3
cies to produce U.S. dollar increases of no more than 4 percent and perhaps some price reductions. Specifi- cally, Barron suggested that increases in the publisher's currency would range from 8.5 percent to 10.5 percent, while Hoffer predicted increases of 10.5 percent to 11.5 percent for British titles and 9.5 percent to 11 percent for other European titles. Blackwell's, Readmore's parent company, predicted 10 percent for British and 7 percent to 8 percent for other European titles. On 30 August 1990, Heather Steele of BlackweU's Periodicals Division wrote to customers to describe the actual prices reported to her agency by eleven publish- ers. Based on prices reported for seven major British firms, which range from a low of 11.5 percent by Taylor and Francis to a high of 19.0 percent by Pergamon Press, the Blackwell estimate for all British prices has been revised upwards from the initial prediction of 10 percent, to the 13 percent to 17 percent range. She also reported rates of increase for four European publishers. Three are in line with the first projections: Karger's rates will increase by 8.0 percent in Swiss Francs; Springer Verlag will increase by 9.0 percent in DM; Kluwer Academic will increase by 10.0 percent in DM. Elsevier Sequoia, with a 13.0 percent Swiss Franc increase, is outstripped by Elsevier Ireland, which shows a 13 percent increase in U.S. dollars. Marcia Tuttle quickly distributed an issue of the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues, which included the text of the 30 August Blackwell's letter. 1 It also included the text of a letter to Pergamon customers from new managing director Michael Boswood and a reaction to both letters from Chuck Hamaker. Boswood stated on 23 August that Pergamon is changing its differential pricing policy and will price in British pounds. He notes "For the 1991 subscription year this meant that prices in the USA were actually some 18 percent lower than in the rest of the world" and continues with a reassurance that the stronger U.S. dollar will mean "the impact of this change will be less than 18 percent for the program as a whole." Chuck Hamaker's outraged response explains that, because of the stronger dollar, British publishers were already assured of a 13 percent increase from customers paying in dollars. Increases at the average of 15 percent in pounds added to the exchange rate produces an increase in publisher's income of 28 percent from customers paying in dollars. He predicts that British publishers will be tempted to try differential pricing for 1992. In another distressing development, Hamaker cites preliminary evidence of huge increases from four non- commercial and one commercial U.S. publishers. Only the American Chemical Society rates had been verified, and they show an increase of 20 percent. Hamaker speculates that large increases are produced by falling subscription rates that have been produced in turn by journal cancellation projects. He bases this conclusion on industry rumors that societal publishers have seen their cancellation rates increase from 4 percent to 8 percent. Adding this 8 percent to an estimated increase in production costs of 5 percent to an increase in size of 6 percent results in 19 percent, very nearly the actual increase of 20 percent. John Christensen, Brigham Young University, came to the defense of the American Chemical Society in the next issue ofNOSPI (N.S. no. 9). He explained that, although the rate of increase is high, the cost is typically only 25 percent of a comparable commercial journal, and the quality, as demonstrated by Institute for Scientific Information impact factor, is higher. Several other contributors to NOSPI have noted the actual percentage increases of titles ordered by their libraries, ranging from 15 percent to 35 percent. A Faxon "Client Communication Update" dated 7 October 1991 defends the firm's original projections for U.S. and European titles, but it makes a new separate projection for U.K. titles of 17 percent. The "update" does not name Pergamon; it only states that "One exception is the average price increase for UK publish- ers, which will be higher due to a decision by the largest publisher to eliminate differential pricing for US libraries." It seems likely that libraries with a high proportion of scientific, technical, and medical titles will experi- ence increases of more than 20 percent again this year. This news is coming too late for us to make well- considered cancellation decisions to stay in budget. For this year, the extra funds will probably come out of monographs, equipment, or other budget lines. Next year will be a different story. Libraries are already discussing plans to cut 20 percent to 25 percent of their serials. At LSU, we have received faculty approval to target high priced titles and publishers. What other choice do we have as we watch the system self-de- struct? MEETINGS American Library Association Annual Conference 29 June-3 July 1991, Atlanta, Georgia Serials pricing was not as much in evidence as at previous meetings but rather constituted an underly- ing theme. Two awards conferred by the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) were for pricing related activities. The Bowker/Ulrich's Serials Librarianship Award was presented to Deana Astle, Clemson, and Chuck 70 SERIALS REVIEW -- OCTOBER IVINS

American Library Association Annual Conference 29 June–3 July 1991, Atlanta, Georgia

  • View
    214

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: American Library Association Annual Conference 29 June–3 July 1991, Atlanta, Georgia

cies to produce U.S. dollar increases of no more than 4 percent and perhaps some price reductions. Specifi- cally, Barron suggested that increases in the publisher's currency would range from 8.5 percent to 10.5 percent, while Hoffer predicted increases of 10.5 percent to 11.5 percent for British titles and 9.5 percent to 11 percent for other European titles. Blackwell's, Readmore's parent company, predicted 10 percent for British and 7 percent to 8 percent for other European titles.

