College and Research Libraries Commentaries on Serials Publishing Ronald F. Dow, Karen Hunter, and G. Gregory Lozier This article is the last in C&RL's series on scholarly communications and serials prices. The previous articles in the series are "Longitudinal Study of Scientific Journal Prices in a Research Library," by Kenneth E. Marks, Steven P. Nielsen, H. Craig Petersen, and Peter E. Wagner (March 1991); "Resolving the Acquisitions Dilemma: Into the Electronic Information Environment," by Eldred Smith (May 1991); "Serials Pricing and the Role of the Electronic Journal," by Paul Metz and Paul M. Gherman (July 1991); and "Without Feathers: Effects of Copyright and Ownership on Scholarly Publishing," by Ann Okerson (September 1991). THE SERIALS PRICING DILEMMA This series of articles, published over the past eight months by College & Re- search Libraries, paints an exasperating picture of a serials pricing crisis that has been and will continue to affect research libraries for some time. Issues that are at the heart of the problem are not about to dissipate. For example, recent actions demonstrate that commercial publishers are continuing to combine and, through combination, secure even more leverage in the scholarly communication process. We need only witness the recent pur- chase of Pergamon Press PLC by Elsevier, or read of Elsevier's continuing expecta- tions for profit increases of 15 to 20 percent annually-achievable through acquisition and by expanding its list of scholarly sci- entific publications,1 or receive the "good news" from Elsevier that this year's serial price increases are being absorbed by a stronger exchange rate/ to know that there is no good news to report. For librarians, serials price increases represent a problem without precedent, for this is not a crisis of our own making. Yet if we receive no help from our part- ners in the scholarly communication process, the crisis can lead to our unmak- ing. Traditional library crises involve space, money to build new collections, automation initiatives, and the like. When library space is the issue, a new building resolves the problem and brings to campus an impressive struc- ture that can be pointed to with pride by students, faculty, and administrators as a visible commitment by the college or university to the learning process. Many a library director has made the case, with strong faculty support, for growing collection budgets. Growth rep- resents tangible evidence of an institution's research strength as collec- tion size and acquisitions budgets are nationally touted. And institutional in- vestments in library automation have expanded access to materials from home Ronald F. Dow is Assistant Dean of Planning and Administrative Services, The Pennsylmnia State University Libraries, University Park; Pennsylvania 16802; Karen Hunter is Vice President and Assistant to the Chairman, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., New York, New York 10010; and G. Gregory Lozier is Executive Director of Planning and Analysis, Affiliate Associate Professor of Education,and Research Associate, Center for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylmnia State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. 521 522 College & Research Libraries or office, linked campuses to national utilities whose databases afford access to resources far beyond the universe of ma- terials available locally to patrons, and improved management of libraries' ad- ministrative tasks, such as circulation and checkout. Each of these instances represents a significant problem met and faced at one time or another by the li- brary community. In case after case, using faculty and student support, li- braries have compiled evidence that in- stitutional investments in each of these undertakings would result in a tangible and evident value, worthy of the finan- cial resources spent. Unfortunately, the serials crisis has not stopped faculty from placing articles with overseas publishers-the very pub- lishers at which librarians are railing. Also, faculty have demonstrated no elas- ticity of demand for access to the publi- cations that are the source of libraries' problems, giving librarians little latitude for developing leverage with publishers by threatening cancellation of subscrip- tions as prices rise. Meanwhile, aca- demic administrators quickly are losing their ability to support escalating mate- rials budgets and are showing little sign of supporting librarians as they grapple with cancellations that will inflame fac- ulty and librarians alike. Librarians ask for more and more of each institution's resources to maintain serials collections at current levels-spending that cannot be pointed to easily as a new program initiative. Because university financial resources are limited, because little tan- gible value added accrues for the invest- ment, and because there is little likelihood that either commercial pub- lishers or the academic reward system will change soon, librarians are being left to deal with a crisis of unprecedented circumstances. So, then, how should someone who is participating in the administration of a large research library respond to the con- cerns posed by this series of