Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 09:44:01 GMT
From: Keith Renwick <kdrenk@fs3.li.umist.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Periodical Price Inflation

With apologies for the haste with which my previous message was
despatched in reply to Albert Henderson. The first part should have
read "THAT LIBRARIANS, WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WORKING IN THE
FIELD, KNOW THAT MOST JOURNAL ARTICLES ARE NOT READ BY
LIBRARY USERS".

Keith Renwick.

> Date:          Thu, 17 Apr 1997 10:17:18 EST
> From:          Keith Renwick <kdrenk@fs3.li.umist.ac.uk>
> Subject:       Re: Periodical Price Inflation
> To:            SERIALST@uvmvm.uvm.edu

> Albert Henderson, replying to Lionel Robinson stated :
> > > === It is fine and dandy trying to justify serial costs.  But the
> > > simple fact is that the readership level or utilisation rate of
> > > serial articles is extraordinarily low.
> > >
> > > If academics want to pay to have material published that says
> > > something about their understanding of economics.  Who would want to
> > > pay to publish material that the punters never read?  It would be
> > > like buying tickets to the movies but never going to see the action.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that myths such as this can survive in institutions that
> > pride themselves on excellence in research. Major attempts to cook up data
> > in support of a conclusion that library collections are "never read," such
> > as the infamous Pitt study, have been discredited by serious library
> > researchers and repudiated by library users.
> >
> > Other studies on science communications shows that most articles are well
> > read for many years. We also can cite a number of research studies that
> > indicate that research is often approved, carried out, and published on
> > the basis of inadequate information. All science research starts, so to
> > speak, in the library. If the library is poor and researchers / reviewers
> > are poorly informed, chances are the research will be trivial, wrong, or
> > will repeat work already done.
>
> PERHAPS ALBERT HENDERSON WOULD LIKE TO CITE THE STUDIES
> REFERRED TO IN HIS REPLY ABOVE. THE FACTS ARE THAT LIBRARIANS,
> WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WORKING IN THE FIELD, KNOW THAT MOST
> JOURNAL ARTICLES ARE READ BY LIBRARY USERS AND THAT THE
> LEVEL OF LIBRARY USE BY RESEARCHERS IS DECLINING.
>
> > The real questions, therefore, are:
> >
> > (A) What are the costs to the productivity of research and to the
> > effectiveness of education of decimated library collections?
> >
> > (B) Why isn't there more library research supported by better library
> > collections?
> >
> > (C) Who has benefited from the budget share cut from libraries and
> > instruction?
>
> THE REAL QUESTIONS ARE NOT HOW CAN LIBRARIES OBTAIN
> INCREASED FUNDING TO BUY MORE JOURNALS THAT ARE RARELY
> USED, BUT HOW TO DEVISE A SYSTEM OF PUBLICATION WHICH
> WILL REMUNERATE ON THE BASIS OF COST PER USE AND REWARD
> ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE.
>
> Keith D. Renwick,
> Head of Technical Services & Administration,
> UMIST Library & Information Service,
> P.O.Box 88,
> Manchester M60 1QD.
> Tel : (44) 161-200 4940
> Fax : (44) 161-200 4941
> E-Mail : K.Renwick@umist.ac.uk
>