WEB Edition Published at Duke University:
HTML coding by Eric Albright, maldacht@duke.edu
Masthead design by Dan Barkey, d-barkey@nwu.edu
| About BLAB |
|---|
CONTENTS
This issue comes to you with my usual apologies for not getting in out sooner. The BLAB mailbox was pretty empty over the summer months, but hopefully you all will feel more inspired now that everyone is back from the beach.
Here's a piece of bad news just to get things off on the wrong foot. I was given a ballpark figure for average 1998 subscription price increases for a major U.S. biomedical journal publisher -- 15%. If that rate turns out to be any where near typical, I suspect that many of us will be going back to the drawing board on lists of cancellations. It seems like madness now to confirm 1998 subscription orders before final prices can be reviewed and evaluated. And, as I mentioned last year, it does seem only sensible to me to try to target cancellations to those publishers who are causing the problem and not penalize publishers who are maintaining modest cost increases.
I can't wait to see what our German and Dutch friends come up with for price increases given the whopping increase in the comparative value of the U.S. dollar over the past year. I did note with considerable relief and gratitude that unless my eyes deceive me, S. Karger managed to hold 1998 prices in U.S. dollars very close to the 1997 level. If it's true, Hooray for Karger!
Attached is a three-part form that we use here for reviewing electronic products. The first part I complete when first gathering information. The second part is completed by a librarian working as a liaison with an assigned department and that department's appointed collection development advisor (CDA). The third part is where the final agreed upon information is placed. This seems to work well for us.
[Editor's Note: Thanks, Jean, for sending this along. It shows just how complex the decision-making process is for electronic products. I have mutilated the form a bit to make it fit into BLAB.]
Electronic Product Selection Worksheet
Initial Information: Date:_________ Web URL:______________________ Product Name ________________________________ Producer __________________________________________________________ Distributor _______________________________________________________ Telephone:__________________________________ Email_______________________________________ Contact Name________________________________ Title:______________________________________ Recommended by ___________________________ Dept. ____________________ Platform(s) supported: ______________________________________________ Client Software Required? If yes, cost & platform ___________________________ Network Supported (i.e., NT, ERL) ___________________________________________ Format(s) Available (i.e.,CD,tape,print,online)/File Size____________________ Search Interface ____________________________________________________________ Initial Pricing: Single-Station_____________________________________________ Network____________________________________________________ Multi-user ________________________________________________ Update Costs ______________________________________________ Purchase or Lease _________________________________________ User Limitations (i.e., UW only)___________________________________ Time Coverage of Product ______________________________________________ User Documentation Included and what format? __________________________ User phone support offered and what number? ___________________________ Demo Available? _____Yes (requested date ________________) _____No Notes__________________________________________________________________ Electronic Product Selection Worksheet Page 2 Liaison Comments: Liaison Name _____________________________________________________ Product of Interest? ___Yes ___No Recommend other liaison be consulted, list who: __________________________ CDA Comments (if applicable) _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Recommended Format __________________________________________________ Location Recommendation _____________________________________________ Circulation Period Recommendation ___________________________________ Training Support Recommendation _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Electronic Product Selection Worksheet Page 3 Final Negotiation Information: Trial Period Agreement/Passwords: __________________________________________________________________ Final Price ______________________________________________________ Fund Code/Budget Assignment ______________________________________ Shared Costs with ________________________________________________ Final License Agreement __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Time Period of Agreement _________________________________________ User Limitations _________________________________________________ System Requirements ______________________________________________ Vendor Contact______________________________ Phone_________________ Date Order Record Created and Record Number _________________________ Final Support Decision ______________________________________________ Follow-up Needed (i.e. review in 6 months) __________________________ Notes________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________
I think mention should be made of The Endocrine Society's decision to lower their 1998 serial prices by 5% for institutional subscribers. (Their journals are Endocrinology, The Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Molecular Endocrinology, and Endocrine Reviews.)
See their full page ad in the June/July issue of the MLA News (p. 17). They answer the question of how they are able to do this by stating "[b]y passing along the savings from more efficient production and subscription processing to our subscribers as a way of acknowledging that the support of the library community continues to be central to the Society's ability to fulfill its educational mission. ...The Endocrine Society is committed to stemming the tide of inflation in academic libraries. It is the Society's hope that this precedent will be followed by other journal publishers. We invite comments from the library community." http://www.endo-society.org
It's really strange that so few publishers have been able to achieve savings from efficiency. Maybe they should do away with hand typesetting, and computerize.