articles and to the serials crisis in general? It seems to me that many of the management strategies for these difficult times fail to resolve the problem or to buy libraries November 1991 either enough time or additional re- sources to survive the crisis intact. Calls for cooperative solutions with our part- ners in the communications process have proven ineffectual. That leaves us with a few strategies only vaguely hinted at in this series, strategies that attempt to acquire some control over the process until better alternatives develop. Examples of these stratagems include passing the cost of serials increases through to funding sources with pockets deeper than those of our parent institu- tions; altering the scholarly communica- tion process by indirect means; or, through cooperative library ventures, at- tempting to change directly the market- place in which commercial publishers of scholarly literature compete. To illustrate, let us first look at one strategy that seeks to pass through the costs of materials increases to another funding source. Remember that a sub- stantial proportion of what is published in the scholarly scientific literature is the result of funded investigation. Much has been written in recent months concern- ing indirect overhead costs in support of this research. Clearly, library charges are an appropriate component for cost re- covery. Yet virtually no libraries factor in the total cost of literature that supports research or the escalating costs to main- tain these collections. The U.S. govern- ment allows libraries to recover costs for those items that can be shown to support research, above and beyond instruction or faculty continuing education. The gov- ernment requires a method of accounting for these costs that is both reasonable and capable of being replicated for verification. It would seem quite defensible to declare all serial literature with some identifiable percentage of articles sponsored by re- search dollars as literature purchased solely in support of research. For example, a library might argue that any journal where, say, 30 percent of the published articles in one or two is- sues of the serial report on the results of funded research-as identified by author acknowledgment in the introduction or text of the work-should be labelled as research literature. The library can argue that these publications are purchased primarily to inform faculty and students of research results--because this is how scientists have chosen to disseminate the outcome of their work-and to stimulate similar activity, leading to future fund- ing opportunities. If these publications were not purchased by the library, infor- mation concerning this research would not be disseminated and new proposals would not be forthcoming. Furthermore, because funding agencies allow scholars to pass copyright to publishers, provid- ing no other means of disseminating re- search results, libraries have little choice but to subscribe to this literature. There- fore, the total costs of all journals wherein 20, 30, 40, or some other percent of the articles are funded by research dollars should be declared for research support exclusively and be fully cost recoverable on an annual basis through overhead charges. This accounting method is fully capable of replication and places the fi- nancial responsibility for funding these subscriptions on agencies who are respon- sible for the context of the publications and whose pockets are deeper than the library's. This leads to a second strategy for com- bating the serials crisis. Should these agen- cies be faced with the annual escalation of costs to support serials collections, they might well develop new mecha- nisms for disseminating the results of the research they fund. By disallowing the transfer of copyright on articles that are a direct result of funded research, these agencies might hasten the spread of the electronic journal, encourage the creation of online NTIS dissemination devices, or even curtail the volume of literature that reports on only some portion of the re- search product, resulting in follow-up articles and an expanding publication list. In short, by passing on the cost of these serials, librarians may be able to affect indirectly the scholarly communi- cations process in a manner that could not be achieved by direct action. Conversely, perhaps direct action is called for. Serials publication is one ac- tivity that requires little or no working or start-up capital. Perhaps libraries, in consort with parent institutions, state Commentaries on Serials Publishing 523 development agencies, and a few sym- pathetic funding sources, could enter the publishing marketplace. Why not buy out the editorial boards of several of the significant and more costly scientific se- rials, work with these boards, and con- tract printers, to develop alternatives to the original publications-new publica- tions whose reputations would reside in the credibility of the editorial boards? Then, by agreement between research libraries, we would cancel subscriptions to the original publications en masse. This strategy, if implemented in a selec- tive fashion by a group of research librar- ies and their sponsoring organizations, could