials acquisitions.1 ARL is pursuing a program of action to deal with the particular issues identified in these analyses. At its 1989 spring membership meeting, the ARL membership resound- ingly approved a special dues assessment in order to finance an activist approach to deal with the serials crisis. This action is a sure indication of ARL' s seriousness. Concern about this crisis is no longer restricted to librarians. Academic ad- ministrators have expressed apprehen- sion and called for action. Scholarly publishers have convened special meet- ings involving scholars, librarians, and commercial publishers to discuss possi- ble solutions. In spite of all this activity, however, few positive results are visible. The prices of serials, particularly scien- tific, medical, and technical serials issued by a handful of commercial publishers, continue to increase substantially be- yond the average rate of inflation. New serials continue to appear at an alarming rate. Research library acquisitions bud- gets, despite special infusions of funds, are increasingly strained to maintain even past levels of coverage, leaving aside the need to purchase new titles. A variety of causes has been identified for this crisis. The decline of the dollar has seriously damaged research librar- ies, a large percentage of whose acquisi- tions are published in Western Europe. The exponential growth of scholarly publication, which doubles every ten to fifteen years, exceeds research library ac- quisitions budget capabilities. Dual pric- ing places an increasingly heavy burden on research libraries. Finally, the in- crease in publication of scholarly mate- rials by commercial houses has been pinpointed as an especially destabilizing influence. All research libraries, even the wealthi- est, have been affected by these develop- May 1991 ments. Long-established acquisitions programs are being distorted. Serial sub- scriptions are being cancelled. Mono- graphic purchases are being reduced. Operations and services are being con- strained as the funding for vacant staff positions is used for acquisitions. Re- search libraries are able to acquire fewer and fewer scholarly publications, to cover less and less of the record of schol- arship. And as they seek to adjust to these pressures with cooperative pro- grams, such as increased resource shar- ing, research librarians seem only to be compounding the crisis by stimulating further price increases. WHO'S TO BLAME? The tremors radiating out from this crisis have inspired a number of accusations. Every participant in the scholarly communi- cation process has received a share of blame. For research librarians, the primary culprits are the large commercial publishers, whose aggressive pricing policies and undisguised profit motive have made them singular ob- jects of attack. The research librarian has also pointed a finger at scholars, whose ever-€x- panding publication is seen as stimulated perhaps as much by tenure and advance- ment pressures as by the value of research. Research librarians reproach scholarly pub- lishers, particularly universities and socie- ties, for yielding an increasing portion of their domain to the for-profit sector. Scholars and scholarly publishers blame research li- brarians for not securing the additional re- sources that researchers need to keep up with expanding publication. Commercial publishers have aggressively joined this at- tack as criticism · of them has continued and mounted. In fact, some critics observe that all par- ticipants in the scholarly communication system must bear some share of the blame. But should they? Is anyone really at fault? Aren't the participants simply carrying out their assigned roles? The commercial publisher's profit motive clearly drives up prices, but can or should a business be blamed for seeking to maximize its profits? The scholars' interest in publications forces the exponential growth of the literature, but isn't the scholars' fundamental respon- sibility to share the results of their re- search? Scholarly publishers' historic concern has been to monitor and distrib- ute the product of scholarship. However, the business side of this-by definition, nonprofit-enterprise has not generally been attractive to scholarly publishers. Why should they be blamed for deferring an increasing share of their burden to the commercial sector, particularly as the in- tegrity of peer review and the quality of editorial judgment are not threatened? Re- search librarians are expected to fulfill their responsibilities within the constraints of lim- ited resources, competing aggressively but understandingly within the context of the generally expanding needs and increas- ingly limited capacities of the research uni- versity. Can research librarians be faulted for not pursuing acquisitions funding in- creases more aggressively under such cir- cumstances? If the participants are not to blame, per- haps it is the system itself that is at fault. Perhaps the process of scholarly communi- cation needs an overhaul. More and more, this view seems to be shared, at least among research librarians.2 IS THERE A REMEDY? Toassertsimplythatthesystemofschol- arly communication needs to be changed