On 30 August 1990, Heather Steele of BlackweU's Periodicals Division wrote to customers to describe the actual prices reported to her agency by eleven publish- ers. Based on prices reported for seven major British firms, which range from a low of 11.5 percent by Taylor and Francis to a high of 19.0 percent by Pergamon Press, the Blackwell estimate for all British prices has been revised upwards from the initial prediction of 10 percent, to the 13 percent to 17 percent range. She also reported rates of increase for four European publishers. Three are in line with the first projections: Karger's rates will increase by 8.0 percent in Swiss Francs; Springer Verlag will increase by 9.0 percent in DM; Kluwer Academic will increase by 10.0 percent in DM. Elsevier Sequoia, with a 13.0 percent Swiss Franc increase, is outstripped by Elsevier Ireland, which shows a 13 percent increase in U.S. dollars.

Marcia Tuttle quickly distributed an issue of the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues, which included the text of the 30 August Blackwell's letter. 1 It also included the text of a letter to Pergamon customers from new managing director Michael Boswood and a reaction to both letters from Chuck Hamaker. Boswood stated on 23 August that Pergamon is changing its differential pricing policy and will price in British pounds. He notes "For the 1991 subscription year this meant that prices in the USA were actually some 18 percent lower than in the rest of the world" and continues with a reassurance that the stronger U.S. dollar will mean "the impact of this change will be less than 18 percent for the program as a whole."

Chuck Hamaker's outraged response explains that, because of the stronger dollar, British publishers were already assured of a 13 percent increase from customers paying in dollars. Increases at the average of 15 percent in pounds added to the exchange rate produces an increase in publisher's income of 28 percent from customers paying in dollars. He predicts that British publishers will be tempted to try differential pricing for 1992.

In another distressing development, Hamaker cites preliminary evidence of huge increases from four non- commercial and one commercial U.S. publishers. Only the American Chemical Society rates had been verified, and they show an increase of 20 percent. Hamaker speculates that large increases are produced by falling

subscription rates that have been produced in turn by journal cancellation projects. He bases this conclusion on industry rumors that societal publishers have seen their cancellation rates increase from 4 percent to 8 percent. Adding this 8 percent to an estimated increase in production costs of 5 percent to an increase in size of 6 percent results in 19 percent, very nearly the actual increase of 20 percent.

John Christensen, Brigham Young University, came to the defense of the American Chemical Society in the next issue ofNOSPI (N.S. no. 9). He explained that, although the rate of increase is high, the cost is typically only 25 percent of a comparable commercial journal, and the quality, as demonstrated by Institute for Scientific Information impact factor, is higher.

Several other contributors to NOSPI have noted the actual percentage increases of titles ordered by their libraries, ranging from 15 percent to 35 percent. A Faxon "Client Communication Update" dated 7 October 1991 defends the firm's original projections for U.S. and European titles, but it makes a new separate projection for U.K. titles of 17 percent. The "update" does not name Pergamon; it only states that "One exception is the average price increase for UK publish- ers, which will be higher due to a decision by the largest publisher to eliminate differential pricing for US libraries."

It seems likely that libraries with a high proportion of scientific, technical, and medical titles will experi- ence increases of more than 20 percent again this year. This news is coming too late for us to make well- considered cancellation decisions to stay in budget. For this year, the extra funds will probably come out of monographs, equipment, or other budget lines. Next year will be a different story. Libraries are already discussing plans to cut 20 percent to 25 percent of their serials. At LSU, we have received faculty approval to target high priced titles and publishers. What other choice do we have as we watch the system self-de- struct?

