On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, Albert Henderson wrote, in part:

> . . . A more
> recent analysis of wasted research was done by a task force headed by
> Walter O Spitzer, MD, et al. REDEFINING WHIPLASH AND ITS MANAGEMENT
> appears as a supplement to SPINE (20,8S). It describes filtering some 400
> relevant articles out of 10,000 citations. Of the 400 which were evaluated
> by teams of specialists, roughly 340 were rejected as lacking scientific
> merit.

So libraries paid for 400 articles, of which only 60 were deemed worthy
by important library patrons.

> King has also pointed out that the major economic burden of the journals
> system is on the readers, who contribute time and other resources in the
> procurement of information. Libraries are at the other end of the scale.

I can't imagine what scale we would be on the other end of.  Librarians
spend a great deal of time and very tangible financial resources on the
procurement of the information found in journals.

> Scientists have asked in vain for more reviews, summaries and evaluations
> that would help them prepare better proposals for laboratory and field
> study. It seems to me this would call for better libraries.

It seems to me that this would call for better publishers who encourage
authors to submit more of that type of information.  It is not the place
of librarians to write review articles, except in our field.  If the
reviews and summaries are published, we can obtain them for the
scientists.  Maybe the scientists are too reluctant to ask librarians for
help.

> I am always surprised to find a librarian in disagreement with
> justifications for better library collections. What's up?
>

Perhaps Mr. Henderson's conception of a better collection, coming from the
perspective of the publishing industry, is different from ours.  We have
no choice but to strive to control costs.  Mr. Henderson is a strong
advocate for having a full collection of print volumes, readily accessible
on our shelves.  I can't imagine many of us arguing with that as an ideal,
but we also know that we're struggling just to preserve what we have
now, and most of us are losing ground.  Paying for 340 articles that
lack scientific merit to get 60 good ones is a big part of the problem.

************************************************************************
Steve Black
Reference, Serials and Instruction Librarian
Neil Hellman Library
The College of Saint Rose
Albany, NY  12203                                  "Cogito eggo sum"
blacks@rosnet.strose.edu                     (I think, therefore I waffle)