or adjusted is of little practical value. The present system is centuries old, well estab- lished, and quite complex, and it includes a number of major participants. If change is to be achieved, it must be clearly and explicitly identified. Its dimension must be established. Is it, for example, to be a rela- tively minor adjustment, a correction, or a more substantial reworking? Whom will the change most affect? What are the pros- pects for success or failure? Finally, it is essential to determine who, among the various system participants, must be en- listed in the change effort. Suggested Changes Research librarians have recently pro- posed a number of specific changes. One cluster of suggestions focuses on the acqui- sitions process. These suggestions range from .standard advice about knowledge- able consumerism, to refusing to purchase Resolving the Acquisitions Dilemma 233 particularly high-cost items (or items whose cost has accelerated beyond the standard inflationary increase), to boy- cotting certain publishers. All of these proposals are directed to the same goal: controlling and stabilizing price in- creases so that present acquisitions pro- grams can continue and present balances among disciplines can be maintained. Other suggestions relate to securing ad- ditional acquisitions funds. Such an ap- proach continues to receive substantial support, often including active lobbying by scholars at the local level. Publishers, both scholarly and commercial, encourage it. Ex- panding cooperative research library resource-sharing programs, which seemed to offer such promise during the 1970's funding crisis in higher education, is still being advocated and pursued. Perhaps it is the system itself that is at fault. Perhaps the process of scholarly communication needs an overhaul. Considerable interest is being shown in changing the scholarly communica- tion process . In particular, research li- brarians seek to enlist the support of the higher education community in revers- ing the trend toward the increasing com- mercialization of scholarly publication. They wish to convince universities and scholarly societies to enlarge their pub- lishing roles, to recapture journals that have been ceded to the commercial arena, and to expand· their publishing programs to include desired new titles, rather than to have journals issued-by default-by commercial houses. Beyond this, research librarians discuss ways of limiting the continued rapid growth of scholarly publication by seeking modifications in long-established prac- tices and mechanisms. These mechanisms, such as tenure requirements or expecta- tions, seem to encourage unnecessary and even redundant publishing activity. In un- dertaking such efforts, librarians hope to form alliances with scholars who find fault with the present system and to in- fluence scholarly organizations and aca- demic administrators. 234 College & Research Libraries There also exists renewed interest in expanding lobbying activity in order to stabilize and extend the gradually de- clining level of federal support for re- search library acquisitions programs. Some research librarians hope to recap- ture the priority support of the 1960s, perhaps as part of a once hoped for "peace dividend." Finally, technology is seen as a possible solution to this and other research library problems. Mitigations Yet even as research librarians de- velop their strategies and gather them- selves for combat, they ~eem to display a significant lack of conviction about their prospects for success. They know that they do not occupy a strong market position. Talking about knowledgeable consumerism costs little; accomplishing it may be quite expensive. Certainly, au- tomated systems make it easy to gather and analyze data. This, in turn, strength- ens research librarians' ability to identify and compare options. However, it is not clear that, having done this, librarians will be in a position to exact savings that are any greater than the costs of the anal- ysis. Research librarians must continue to ac- quire as much as they can of the record of scholarship. It is their historic and endur- ing role. Their options are extremely lim- ited. They may occasionally refuse to buy expensive items. They may cancel a few serials. However, they do not have the practical ability to make a major impact on their market. Nothing illustrates this fundamental weakness better than research librarians' inability to mount an effective boycott. Certainly, an action of this kind .would exert a significant and rather immediate influence on the commercial publisher. If North American research libraries suc- cessfully boycotted all of the publica- tions of only one or two major publishers for even a brief period of time, those publishers and their colleagues would receive a very clear message. However, such a boycott is simply not possible. Not only would it be of highly question- able legality, but it would also seriously May 1991 undermine research librarians' abilities to meet the needs of their primary cli- ents-scholars. Under these circum- stances, an attempted boycott would probably prove far more disastrous to research librarians than to the publishers against