On the other hand, certain publishers implicitly acknowledge that the support of the library community continues to be central to their ability to rake in obscene profits...
The Health Sciences Library at the State University of New York at Buffalo has subscribed to Springer-Verlag's title _International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health_ since 1980. A use study showed modest use of the title, but it survived two heavy rounds of cancellations in 1995 and 1996. In the fall of 1996, we paid our vendor $1197 for the 1997 issues. This amount agrees with the price listed for this title in the Springer 1997 price list.
On August 13, we received notification from our subscription agent that some issues for an additional volume, v. 70 (1997), had already sent out to all subscribers. They noted that the cost of the additional volume is $1150.00 and said that if we decided to keep it, we would be billed accordingly. Alternatively, if we decided to return v. 70, they had to receive it by September 1st.
We had received both v. 70, no. 1 (cover date of July 1997) and v. 70, no. 2 (cover date of August 1997) on July 17 and July 30, respectively. Since new issues are routinely checked in the day of receipt, the two had long since been marked and tattle-taped. Ironically, the subscription information in both 70:1 and 70:2 says: "Volume 69 (6 issues) will appear in 1997." There is no mention *in v. 70* that v. 70 is being published in 1997.
My initial reaction was to sigh and say "bill us." But I slept on it overnight and came in the next day feeling quite differently. I was angry to think that we paid $1197 for six 1997 issues and are now being asked for another $1150 to obtain the remainder of 1997. I spoke with our head of collection development about the situation, and we agreed that we would *not* pay for v. 70. Instead we are going to live with a gap in the run. Why? Because we need to send Springer-Verlag a message. What is that message? That librarians will not -- they cannot -- automatically approve mid-year price increases for unscheduled volumes, no matter how important it is to us under normal circumstances to have complete runs. Moreover, it should come as no surprise to the publisher to learn that a title that presents us with significant mid-year price increases is highly likely to end up on the "hit list" the next time another cancellation project is mounted.
I plan to return my already checked-in, marked and tattle-taped issues for 70:1 and 70:2 to our subscription agent. I even called Springer's customer service department in New York to confirm that they would accept the marked issues. It seems to me that I *ought* to be able to keep these issues, since they arrived unsolicited. But I figure that returning marked and tattle-taped issues will help to underscore the message I am attempting to send.
[Reprinted message from Peg Allen to MEDLIB-L]
I just visited the Springhouse web site at http://www.springnet.com/ and saw the following announcement on the first page:
NOTICE TO NURSING97 READERS:
If pages 33-48 are missing from your July issue, please E-mail us to request a new issue.
You might want to check your copies!
This is the most detail I've seen yet on the Gordon & Breach outcome.
[reprinted Press Release from American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society]
[Editor's Note: As some BLAB readers may have already seen, Gordon & Breach is appealing the decision. More power to them. Has there ever been a publisher that has managed over the years to find so many creative ways to antagonize its customers? You do at least have to admire their consistency.]
AIP and APS Prevail In Suit By Gordon & Breach
The freedom to provide academic libraries with information about the cost of scholarly journals was upheld by a federal judge in New York in a decision issued on Tuesday, August*26. Gordon & Breach Science Publishers S.A. (G&B) had claimed that the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and The American Physical Society (APS) would violate the Lanham Act by distributing to libraries certain information concerning the cost-effectiveness of physics journals. The court rejected all claims by G&B, stating that "[i]f G&B believes librarians will make more optimal decisions if they consider information other than that provided by the defendants, its solution is to augment rather than censor the available truthful information."The suit involved a 1988 study by the late Henry H. Barschall, a physicist at the University of Wisconsin, and the distribution of the results of that study by AIP and APS. The Barschall Study showed that the physics journals published by AIP and APS were among the most cost-effective of all physics journals, as measured by cost per character and the frequency with which journals are cited. The study compared some 200 physics journals. At the same time, the Court observed, based on the data presented at trial, that "regardless of the measure used, G&B's journals consistently scored at the bottom" of a cost-effectiveness ranking. G&B brought suit to prevent dissemination of the results, claiming that the non-profit societies' efforts to publicize the study constituted false advertising. Judge Leonard B. Sand concluded, however, that "Barschall's methodology has been demonstrated to establish reliably precisely the proposition for which defendants cited it -- that defendants' physics journals, as measured by cost per character and by cost per character divided by impact factor, are substantially more cost-effective than those published by plaintiffs."