serve as a pilot project for alterna- tives to scholarly publishing without up- setting the existing academic reward structure, could bring competition to the marketplace, and could begin to define profit margins to the advantage of con- suming institutions in a way that counters the prevailing trend of corporate concen- tration. If done properly, it also could serve as a mechanism to aid in building links between universities and local eco- nomic development concerns. Obviously, new approaches must be attempted to resolve what has become the librarian's dilemma. Faculty may be sympathetic to the issue, but tradition and the faculty reward structure miti- gate against their full support. There is a limit to what campus administrators are willing to expend or are capable of ex- pending to resolve this crisis, and there is a limit to their resolve to stand behind librarians who are being forced into mak- ing serials cuts to meet financial con- straints. Clearly, it is easier to challenge librarians to resolve the serials issue than to support change in the scholarly commu- nications process, which is at the heart of this dilemma. Campus administrative po- sitions turn over too quickly for librari- ans to expect long-term institutional leadership in the resolution of what has become our plight.-Ronald F. Dow CUSTER'S LAST STAND? General George Custer gained · his place in history the stupid way. His arro- gance and strategic misjudgments cost 524 College & Research Libraries him his life and the lives of his troops, while they provided a moral victory for the Indians. There are many in the li- brary community who would identify with the Indians and hope to recreate Little Big Horn, with commercial jour- nals publishers in the role of the military. In fact, they want the Indians to win not just the battle, but the war. On seemingly all fronts-whether with statistical anal- yses, faculty lobbying, copyright (re)in- terpretations, new electronic journal start-ups, or visions of university- owned, library-run local or national ar- chives-the call for change is loud and persistent. Each of the four articles on which I was asked to comment adds to the discussion and merits more detailed praise and criticism than I will give here. The Kenneth E. Marks et al. study is among the better statistical analyses I have seen on the topic of journal prices- far superior, for example, to the Associ- ation of Research Libraries effort. There ·are still missing elements, however, with circulation (number of copies sold) being perhaps the most obvious. Circulation data are admittedly hard to acquire, but they are significant for the time period involved. The Marks study started with 1967, virtually the peak period of library funding. In the 1960s, not only did indi- vidual university libraries have funds to support multiple subscriptions, but whole new campuses were being added to state systems, only to be trimmed back in the 1980s. Many of the largest (and most expensive) European science jour- nals saw their subscriptions drop more than 50 percent between 1967 and 1987. Commercial journals from U.S. publish- ers undoubtedly experienced some de- cline as well, but often they were starting from a larger base and suffered a smaller percentage decrease. Prices have been ad jus ted consistently to compensate for falling subscriptions. Regardless of the reason for price in- creases, the net result is that libraries are able to own an ever declining percentage of the world's literature. What I find be- wildering is that there are relatively few articles on what can be done to improve access to the approximately 75 percent of November 1991 the literature not owned. Instead, the emphasis is on creating a utopia for the twenty-first century. This is one much- used method of long-range planning: es- tablish goals or targets; devise strategies and tactics to get there; implement on a year-by-year basis. When the dream or goal is to revolutionize an entire commu- nications system, the strategies and tac- tics must be very, very good or chaos may be the outcome. Eldred Smith suggests as a remedy that research librarians run what would be essentially an electronic national pe- riodical center. His economics are faulty, however, based in part on a misunder- standing of all (not just commercial) publishers' cost and revenue sources, and this analysis leads to a barter or shareware concept where there would be no charge for most material. Many of his other assumptions seem equally un- likely, including the notion of large-scale interuniversity cooperation. Slightly tongue-in-ch~ek, I have suggested in the past that if the United States wanted to be more efficient with its tax dollars, it should merge the continental forty-eight states into a maximum of sixteen new states and rationalize duplication in uni- versity programs and network develop- ment in all institutions-public and private--within those new superstates. Well, that is clearly a politically naive notion, too, but not much more so than the process Smith suggests. Smith is right in emphasizing that these changes will take decades to occur. Paul Metz and Paul M. Gherman pro- vide a thoughtful analysis of the present serials