whom it was directed. Securing funding increases is the re- , search librarian's time-honored mecha- nism for maintaining acquisitions programs. Individual libraries and the research library community as a whole have been generally successful in obtain- ing additional funds in times of diffi- culty. This practice continues through the present crisis, even though many of these increases are being identified spe- cifically as temporary or short term. While academic administrators and fis- cal officers may grumble and object, ad- ditional acquisitions funding in time of need is an issue with strong faculty sup- port. Such support is critical within the academic environment. Nevertheless, analysis indicates that research library purchasing power has been losing ground for some time in relation to scholarly publication growth and infla- tion. 3 Furthermore, research librarians are scarcely a decade removed from the dol- drums of the 1970s. Both the severity and the relative frequency of recent fiscal pressures present the specter of a continuing hand-to- mouth existence. Nothing illustrates this fundamental weakness better than research librarians' inability to mount an effective boycott. The bright promise of resource shar- ing has become quite dim in practice, at least among and between research li- braries. Research librarians have been reluctant to rely heavily on each other's collections, particularly recognizing the weak infrastructure that exists . for prompt and effective exchange of mate- rials. In addition, evidence suggests that publishers, both scholarly and commer- cial, are prepared to compensate for re- ductions in research library sales volume by increasing their research library prices. ·Fewer copies may be purchased by libraries, but total library expenditure will probably continue at about the same rate of increase. Research librarians are not likely to persuade scholarly and higher educa- tion institutions to recapture the portion of scholarly publication that has been shifted to commercial houses, or even to reduce this trend. There are good reasons for such transfer, after all. The transfer re- lieves universities and societies of the bur- den of subsidizing and marketing the product-obligations that have been un- attractive and costly to academic enter- prises-while enabling them to retain editorial control. It also relieves scholars of page charges and other direct costs con- nected with scholarly publication at a time when federal and other grant support is declining. And the transfer expands pub- lication opportunities. Humanities and many social sciences disciplines have not experienced the de- gree of commercialization that has oc- curred in the hard sciences and technology. These disciplines may express sympathy, particularly if they believe that their sales are likely to suffer in the reconfigured mar- ket. However, these scholarly publishers lack the influence to reverse or modify present trends in science and technology publishing. The bright promise of resource sharing has become quite dim in practice, at least among and between research libraries. Efforts on the part of research librari- ans to reduce the growth of scholarly publication by modifying tenure or pro- motion requirements or by other means are even less promising. All available analysis demonstrates that scholarly publication has been expanding at its present rate for more than two centuries with no evidence of slackening. It is a function of the continued exponential growth of research and scholarship.4 The emphasis on publication, as evidence of research, is an effect, not a cause. For re- Resolving the Acquisitions Dilemma 235 search librarians to suggest otherwise is fundamentally insulting to scholars. The argument will marshall little support, but it will engender enmity. Unsurprisingly, scholars confronted with such suggestions react by telling librarians to concentrate their efforts on securing more acquisitions funds. Sufficient federal funding will proba- bly not be available to solve the research librarian's problem. The prospects of a peace dividend have disappeared in the face of war in the Persian Gulf and the enormity of the national debt. After the war bills are paid, a variety of urgent · social needs will compete for the shrink- ing dollars available at both the federal and the state levels. Not only research libraries, but higher education in gen- eral, seems to be in an extended period of increasing fiscal difficulty. Up to this point, technology generally has been discounted as a near-term solu- tion to the research librarian's serials prob- lem.5 Although electronic publication and communication are increasing, they seem only to add to, rather than diminish, the proliferation of materials that research li- braries must acquire, including the added costs involved in maintaining and servic- ing electronic, as well as print, collections. Nevertheless, the new technology offers the opportunity to free research librarians from the enormous financial burdens of acquiring and maintaining large on-site collections. However, discussion of these solutions has generally been limited, vague, and wanting in practical specificity. RESOLVING