The Court noted that evidence submitted by the societies showed that G&B has engaged in an "aggressive corporate practice of challenging any adverse commentary upon its journals," citing threats and lawsuits against librarians, academics, and other non-profit societies. Judge Sand observed that "[t]his evidence persuasively demonstrated that the present suit is but one battle in a `global campaign by G&B to suppress all adverse comment upon its journals.'"
Judge Sand's ruling, following a seven-day trial in June, marked the culmination of the American portion of litigation by G&B against the societies in the United States, Germany, Switzerland, and France. The societies prevailed at every level of the German court system and have recently prevailed in Switzerland in a suit that is now being appealed by G&B. A French trial court found for G&B under strict French comparative advertising laws, and that suit is now on appeal.
Judge Sand's decision was welcomed by the defendants. Dr. Marc H. Brodsky, Executive Director of AIP, stated that "AIP is pleased the Court agreed with the obvious -- ore information, not censorship, is the appropriate way to address important issues, such as the escalation of journal prices for libraries." Dr.*Thomas J. McIlrath, Treasurer of the APS, said that "The APS has always viewed itself to be in a partnership with libraries, and indeed other publishers, in the mission of promoting and disseminating the knowledge of physics. I am very pleased that the courts have recognized the legitimacy and integrity of what Professor Barschall and the Societies have done."
The case in the United States was initiated by G&B in 1993. AIP and APS have been defended by attorneys Richard Meserve and Jeffrey Huvelle of Covington & Burling, a major Washington law firm. Meserve, himself a physicist, said that "the two societies stood up to G&B's `global campaign' because of their commitment to the open exchange of ideas and information that is fundamental to scientific discovery."
For further information contact Marc Brodsky of AIP at 301-209-3131 or Thomas McIlrath of APS at 301-209-3220.
We have received free from various publishers scattered journal back vols. on CD-ROM, mostly of titles which we have printed versions. They take up network server disc space and are hard for users to know what's available.
I have briefly discussed with my colleagues in Tech Services about what to do with these freebies. Some suggestions were: 1) Do the minimum -- put the CD's in one place, create a brief catalog record for each title indicating holdings available in CD format; 2) Put them in one place and treat same way as Pamphlet file; or 3) Treat as duplicates. throw away. 4)Add a note in the catalog record about availability. Keep at Ref for check-out.
I'd appreciate hearing if you keep them and how you all treat this type of CD's.
The proliferation of journals in electronic format - some free and some very unfree is an interesting thing to watch. Part of me is thrilled to see this happening. Our mission is to assure access and certainly, this goes a distance to providing not only search access, but full-text access in many cases. The other part of me puzzles over the cost of maintaining two subscriptions - one paper, one electronic. The journals most available on-line are those journals to which we subscribe in paper and are most likely never going to cancel (if they continue in their paper format) - Lancet, NEJM, JAMA, JBC etc. I, for one, do not trust the publisher to maintain, in perpetuity, the back files of their journals (or, for that matter indexes). As fewer and fewer people access the old things, the tendency will be to look at the cost of maintaining the archival file and, I believe,they will begin to lop off the tail ends. We're left without access, ownership or an archival file. There are a few organizations (OCLC, universities) that I might trust to maintain a back file with recognition of their archival responsibility, but there are no publishers or vendors to which I would entrust our collection.
I do believe that the format of the journal will die out in time - but meanwhile, what are people doing? Are you relying on the increasing availability on-line; are you canceling titles once held in paper? are you maintaining two subscriptions? Are you encouraging the esoteric journal publishers to find their way on line? Do you believe for a minute what is currently free will remain free? I'd love to hear from my esteemed colleagues on this one. Thanks.
| The BIOMEDICAL LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS BULLETIN (ISSN: 1064-699X) is published
by the Medical Library Association's Collection Development Section with
the cooperation of the University of Southern California Norris Medical
Library. BLAB is published more or less monthly, and includes items of
news and opinion contributed by its readers concerning biomedical library
acquisitions.
Editor: David H. Morse: dmorse@hsc.usc.edu. Paper mail: USC Norris Medical Library, 2003 Zonal Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90033. Telephone: (213) 342-1134. The BULLETIN is distributed free of charge, in electronic form only. Back issues of BLAB are available at http://colldev.mlanet.org/BLAB/ Requests for subscriptions and all editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor <dmorse@hsc.usc.edu>. |