[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: FW: R&D spending and library spending


>From what I know (I'm not in an ARL library) definitions of what
expenditures to count where (or not) have been in a state of flux 
and might be counterintuitive at times. The same title in print 
and electronic could be counted as 2 titles if I understand 
definitions correctly-they might be part of the same subscription 
i.e. Print + plus-e) or the plus could be in a secondary 
aggregator database) or 3 titles with another format (microform). 
And who pays for it can also create another wrinkle in counting. 
(state payments for example, shared payment consortia, etc.)

To give an example from my library (we report using ASERL 
statistics with definitions based on ARL definitions) the cost of 
Science Direct this past year was two components, a serials 
prices component and what might be called an electronic resources 
component (actually we have 3 components, but that's another 
story). That second component (a percentage of the base serials 
price) is in our internal accounting NOT a serials cost, but a 
database cost. How we report Science Direct costs (which 
category/categories) will change if we move to all electronic as 
far as I understand at the moment.

The increases in our expenditures for databases over the last 
five years have been phenomenal, and part of that is due to 
publisher fees for electronic access-some of this is the big deal 
effect. We are seeing overall "expenditures" for print serials 
decrease or remain essentially flat under this accounting, but we 
know that's not the case overall for dollars paid to publishers 
for their products.

For some serials where the cost for e-format is additional, we 
see an increase in "serials" costs. But if we go all electronic 
with a publisher and see a percentage decrease, that could end up 
as a decrease in serials expenditures, depending on definitions 
or an increase in database expenditures- I think. (I don't do our 
statistics and that might be displaying my ignorance more than 
anything else).

Expenditures for Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, etc could be treated 
differently depending on the deal and skewed by not including 
additional e-resource fees in serial expenditures that may be 
"add ons" as "serial expenditures" or could be seen as a decrease 
in a serials publisher's prices (moving to the database category 
for example and out of serials) depending on how the deal is 
structured. AT least that's my understanding at the moment. I'm 
subject to correction by the experts and I hope anyone who 
understands all this better than I do will speak up. And 
definitions may be changing as we discuss them.

For the last few years I think the indicator of pricing patterns 
in serials is probably best measured by the Lee Van Orsdel and 
Kathleen Born's series in Library Journal. For the most recent 
(April 2005) see: Choosing Sides--Periodical Price Survey 2005 

Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
phone 704 687-2825

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of JOHANNES
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 6:38 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: FW: R&D spending and library spending

Dear Chuck,

Interesting figures, and I'm pleased I was wrong with regard to
the ARL serials spending increases in the period of 1986-2001.

However, looking at the more recent period of 1998-2003, for
which I quoted the R&D spending increases, the ARL figures show
something that is perhaps a bit puzzling.

R&D spending went up by an average of 9.15% each year; ARL
serials spending by an average of 7.16% each year; Average unit
price for serials went up by an average of just under 1% each
year; And the number of serials subscribed to by an average of 5%
each year.

Now, where has the 'serials crisis' gone (at least for the ARL)?

Jan Velterop

PS. Toby Green is absolutely right to point out that these
figures, and the original graph that makes the comparison with
general price indices, are of very limited value if they aren't
taking global funding, spending, inflation, cost developments et
cetera into account.

"Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu> wrote:

> http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/append/c5/at05-02.xls
> Science & Engineering Indicators, 2004
> Support for Academic R&D: current dollars.
> 1986	$10,928 (in millions of dollars)
> 2001	$32,723 (in millions of dollars)
> Ratio: 2001/1986	2.986
> http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/04pub/04intro.html
> ARL Average library expenditures for serials
> 1986	$1,496,775
> 2001	$4,939,225
> Ratio 2001/1986	3.29
> I think this means ARL libraries average expenditures for
> serials have been running ahead of Academic R&D dollar
> increases.
> Chuck Hamaker
> Associate University Librarian Collections and
> Technical Services
> Atkins Library
> University of North Carolina Charlotte
> Charlotte, NC 28223
> phone 704 687-2825