THE DILEMMA Certainly, all of these factors contribute to research librarians' lack of conviction about their ability to cope effectively with the serials crisis. This lack of conviction, however, extends beyond serials and the present crisis. Research librarians are in- creasingly aware that they are losing ground in their historic struggle to acquire, preserve, and maintain the record of schol- arship. Science serials produced by com- mercial publishers are certainly the focus of the present difficulty. However, this is only the tip-in fact, minuscule tip-of an enormous iceberg. Furthermore, the ap- 236 College & Research Libraries parent absence of viable means to deal with this still relatively small part of the problem suggests a dimension of intrac- tability that transforms the crisis into a dilemma, without possible resolution. Research librarians increasingly feel that they are doomed to a continuing, losing struggle. They see their critical role in the system of scholarly communication declining, and they feel powerless to prevent it. Research librarians can, however, re- solve their dilemma. Furthermore, in doing so, they will not only solve the serials crisis once and for all, but they will also strengthen their role in the scholarly communication system and improve that system for the benefit of its other partici- pants-scholars and scholarly publishers. They will do this by fundamentally re- shaping the research library to take ad- vantage of the capabilities and to respond to the requirements of the new electronic era. Electronic technology has many sub- stantial advantages over print as a me- dium for scholarly communication. It is much faster, offering the capability of al- most instant information delivery any- where in the world. It is more flexible, providing correspondents with the op- portunity to respond either immediately or at their leisure. It is interactive, allow- ing correspondents to change and adjust text as they converse electronically, and it provides convenient means for concur- rent interchange among a number of dif- ferent parties, who may be widely separated geographically. For these rea- sons, electronic technology is rapidly be- coming the preferred means of informal communication among scholars. 6 For research librarians, however, the greatest ~vantage of electronic com- munication IS certainly that a single electronic copy of any scholarly work serves the same function performed by hundreds of copies in hundreds of dif- ferent research library collections. In- deed, it is this capability that provides research librarians with the means to resolve their long-standing acquisi- tions dilemma. Rather than acquiring, organizing, and preserving copies of scholarly May1991 works in every research library, as is nec- essary in the print environment, re- search librarians can establish, organize, and maintain a single electronic collec- tion. The collection can be immediately accessible to the entire scholarly commu- nity. Furthermore, such a collection can be fully cataloged and indexed at a level of detail and with a degree of exactness thatareimpracticablewitha print collec- tion. Research libraries can, as a conse- quence, be transformed into informa- tion centers. Instead of investing the bulk of their energies and resources in acquiring, organizing, and preserving duplicative and incomplete collec- tions, research librarians can intermedi- ate betWeen scholars and students on the one hand and the central electronic collection on the other to provide any information needed. Through this pro- cess, the long-anticipated, but substan- tially unfulfilled, transformation of the research library from an ownership in- stitution to an access service can be accomplished. OBSTACLES: REAL OR IMAGINED? But is such a transformation possible? Or is there a host of problems in its way, a cluster of insurmountable obstacles that will prevent it from coming to pass? Perhaps, but before dismissing such a reconfiguration of the research library and its role, it is essential to look closely at these presumed obstacles to deter- mine how serious they are and whether they can be overcome. Technology ~course, is the matter of tech- nology. Can present technology support a single widely accessible and conveniently usable electronic database of scholarship? Clearly, no fundamental technological bar- riers now stand in the way of such an ac- complishment. Already-enormous data storage capacities continue to expand rap- idly. Data manipulation is highly sophisti- cated and becoming ever more so. A network of efficient data communication systems is essentially in place and is con- stantly improving. Costs in all of these areas are declining and should continue to do so. The text of most current scholarly publication presently exists in electronic form as a by-product of the contemporary printing process. · Of course, much would need to be done in order to create an effective and reliable data center. Hardware would have to be acquired and software designed. Arrange- ments would have to be worked out with scholarly publishers for the deposit of their electronic text. Conversion programs would have to be written to merge the text