on 18 May 2000 David Goodman <dgoodman@PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU> wrote:

> Writing from one of the larger ARL libraries, I do not think there is one
> of us that does not feel the same pressures as smaller institutions.
> Publishers should no longer feel confident that any library will not
> respond to cost pressure.
>
> Neither they nor Al Henderson should be deceived by the statistics that
> show that many of our parent institutions are in a healthy economic
> condition.

"A healthy economic condition" appears to mean profits
of 30 percent to 50 percent of post-tax revenues. Such
profits come from cuts in library spending having nothing
to do with publishers' prices. The deceptions here have
been (A) to hide the hoarding of financial assets, (B) the
squeezing of libraries and librarians out of the budget,
and (C) pinning the blame for declining libraries on
publishers' prices and "excessive publication" by
researchers whose growing output is clearly based on the
increased sponsorship of R&D.
.
By living in a world where financial goals are paramount
and prevarication is the norm, you are unable to face the
bitter complaints of researchers who miss journals they
call "essential." According to your position academic
senates and senior researchers do not know what they are
talking about. They aren't talking money.

Far more money is wasted when research is prepared and
executed with less than optimal information. It is
revenue that is wasted, not spending, of course.

>          Most university administrators, many faculty, and not a few
> librarians are convinced that a large part of library expenditures,
> especially for scientific journals, are for materials whose costs are not
> justified by their use to anyone.

In justifying the cancellation of subscriptions by declaring
that journals "are not justified by their use to anyone,"
you hasten the probability that they will not be used. You
undermine authorship, peer review, and the education of future
researchers.

ARL universities used to brag about unique sources of esoteric
investigation. The present "justified by their use" is the
criterion of a trade school, not a producer of new knowledge.

Reason with me here: In terms of "their use to anyone,"
if the work product is useless, then why wouldn't the
work also be useless. The academic research that generates
the useless articles in science journals must also be
unjustified. If the cost is a waste, the revenue must also
be a waste. Do you agree? Or, is there some reason why the
work would be valuable and the work product not?

A former president of Columbia University described
your approach aptly when he told the nation,

        the free university, historically the
        fountainhead of free ideas and scientific
        discovery, has experienced a revolution in
        the conduct of research. Partly because of
        the huge costs involved, a government
        contract becomes virtually a substitute for
        intellectual curiosity." (D D Eisenhower,
        Jan 17, 1961)

Based on the information that I have, I am increasingly
convinced that you justify the library solely as "window
dressing," to impress potential sources of revenue,
including sponsors, donors, applicants for admission,
alumni, etc. Look at the sham played by the library as
"research overhead," for instance. Getting money is the
only function that counts in the real world of academic
governance. The phrase "Knowledge for its own sake" is
no more than a shibbolith.

We have started to see through the academic hubris of
self-congratuation. Before he stepped down, Newt
Gingrich called for a new science policy. He told
the House Science Committee that the basic problem
was that bureaucrats love the process that produces
revenue; they have no interest in results. (Oct 1997)
(see also my article in SOCIETY 35,6:38-43 S/O 1998)

Thanks for your comments.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>