MEETINGS American Library Association

Annual Conference 29 June-3 July 1991, Atlanta, Georgia

Serials pricing was not as much in evidence as at previous meetings but rather constituted an underly- ing theme. Two awards conferred by the Association for Library Collections and Technical Services (ALCTS) were for pricing related activities. The Bowker/Ulrich's Serials Librarianship Award was presented to Deana Astle, Clemson, and Chuck

70 SERIALS REVIEW - - O C T O B E R I V I N S

Page 2: American Library Association Annual Conference 29 June–3 July 1991, Atlanta, Georgia

Hamaker, LSU, for their work dating back to 1984 in identifying and publicizing serials pricing patterns. The Blackwell Scholarship Award was presented to Gary D. Byrd, University of North Carolina, Health Sciences Library, for his article "An Economic 'Commons' Tragedy for Research Libraries: Scholarly Journal Publishing and Pricing Trends. ,,2

ALCTS also sponsored an all-day program on the serials marketplace and several groups addressed related topics. The ALCTS board of directors also announced plans for a two-day program for university administra- tors and faculty members as well as librarians. "Serials Management: Shaping a Changing Environment" will be held in Chicago on 25-26 October 1991.

The 30 June program was prepared by the AAP (American Association of Publishers)/ALCTS Joint Committee to present results of and reactions to three surveys it conducted in 1990 of librarians, publishers, and vendors respectively. Advance publicity was generated with the appearance of an article about the surveys in Library JournaP and offprints were distrib- uted to attendees. In addition to the authors of the article, credit for the surveys and program is deserved by the many members of the committee and its three subcommittees and particularly by committee co-chairs Audrey Melkin, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., and Peter McCallion, New York Public Library, and member and program moderator Corrie Marsh, George Wash- ington University.

"Beyond Prices: Serials Trends in the 90s" drew a large audience, although few were able to attend for the entire day. The program was organized as four panel discussions and concluded with a keynote address. The first of two morning sessions described the surveys, which had notable differences in response rate. The library survey was sent to all ARL libraries and a random sample of public, academic, and special libraries for a total of 446 libraries. The response rate for ARL libraries was 80 percent; the overall response rate was 56 percent. Only 76 of the 300 publishers surveyed responded, producing a response rate of 25.3 percent. Of those responding, trade/consumer publish- ers made up 32.9 percent, followed by 25 percent for associations, 15.8 percent for scholarly publishers, and 14.4 percent for scientific/medical/technical publishers. The vendor responses were equally disappointing, with only 10 of 40 or 25 percent responding.

The second morning session was a panel discussion of marketing and selection. Barbara Colson, deputy director/marketing director, Cambridge University Press, discussed what librarians rated as the most important tools or factors for selecting serials in terms of how her firm would alter marketing techniques. For example, since patron and faculty requests both ranked high, Cambridge will target faculty with direct mail-

ings, exhibit at professional meetings, and use editorial board contacts to market new titles. Sample copies ranked high, so Cambridge will expand its policy from supplying samples on request to mailing unsolicited sample issues. The least effective factors were telemar- keting (which librarians disliked even more than mid- year price increases) and visits from publisher represen- tatives; Cambridge will reduce these techniques. Tina Feick, serials specialist, Blackwelrs Periodicals Division, shared some ideas to explain the low response rate of vendors to their survey, suggesting that some questions were unclear and difficult to answer and that it was difficult for one person or department to answer all of the questions. She discussed the general condition of library/publisher relationships and noted a recent movement of librarians to focus on the business of serials acquisitions by emphasizing service charges, bids and quotations, and an increased involvement by library directors and assistant directors in vendor decisions?

The first of two afternoon sessions addressed fulfillment and distribution concerns. Librarians indicated that over 75 percent of orders are placed through vendors. One third of libraries use a single vendor, one third use two to nine vendors, and another third use ten or more. Criteria for vendor selection were ranked. The top four were effectiveness of resolving claims, accuracy of invoices, timeliness in processing orders, and the responsiveness of customer service personnel. Half of the librarians responding felt that vendors should supply claimed issues even if publishers cannot do so. The second afternoon session discussed serials automation, which is most advanced in ARL libraries. For the concluding keynote speech, Paul Mosher, director of libraries and vice provost, University of Pennsylvania, reprised a version of his excellent keynote talk presented at the Society for Scholarly Publishing annual meeting in May 1991 and previously described in this column (SR 17:3). His sobering remarks about the end of "business as usual" for libraries, vendors, and publishers and description of the challenges confronting the academic community in the "murky" nineties as libraries change their focus from ownership to access provided a thoughtful conclusion to the day.