gener- ated by different publishers, at least until standardization is completed. A commu- nications network would have to be adopted. An electronic bibliographic ap- paratus would have to be implemented, and services would need to be organized. None of these requirements, however, is beyond the capability and experience of research librarians working with scholarly publishers and systems designers, and certainly the requirements are not beyond the limits of presently available technol- ogy. Indeed, it would be much simpler and more economical to establish and main- tain such a central electronic database of scholarly publication than to interact effec- tively with the decentralized electronic scholarly communication structures that are its only alternative. Economics 'Even granting the technological feasibil- ity of creating a central electronic database for scholarly publication, its economic via- bility is surely a matter of serious concern. How much would it cost? Who would pay for it? Might not such an arrangement, in the end, place an even heavier financial burden on the research library? The 119largest North American research libraries presently invest approximately one-half billion dollars annually in acquir- ing and binding print copies of publica- tions for their collections? This resource base should support both the operations of an electronic data center and the communi- cations costs connected with its use. Indeed, even assuming that, for a considerable pe- riod of time, research libraries would con- tinue to invest some portion of these funds in print publications not available from the Resolving the Acquisitions Dilemma 237 center, sufficient funding should un- doubtedly remain to support the center and its use. · Furthermore, as their print acquisitions programs declined, research libraries would generate savings far beyond direct acquisitions expenditure. Reliable, detailed economic data related to research library operations are still difficult to assemble. Yet the researcher can conservatively esti- mate that 80 percent or more of these North American research libraries' operat- ing budgets, which now total over 1.2 billion dollars, is currently invested in handling printed materials.8 This figure in- cludes acquisition, cataloging, circulation, and collection maintenance functions par- ticularly. Although dependence on an elec- tronic data center would not allow these expenditures to disappear all at once or even entirely, they would largely be elim- inated over time. The long-anticipated transformation of the research library from an ownership institution to an access service can be accomplished. Of course, under such circumstances, research libraries would generate new costs. The services that they would be re- quired to provide, as the information inter- mediary between the electronic record of scholarship and the scholar, would not be insignificant.9 However, these costs cer- tainly could be covered by materials-han- dling savings as research libraries gradually are transformed into information centers. But would such savings actually be real- ized by research libraries in an electronic information environment? Or would these libraries or their clientele be required to pay use charges for access to the electronic database of scholarly publication-charges that probably would equal or perhaps even exceed the present cost of print acquisitions? Well over one half of the cost of scholarly publishing presently derives from the pro- duction and distribution of print copies.10 Conversely, approximately one half of the income generated by scholarly publishing derives from research library purchases. 11 238 College & Research Libraries If print distribution were eliminated, schol- arly publishers could maintain their vital review and editorial functions ~thout in- come from libraries, assuming that the publishers did not have to share in the costs of supporting the operations or use of the electronic data center. There would be no need to levy use charges on research librar- ies or on the scholarly community for ac- cess to that center. Acceptance Could scholarly publication effectively continue under such circumstances, with- out producing and distributing a print product? Would the scholarly community accept such a change? Recent develop- ments suggest that scholars increasingly are making use of electronics for their infor- mal communication. It seems far more likely that scholars will insist on electronic formal communication as well, rather than retain what will, in such an environment, be an increasingly cumbersome print systemY·13 Will publishers wish to cooperate in such an endeavor? The answer to that question can be found only in an examination of the structure of scholarly publishing. The vast majority of such publishing, at least in North America, is still in the hands of non- commercial publishers-essentially uni- versities and societies. The dominant objective for these publishers is not gener- ating profit, but contributing to the ad- vancement of scholarship. Indeed, the activities of scholarly publishers are essen- tially subsidized.14 As long as these publish- ers are able to continue their editorial and