That first sentence should have read: "he neglects to acknowledge what
libraries spend on serials"

Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
phone 704 687-2825

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
[mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Hamaker, Chuck
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 10:19 AM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Open Letter to Research Councils UK: Rebuttal of
ALPSP Critique

The main factual issue with most of the statistics Albert Henderson
uses, is he neglects to include what libraries spend on serials. The
crux of his argument instead looks at "total" library budgets compared
with research spending or overall institutional budgets. His
"profitability" figures are even worse, as they bear even less
relationship to library serials expenditures.

Ignoring what libraries spend on serials but raising the only loosely
related issue of institutional funding levels is not a new approach for
Mr. Henderson

Here's a quote from him in 1999:
Chronicle of Higher Education:
>>From the issue dated October 8, 1999
  LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Scientific Research and Library Spending
"If the Fact File included figures on academic research spending for the
same period, comparing it with library spending, we would see that
research spending increased 36 per cent, while library spending
increased only 24 per cent. This is nothing new, of course, but it is
important. ..."

It's also of course irrelevant to what has been spent on serials.

Or from 1990 a similar argument in the Chronicle of Higher Education in
a letter on the Gordon and Breach lawsuits: From the issue dated January
3, 1990

"Concerned members of the learned community who wish to contribute a
useful study might compare the growth of library budgets, staffs, and
buildings to the growth and changing needs of their clientele since
1960. They would provide a more useful perspective on the journal
pricing question. Ultimately, I believe they would show the
responsibility lies more with the educational and political
establishments than with publishers."

The increases in library spending for serials has been at or above
research (R&D) increase levels, leading the curve, not trailing it as
would be expected if publisher pricing increases were a direct result of
increased research spending. It is not a point that Mr. Henderson's
statistics refute.

A look at the ARL statistics on the increased spending on serials
demonstrates the dramatic increases in serials spending. Because of the
development of the big deal and other means of accessing serials in the
last three years the numbers of serials purchased by research libraries
has increased dramatically. And currently at least, per unit costs are
dropping.  Its time to stop blaming libraries and their institutions for
not spending enough on serials.
For the ARL figures see:
http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/graphs/2004/monser04.pdf

Chuck Hamaker
UNC Charlotte
Atkins Library