RE: Payment at input and introducing competition (was: PLoS pricing)

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

Yes, it is true, as Henderson asserts, that overall library budgets have
NOT increased with increased R&D levels. But that argument is not relevant
to the next piece of the argument, i.e. libraries should go get more money
to be able to pay more for serials. The two don't connect directly.

Library budget cuts are another issue, and I don't see evidence for much
of that happening in research libraries over the last decade at least in
the US. There have been significant reductions in purchasing power
worldwide because of relative currency values. South Africa comes to mind
as a particular challenge for its academic libraries.

This year there may be a reversal in that as some states in the US may
actually have budget reductions.

Libraries have been forced to cut serials,in my experience, primarily
because price increases have been 2,3, even 4 times inflation rates. Even
when expenditures are stable or even increasing for serials, the levels of
cost increases driven primarily by large commercial publishers have been
breathtaking for most of the last 20 years.

I think this realization, as stated in UK documents on the Elsevier
purchase of Harcourt, conflated the argument and I think some publishers
assume that means library budget cuts.  Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Velterop [mailto:jan@biomedcentral.com]
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:27 AM
To: 'Hamaker, Chuck'; 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'
Subject: RE: Payment at input and introducing competition (was: PLoS
prici ng)

Dear Chuck,

I'm sure you and Michael are right. Maybe Henderson's assertion is
testimony to the fact that if one repeats things often enough, they may
eventually be perceived as the truth. The point I was illustrating was
that library budgets are being cut or at least not increased in real terms
in line with the increased cost of the literature. Am I wrong on that
point as well?

As to research being ignored by publishers, wouldn't it be nice if more
library research were available with open access so that more of the
collective wisdom of the profession were disseminated more widely, for
instance amongst publishers?

Best,

Jan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Velterop [mailto:jan@biomedcentral.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 8:33 PM
> To: 'liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu'; 'ssp@lists.sspnet.org'
> Subject: Payment at input and introducing competition (was: PLoS
> pricing)
> 
> snip
> Another frequent contributor to these discussion lists, Albert Henderson,
> argues that the cause of the serials crisis must be found in the library
> budgets, specifically the fact that these budgets for decades haven't been
> increased in proportion with the total cost of research. He's right, too.
> 
> snip
> 
> Actually Jan, this is not true. Library SERIALS expenditures have  kept up
> with research expenditures increases. Michael Mabe of Elsevier in his
> article in the new issue of Serials (The UKSG journal) has noted that there
> is a weak relationship between research expenditures and paper output. 
> Its not R&D increases that drive paper output, as attractive as 
> that unproven assertion repeated ad-infinitum by many publishers might 
> be, its number of scientists that drives paper output. Since publishers 
> don't seem to believe library stats,on this issue, perhaps Mabe's 
> reseasrch will convince them. 
> 
> Per-capita output by scientists has actually decreased a bit over the last
> decade or so according to Mabe's research. 
> 
> Libraries have been paying at the R&D increase level, but research papers
> have not increased at that level. 
> 
> Although overall library budget's have not increased at the R&D increase
> level-the  part of the cost/budget, etc. argument that is accurate, SERIALS
> expenditures track R&D increases.  The first librarian (in the 1980's) to
> demonstrate this particular relationship (ie. serials cost increases and R&D
> increases correlate highly ) was Kendon Stubbs in research reported for ARL.
> 
> Several librarians have demonstrated in the literature of the last 15 years
> or so that paper output and R&D do not correlate. Its nice to have Mabe's
> confirmation. Perhaps his research will put this particular bugaboo to rest.
> 
> Chuck Hamaker