situation, although I could nit- pick on details, particularly the notion of copyright impeding access to ideas. Copyright, as Ann Okerson rightly dis- tinguishes in her article, does not inhibit or limit the flow of ideas, only the copy- ing and distribution of specific expres- sions of the ideas. As someone who has twice experienced others reproducing her works verbatim and without attribu- tion-that is, presenting them as their own-I do not take copyright lightly. Most of us have little to represent our- selves besides our words, and our effort "-· in putting those words together deserves some protection. Metz and Gherman propose electronic journals (e-journals) as the solution to the journal cost problem, and over the long term (again, decades), they may well be right. E-journal use shifts much of the dis- tribution cost and effort to the reader (or a library or another intermediary). At a minimum one usually will want to download and printout lengthy material for off-screen study. Based on the limited sample of the one electronic newsletter that I receive, this is a tedious and unsat- isfactory process and one that I would be loathe to have to rely on as my main data-gathering mode. But it surely will get easier, and the quality of layout and reproduction will improve, so the op- tions should be pursued by all, including universities and commercial publishers. Okerson delivers a similar message: university-based control over scholarly publications and distribution electroni- cally. The underlying hope or premise is that the university has a higher standard of morality and altruism than does busi- ness. Although I have worked in both environments, the truth of this premise is not immediately obvious to me. It is an · intriguing notion and one that should perhaps be the subject of a separate arti- cle or discussion. The Smith, Metz and Gherman, and Okerson articles have in common the sense that the current system is broken beyond repair and radical redefinition is the answer. The redefinition centers around universities or librarians taking control of the publication process via elec- tronic media and acknowledges that this is a long process of at least a decade, perhaps two. But what happens in the meantime? How can access be improved to the 75 percent of the literature not owned? What would happen if publish- ers or others created the electronic ar- chives now, along with the electronic tools to make it easy for scholars to ac- cess these archives directly over the net- work, without reference to the library at all? In fact (of course) that is precisely what is happening and where the major pressure is being felt by publishers, as Commentaries on Serials Publishing 525 commercial services (including offshoots of library consortia) seek to license journal material for electronic storage and docu- ment delivery. Few librarians (or pub- lishers) seem to have analyzed what these services--fast, efficient, and network- based-will mean for collection develop- ment or subscription sales. Yet the decisions that will be made on these ser- vices over the next two to three years may do more to change the economics of jour- nals and journal access than all of the talk of e-joumals and university-owned pub- lishing. It is harder to talk about what we can really do today, but I suggest we try to shift to that subject.-.Karen Hunter SERVING THE NEEDS OF SCHOLARLY PRESERVATION AND DISSEMINATION: FOCUS ON THE CUSTOMER The editor's note to each article in Col- lege & Research Libraries' series on serials pricing informs us that the series deals with "scholarly communications and se- rials prices." As a reviewer who is not a regular consumer of C&RL, I became somewhat cynical about the issue as I read the abstract and opening page of Eldred Smith's contribution. From his plaintive introduction, I learned that the research librarian's lot is a mighty hap- less one-a task faced with "crisis," a "dilemma" that is "an increasingly intol- erable burden," the latest episode in a "continuing historic," "heroic," and "losing struggle." Yet I also recognized that the problems he cited are real, and in their efforts to suggest solutions to the crisis, all the authors in this series indi- rectly reflect the goals that, I suspect, dominate the plans of many research li- braries. Consider the following: Goal: To develop solutions to control, reduce, and stabilize the costs of serials publications. Goal: To facilitate changes in federal copyright laws. Goal: To encourage the university to change the academic reward structure. Goal: To promote greater utilization of electronic information and tech- nology. 