review functions, which would not be threatened, they would have no substantive reason not to shift from print to electronic distribution. Indeed, electronic distribution would offer some significant advantages to the scholarly publisher. The publisher would not have to worry about marketing, reject manuscripts because of budget limitations, or delay the appearance of accepted manu- scripts until they could be accommodated in a journal issue.15 Of course, commercial publishers would not be willing to participate in an arrangement that would deny them prof- its. This would certainly pose a problem May 1991 for an electronic-access system that did not include use charges or some other royalty provision. Although noncom- mercial publishers produce most North American scholarly publication, this sit- uation does not necessarily obtain else- where-particularly in Western Europe. Furthermore, even in North America, com- mercial publishers produce material that research libraries regularly acquire and preserve. Commercial publishers participating in an electronic data center should not, how- ever, be an insurmountable problem. All commercial publications could be included in a use-charge system, and the royalties turned over to the appropriate publisher. Such a system could be affordable for librar- ies. Indeed, such an arrangement might be attractive to commercial publishers, who presently are concerned about controlling access in an electronic .distribution environ- ment.16 Alternatively, research libraries could continue to acquire and maintain col- lections of commercial publications in book form, making them available as they do now. Over time, however, one of the conse- quences of developing a single electronic database of scholarship might be the grad- ual disappearance of the commercial schol- arly publisher. Such publishers presently. exist because universities and societies can- not absorb the full production-distribution responsibility for scholarly publication in a print environment Absorption of this re- sponsibility by the electronic database center would eliminate the commercial scholarly publisher's function. Copyright Copyright has long-and increasingly- acted as a barrier to the kind of open-access system explicit in an electronic database of scholarship. Will that continue to be the case? Copyright is essential protection for the com- mercial author and publisher, who write and publish in order to make money. The situa- tion is quite different for the scholar and scholarly publisher. The scholar writes and the scholarly publisher publishes in order to contribute to the advancement of knowl- edge. Both want recognition from their peers, and both know that additional rewan:ls- promotion, tenure, salary advancement, ac- ademic and professional honors----come as a by-product of such recognition. Whereas the commercial author or pub- lisher relies on copyright to restrict distri- bution without payment, the scholar and scholarly publisher are interested in max- imizing distribution. Scholars simply wish to ensure that proper attribution is given whenever their work is copied, quoted, or otherwise used. Scholarly publishers share this interest. However, because they function in a free-market guise in the present print information environment, scholarly publishers also have assumed the commercial publisher's interest in preventing unauthorized copying. In- deed, in a print environment, scholarly publishers inevitably ,have something of a split personality: the merchant, or pseudomerchant, being at odds with the dispenser of knowledgeY With the establishment of an electronic database of scholarly information, which will relieve scholarly publishers of the need to print and distribute their prod- uct, these publishers will not require the protections and restrictions of copyright. Furthermore, if commercial publishers are able to secure revenue--in the form of use charges-through participation in the electronic access program, their copyright protection concerns should be fully met. The lack of accepted standards for electronic publication is also seen as a major barrier to implementing conve- nient and reliable electronic access. This problem is not fundamental, but derivative. Continued employment of nonstandard hardware and software by scholarly publishers provides protec- tion against unlicensed use of their products. Like copyright, nonstandard equipment ensures that payment is re- ceived for use. Because an electronic data center could be organized to elim- inate such concerns, it would serve as a strong stimulus to standardization. WHO LEADS? Can the research librarian unilater- ally effect such a fundamental change Resolving the Acquisitions Dilemma 239 in the research library? Obviously not. The research librarian will require the fullandactiveparticipationoftheschol- arly publisher in designing and im- plementing what also will, necessarily, involve an equally fundamental change in scholarly publishing. Furthermore, changes in both of these activities must be endorsed and supported by schol- ars. Such support is likely to be forth- coming because of the significant improvements that electronic publica- tion and access would