Librav Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 17, pp. W-103, 1993 0364-6408/93 $6.00 + .OO Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1993 Pergamon Press Ltd.

ALA ANNUAL CONFERENCE 1992

ACRL Journal Costs in Libraries Discussion Group: A Report

The ACRL Journal Costs in Libraries Discussion Group offered a program titled “Activists’ Response to Excessive Journal Costs” on Saturday, June 27 in San Francisco. The program was moderated by October R. Ivins, Head of Acquisitions, Louisiana State University, and featured three “activists”: Donald Koepp, University Librarian at Princeton University; Mar- cia Tuttle, Head of Serials at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Ann O’Neill, doctoral student in library science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Describing his recently publicized efforts to counter what he considered to be excessive price increases by Pergamon Press, Koepp characterized himself as a “single-minded activist.” His purpose, he said, was not to prove that commercial scholarly publishers were “wrong” nec- essarily in their pricing practices, but that there simply was a limit to what academic librar- ies were willing or able to pay. He was working also to change a scholarly communication system that requires the academy to publish so much.

Koepp reported that, when informed of the pricing situation, some of the faculty at Prince- ton wanted to cancel all of the library’s Pergamon titles, but the end result was to cancel only titles that carried what the library considered to be “excessive” increases. Decisions as to which titles to cancel were made by selectors and faculty. Koepp added that financial constraints were not really an issue, because the library’s materials budget had experienced annual increases in the 11 to 14 percent range over the past decade.

The letter by which Koepp informed Pergamon of Princeton’s decision was widely distrib- uted within the academic library community in North America. Feedback from his ARL col- leagues indicated a feeling that some sort of similar collective action might be taken by other libraries. He added that one of his reasons for distributing the letter was to see whether any legal action might result.

The major problem that Princeton encountered with this project was getting “accurate” price information. This was attributed to the fact that the library ordered Pergamon titles from several sources-direct as well as from more than one vendor. According to Koepp, this resulted in a situation wherein his staff was not always sure that they were making decisions based on the most current pricing information. He added that library staff have already con- tacted two of their vendors about getting “firm” prices for the 1993 subscription year.

In concluding his remarks, Koepp described himself as a “romantic” who felt that the time had come to get the issue of cost “out in the open.” By doing so, he believes that he and others like him can effect change and make a difference in the profession.

Marcia Tuttle’s topic was the now famous “Aqueduct Action Agenda” which she was in- strumental in developing in February 1992. At that time, Tuttle and 18 other librarians met for a retreat at the Aqueduct Conference Center near Chapel Hill, North Carolina. There, they discussed “pressing issues” related to serials acquisitions and scholarly communications. Tuttle noted that the intense and lively discussions revolved around five main topics: strategies for counteracting high prices, the library’s role in document delivery, library treatment of elec- tronic journals, serials cancellation projects, and copyright. The result of these discussions was

89

90 ALA Annual Conference 1992

the formulation of an “action agenda” consisting of 14 points, which the participants have urged all librarians to “discuss, adopt, and promulgate.”

In describing how the process got started, Tuttle felt the need to talk face-to-face with col- leagues about these issues in a “supportive” atmosphere. Electronic mail was fine to a point, but conferences were too busy for serious, in-depth discussion. Librarians who were known to have an interest in these issues were invited, and the final attendee list was based primar- ily on who was able to attend.

Since the group met in February, there has been considerable publicity concerning the agenda itself. Not only has the agenda been disseminated widely within library circles, but it has also been the subject of articles in publications such as The Chronicle of Higher Educu- tion and The Christian Science Monitor. Tuttle added that what makes the agenda unique is its focus on individual, rather than collective, action.

In concluding her remarks, Tuttle directed attention at two of the agenda items in partic- ular. Item 12 calls for librarians to inform subscription agents that “firm” prices should be distinguished from “preliminary” prices on invoices. Tuttle indicated that she was inclined to limit the scope of Item 12 to scientific, technical, and medical (STM) journals.

Item 14 of the agenda states the Aqueduct group’s intention to compile and produce a “benchmark” list of 100 journal titles “for comparison of prices paid to various subscription agents and directly to publishers.” Tuttle noted that this task “seemed easy” when first drafted, but has now proved to be difficult. The hypothesis behind this agenda item is that libraries do not all pay the same price for the same journal.

Ann O’Neill, a library science doctoral student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the Aqueduct group, reported the results of a study, which she conducted, involving a list of expensive journal titles compiled by the Association of South- eastern Research Libraries (ASERL). This list was first compiled in 1988 as a collection man- agement tool in order to ensure that at least one subscription to each title would always be held by a member library. O’Neill’s study focused on the 112 most expensive titles on the list, ranging from a low of $858 to a high of $6,670, with an average price of $1,535. Publishers represented by the list included Elsevier, Pergamon, Springer-Verlag, John Wiley, and Aca- demic Press. Thirteen other publishers, which O’Neill did not name, were also represented by less than 10 titles each. The five publishers listed accounted for 85% of the titles in the sample.

One purpose of O’Neill’s study was to examine how widely held these titles were. No fig- ures were cited in this presentation, but it was noted that the most expensive title on the list, Bruin Research, was held by all three members of the Research Triangle in North Carolina (Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State Uni- versity). O’Neill added that, overall, the data did not indicate that the most expensive titles were held by only a few libraries.

O’Neill’s conclusion was that academic libraries need to look at closer cooperation in col- lection development and resource sharing. She cited the ASERL list as an example of what a small group can do at a grassroots level to address key issues in serials. One librarian, or a small group can make a difference.

Adrian W Alexander Region Manager, Western U.S.

The Faxon Co. I5 Southwest Park

Westwood, MA 02090 ALEXANDER@FAXON.COM