526 College & Research Libraries Such goals are not frivolous, yet, I won- der whether they are sufficiently funda- mental. Smith observes that most of the sug- gestions for dealing with expanding prices and proliferating publications typically promise only short-term adjustments, pro- viding a temporary equilibrium that fails to provide long-term solutions. The source of more lasting solutions may be found in the mission of the research li- brary. But is it the business of these li- braries to provide the greatest number of titles at the least cost? Or is it their mis- sion to acquire and disseminate there- cord of scholarship? If the answer is closer to the second question than the first, then greater attention needs to be given to the scholar as both purveyor and consumer of scholarship. In the following paragraphs, I will comment briefly on the view of the customer as the focal point for addressing the issue, on the need for better data on which to make decisions, on avoiding blame in the search for solu- tions, and on the limitations of some of the solutions being proffered. Focusing on the Customer C&RL's series on scholarly communi- cations and serials pricing identifies and discusses to varying degrees the role of the librarian, university, scholar, re- search funder, and publisher. Each has needs that, in turn, must be served by the others. However, if we are to address these multiple needs, we must begin with the needs of the scholar as the pri- mary customer. What information does the scholar need? How quickly? How often? In what form? What is the best means by which to communicate her or his scholarly ideas, research activities, and results? How do these needs differ from wants, which cannot and should not always be met? Much of what we know about the answers to such ques- tions is based on assumptions and anec- dotes. What data do we have to support these assumptions? Data for Decision Making The premise for the study conducted by Kenneth E. Marks et al. was to pro- November 1991 vide better price information for deci- sion making. If changes are going to be made in the processes that serve the mis- sion of collecting and disseminating schol- arship, more information about the processes themselves needs to be col- lected and collected continuously. A vast array of processes is involved, including scholarship itself, editing, publishing, ac- quisition, distribution, funding, and the scholarly reward system. Avoiding Blame Focusing on collecting and analyzing data about processes also averts the ten- dency to assign blame. Smith asks, "Who is to blame?" but goes on to observe that considerable fruitless energy has been expended in directing and assessing blame within the scholarly and publish- ing communities. Ann Okerson reports that the issue of reproduction and dis- semination often pits readers and librar- ians against publishers. And Paul Metz and Paul M. Gherman write that there has been much "harrumphing" and "finger pointing" among the scholarly societies and commercial publishers regarding willingness to introduce new journals. Seldom, if ever, does attention to deter- mining blame work constructively toward the evolution of a: widely acceptable and effective solution. Limitations Among the solutions discussed dur- ing this series are the increased use of electronic technology and a return to uni- versity-based publishing. Neither auto- matically ensures cost savings, nor do they guarantee satisfaction of customer needs. Electronic technology raises concerns about interactive software, compatible hardware, and the costs of both; we probably have not as yet discovered the full cost and extent of problems in the physical preservation of scholarship cap- tured in this new form. Similarly, the role of the university as publisher takes on dra- matically different characteristics, depend- ing on whether this role is assumed as a means to generate new sources of reve- nues or whether the university is ex- pected to assume a greater subsidization of the collection and dissemination of schol- arship. Once again, the role of both the elec- tronic technology and the university in addressing the issues of knowledge prolif- eration, dissemination, and cost can be best determined by focusing on the rele- vant processes and the needs of the re- spective customers. CONCLUSION Okerson suggests that the issue at hand is not pricing, but a dysfunctional and endangered scholarly publishing Commentaries on Serials Publishing 527 system. The resolution of this broader issue may require, in the words of Metz and Gherman, the forging of a new par- adigm, not just for librarians, but for scholarship in general. Yet, Smith asks, is the scholarly community ready to sup- port change in the way in which scholar- ship is presented and disseminated? Regardless of the magnitude of existing problems, support for a new paradigm is most likely to emerge if it addresses the basic needs of scholars.-G. Gregory Lozier REFERENCES 1. Gayle Feldman, "Going Dutch," Publishers Weekly 238(27):19 (June 21, 1991). 2. James J.F. Kels, letter to Elsevier customers dated August 7, 1991. IN FORTHCOMING ISSUES OF COLLEGE & RESEARCH UBRARIES Ranking and Evaluating the ARL Library Map Collections Charles A. Seavey The Evolution of Cooperative Collection Development in Alabama Academic Libraries Sue 0. Medina Are Patrons Ready for "Do-It-Yourself' Services? Nancy Larsen Helmick The Academic Library Job Market: A Content Analysis Comparing Public and Technical Services David W. Reser and Anita P. Schuneman Science Literacy: A Discussion and Information-Based Definition GreggSapp Academic Library Responses to Journal Price Discrimination Jean Walstrom Haley and James Talaga Keyword Searching on an Online Public Access Catalog: Characteristics of Users and Nonusers Pat Ensor