bring to both scholar and publisher and because the present print system is rapidly ap- proaching collapse .18 Finally, there is the question of time. How long will it take to move from the print system of scholarly publishing and research library organization to the very different electronic system de- scribed above? Even if a major effort were undertaken immediately, it would take a number of years-perhaps two or three decades, at best. First, there would have to be an extended period of negotiation as the scholarly commu- nity unites and establishes a direction. A period of extensive planning neces- sarily follows. Finally, considerable time will be required to carry out the fundamental institutional change. In- deed, the generation of research librar- ians who begin the process will probably be replaced before it is com- pleted. This provides all the more rea- son to undertake the effort as quickly as possible. Clearly, no unconquerable obstacle stands in the way of the changes that will resolve the research librarian's ac- quisitions dilemma, monumental though these changes will be. The serials crisis demonstrates the need to make such changes, and it indicates steps to be taken in order to carry them out. Re- search librarians, who understand better than anyone else the critical is- . sues at stake, must provide the neces- sary leadership to effect this change. Indeed, for research librarians, this challenge is a primary one for the next millennium. 240 College & Research Libraries May 1991 REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Economic Consulting Services, Inc., A Study of Trends in Average Prices and Costs of Certain Serials Over Time; Prepared for the Association of Research Libraries (Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1989); Ann Okerson, Of Making Books There Is No End: Report on Serial Prices for the Association of Research Libraries (Eastchester, N.Y.: ARL, 1989). 2. Richard M. Dougherty, "Editorial," Journal of Academic Librarianship 14:3 (Mar. 1988): "Thus it is possible we are currently struggling through a period of transition, waiting for a new system of scholarly communication to evolve." 3. J. Periam Danton, "University Library Book Budgets, 1860, 1910, and 1960," Library Quarterly 57:284-302 (July 1987). 4. The classic analysis is: Derek J. De Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science . .. and Beyond (New York: Columbia Univ. Pr., 1986); and Science since Babylon (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Pr., 1975). This analysis is confirmed periodically, most recently by Griffiths and King in Okerson, Of Making Books, p.32. 5. A typical assessment is: Gayle Feldman, "The Serials Pricing Controversy," Publishers Weekly 235:70 (Jan. 13, 1989): "Most librarians and publishers agree that an electronic solution in the short-term is pie-in-the-sky." 6. Gina Kolata, "In a Frenzy, Math Enters Age of Electronic Mail," New York Times, June 26, 1990, p.C1, C10. 7. Association of Research Libraries, ARL Statistics, 1988-89 (Washington, D.C.: ARL, 1990), p.31. 8. Ibid. 9. Eldred Smith, The Librarian, the Scholar, and the Future of the Research Library (New York: Greenwood, 1990), p.77-85. 10. Ad Hoc Committee on the Economics of Publication, ed., Economics of Scientific Journals (Bethesda, Md.: Council of Biology Editors, 1982). 11. Ibid.; see also: N. Bernard Basch, "The Scholarly Journal and the Library Market," Scholarly Publishing 19:157-162 (Apr. 1988). 12. William D. Garvey, Communication: The Essence of Science (Oxford: Pergamon, 1979). Garvey's book is an extensive discussion of the informal and formal systems of scholarly communication and of the relationship between them. 13. Kolata, "In a Frenzy," p.C1, C10. As described in this article, the time required for a group of mathematicians, located around the world and interacting via international electronic mail, to solve a major, long-standing mathematics problem, including prep- aration of a paper to share the results of their work, was less than the time required to publish it in a scholarly journal. 14. Fritz Machlup, "Publishing Scholarly Books and Journals: Is It Economically Viable?" Journal of Political Economy 85:217-25 (Feb. 1977); see also: David W. Lewis, "Economics of the Scholarly Journal," College & Research Libraries 50:674-88 (Nov. 1989). 15. Thomas P. Stossel, "Speed: An Essay on Biomedical Communication," The New England Journal of Medicine 313:123-26 (July 11, 1985). 16. Robert Weber observed in "The Clouded Future of Electronic Publishing," Publishers Weekly 235:80 (June 29, 1990), that "unless avoidance of copyright were universally detectable, a highly unlikely circumstance, the duplication and distribution of copy- right materials seems unstoppable. If this view is correct, publishers would have a powerful disincentive to sell and distribute their wares in electronic form." 17. Frederick A. Praeger, "Librarians, Publishers, and Scholars, Common Interests, Differ- ent Views: The View of an Independent Scholarly Publisher," Library Quarterly 54:21-29 (Jan. 1984). 18. Herbert S. White, "Scholarly Publishers and Libraries: A Strained Marriage," Scholarly Publishing 19:125-29 (Apr. 1988).