Many thanks to Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Lester for pointing out the fallacies
of using twenty- and thirty-year old research to argue a case which has
changed radically in the last ten years.

The argument "Referees are not provided with libraries that are
comprehensive enough that they can actually check unfamiliar sources and
verify the claims on which a particular piece of research is based ..."
particularly caught my attention because it makes no sense at all in these
days of lightening-swift ILL and document delivery (not to mention
e-publishing). If a referee doesn't know about ILL and Document Delivery,
then one wonders if they should be refereeing another author's work at all.
Besides, the quoted statment implies that the purpose of libraries is to
acquire 'unafamiliar sources' so that the occasional referee can wander in
and check a reference. If that, indeed, is their purpose, I'm afraid that
university administrations would be quite justified in slashing budgets and
personnel. Rather than being a morgue for little-used and little-demanded
information, most academic libraries strive to be a lively place where the
majority of its users information needs are met.

Cheers,

Peter V. Picerno

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU]On Behalf Of Dan Lester
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:58 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: Statement from Sage (Bad research)

Tuesday, July 30, 2002, 11:31:01 AM, you wrote:

FR> So the "myth" of "excessive" publication (undefined term) has "no
FR> factual basis, of course"?  How could it, since it's a subjective
FR> judgment?

Trying to discuss "excessive publication" is like trying to discuss
"excessive number of messages" on a list such as this.  I'm sure there
are some who've left this list because of "too much traffic" while
others wish there were more messages.  I manage one list on which
members complain if there are more than two messages a day.  Yet
another gets complaints if there are under 100, and there are usually
more like 300.  Who's to say?

FR> Pace Mr Price, who died in 1983 (and whose book detailed the
FR> "exponential" --his term-- growth in scientific publication, despite
FR> what he may have said about individual productivity), more modern
FR> figures constantly repeat the average of between one or two
FR> peer-reviewed scientific papers per year per researcher across many
FR> scientific disciplines.

Thanks for confirming my belief that Mr. Price was long gone.  20 year
old data wouldn't hold up in most scientific disciplines, and it
certainly doesn't here.

FR>  It's also well established
FR> that senior researchers have smaller output than junior researchers,
FR> that junior researchers suffer from angst about the pressure to publish
FR> to even be admitted into the guild, and that quite often junior
FR> researchers do the major work on papers bearing a senior researcher's
FR> name (usually, along with their own).  Check editorials and opinion
FR> pieces in The Scientist, e.g., S. Perkowitz, Jan. 1993.

This is true in librarianship as well.

FR> What is the library's mission?  For publishers and their advocates,
FR> including yourself, unfortunately, it boils down to one objective: "to
FR> get more money and to spend its money for as many of our products as
possible;"
FR> the only qualitative measure you recognize is acquisitions spending, and
FR> any attempt of the library to get off that treadmill meets with your
FR> withering scorn.

I'd say "attempted withering scorn", as I've yet to feel scorned by
the tripe that has been passed on to this list.  Yes, libraries want
larger budgets.  Yes, the administrators of the universities often
overlook library needs, despite the best efforts of the librarians and
faculty to make those needs known.  This is all compounded these days
by the idea that "all of the information in the world is free on the
internet".  However, there has never been a time in recorded history
when any library had all the money it wanted, had all of the materials
it wanted, and wasn't seeking more support.

The old "six percent rule", which I learned in library school in 1964,
was fine then.  It would be heavenly now.  However, that era is gone,
and I don't think that any of us are likely to see that kind of
funding again.  Yes, we should try to improve funding, but harkening
back to the olden days isn't what is going to convince administrators
of our needs.

dan

--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  www.gailndan.com  Stop Global Whining!