In general, the program did a good job of explain- ing the survey and its results. Attendees responded very favorably to the opportunity to hear from publishers, vendors, and librarians in a single forum, but many complained that the all-day format was unworkable at ALA. Attendees also seemed to feel that the focus was on the recent past and present, not on future trends as indicated by the title. The survey solicited opinions about future developments in many areas, including library funding, purchasing, journal cancellations;

- - SERIALS PRICES: COLUMN 14 - - WINTER 1991 7 1

Page 3: American Library Association Annual Conference 29 June–3 July 1991, Atlanta, Georgia

publisher plans for electronic publications; and vendor use of automation, but these projections were requested through 1992 rather than for the entire decade of the nineties.

The AAPIALCTS Joint Committee plans to make survey data available and will coordinate these efforts with the ALCTS Publication Committee. The joint committee has established a subcommittee to develop future programs. It is hoped that the committee will also consider revising the publisher and vendor surveys and conduct a new survey of those groups since their response rates were only 25 percent.

Several other ALCTS groups addressed serials pricing concerns. The ALCTS Resources Section Library Materials Price Index Committee is continuing its work with vendors to create a European serials price index. The Serials Section Acquisitions Committee learned that two manuscripts which had been submitted to the publications committee after the Midwinter Meeting were approved for publication by both the committee and the ALCTS board of directors. These are the Guide for Handling Library Orders for Serials and Periodicals and the Serials Acquisitions Glossary. The acquisitions committee plans to review the third draft of the Guide to Performance Evaluation of Serials Vendors in fall 1991.

The Serials SectionResearch Libraries Discussion Group covered many topics, and several relate to pricing. Attendees shared information about serials cancellation projects and policies for acquiring and providing access for electronic journals. They also responded to presentations by Juliann Rankin, Califor- nia State University, Chico, and Starla Doescher, University of the Pacific, about new policies for accepting gift back runs and subscriptions. The consen- sus was that policies that restrict the acceptance of serials gifts are being reviewed and often revised to accept new types of gift material, such as single issues, short runs, duplicate runs that can be swapped to back issue dealers, and subscriptions that are not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. This was unanimously viewed as a result of decreased funding for serials purchases.

(The only ALA group charged solely to explore serials pricing concerns, the Association of College and Research Libraries Journal Pricing Discussion Group, did not meet. Chair Robert Houbeck was unable to attend the conference because he was in the process of relocating from Ann Arbor to Flint, Michigan, to assume his new position as director of the University of Michigan--Flint library.)

NOTES

1. Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues, N.S. no. 8 (6 September 1991).

2. Gary D. Byrd, "An Economic 'Commons' Tragedy for Research Libraries: Scholarly Journal Publishing and Pricing Trends," College & Research Libraries 51, no. 3 (May 1990): 184-95, which was previously cited in column 11, SR 17:1.

3. Jane Treadwell and Lee Ketcham, HThe Serials Marketplace, ~ Library Journal 116, no. 10 (1 June 1991): 83-84, 86, 88.

"Scholarly Communication at Work" Society for Scholarly Publishing Top

Management Roundtable 3-4 October 1991

Cambridge, Massachusetts

During a conversation that was an unsuccessful attempt to persuade several colleagues to attend this meeting, one of them remarked how frustrating it has become to spend so much time communicating and so little time making changes to the system. She would have been pleasantly surprised by the roundtable, which provided both a valuable forum for communication and ample evidence change is occurring rapidly. Co-chairs Christine Lamb, executive editor at Little, Brown & Company, and Fred Spilhaus, executive director of the American Geophysical Union, arranged the meeting so that eight of eleven speakers were scholars and researchers. The majority work in applied sciences, but the humanities and social sciences were also represented. Attendance was limited to 65, which created an informal atmosphere with many opportunities for discussion. The first session addressed scholars' needs, the second discussed the funding of research and publications, and the final session projected future developments.

The first presentation was by Eric Almquist, general manager, Decision Research Corporation, who used overheads to describe research conducted in early 1991 to determine how three representative groups of scientists (chemists, geneticists, and computer scientists) use information. The study measured "information encounters" by type of media and frequency and attempted to measure attitudes about information use, such as "information guilt." The research was funded by the Faxon Institute and previously presented at a Faxon Institute program in April 1991 called "Creating User Pathways to Electronic Information." Almquist

72 SERIALS REVIEW -- OCTOBER IVINS