2 messages, 131 lines: (1)----------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:40:01 EDT From: Albert Henderson <70244.1532@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Periodical Price Inflation : Keith Renwick <kdrenk@FS3.LI.UMIST.AC.UK> writes: >> I am always surprised to find a librarian in disagreement with >> justifications for better library collections. What's up? > WHAT LIBRARIANS AND ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS REQUIRE > IN THE CURRENT INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT IS NOT > INCREASED SPENDING ON LIBRARY COLLECTIONS FOR THE SAKE > OF IT. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS BETTER ACCESS TO INFORMATION > RESOURCES IN THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER, WHETHER > BY BUILDING UP COLLECTIONS FOR HEAVILY-USED (?) MATERIAL, > ONLINE ACCESS, DOCUMENT DELIVERY, CURRENT-AWARENESS > SERVICES OR INTER-LIBRARY LOANS. > PERHAPS HE KNOWS LARGE NUMBERS OF ACADEMICS WHO HAVE > TIME TO SPARE BROWSING LIBRARY COLLECTIONS, BUT I > CERTAINLY DO NOT. I am certain that academics would prefer to have copies of periodicals circulating across their desks. During the 1960s, this approach was taken if for no other reason than because of SPUTNIK. The article by Herring (1968) that I cited mentions browsing as the favored method. A good survey of browsing was published by Julianna Ross in COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES 44,4:269-274 in 1983. Richard M Dougherty also mentions researchers' preference for browsing in his dicussion of user-responsive research libraries LIBRARY JOURNAL Jan., 1991:60-62. I have used online bibliogaphies, and they are sometimes better than manhandling 30 or 40 volumes of abstracts and indexes. That is, if the online source is comprehensive and carefully done. Coverage so far is not comprehensive and the cancellation of subscriptions has caused major indexes to cut back (Kaser, 1995; PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 11,3:10-24) Researchers have told me that they still have to use the old-fashioned methods to identify the bulk of the literature. INDEX MEDICUS, for instance, covers only about 12 per cent of the biomedical literature. Using a remote OPAC is a little like looking through a keyhole at the bakery. If I see something that I like, I want to go in, have a taste or maybe a meal of whatever else may be around. Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532@compuserve.com (2)----------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:39:57 EDT From: Albert Henderson <70244.1532@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Periodical Price Inflation Steve Black, INTERNET:blacks@ROSNET.STROSE.EDU opines: >> 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. Sufficient reviews are not published quickly or at all. There are practically no grants given to do "library research." Decimated library collections have made it increasingly difficult for researchers to prepare reviews for publication or as part of a grant proposal. That is more the responsibility of science policy than of library or publishing management. The problem is rooted in a poor advocacy of the role of libraries, publishers, and the scientists who evaluate research. University presidents have actually gone after money for facilities and equipment. In contrast, I gather that the former president and provost of Princeton, which cut its library's share of the budget by 30% between 1979 and 1990, was surprised when this was reported in 1993. Intensive reviews are vital. Garvey (COMMUNICATION: ESSENCE OF SCIENCE. 1979) shows how the valuation of research shifts as the reviewer gains information and how the human capacity to keep abreast has become exceeded by the volume of information of possible interest. Understanding this should behoove your administrators to emphasize evaluation and dissemination before letting poorly informed researchers spend money elsewhere. >> 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. Actually, I feel I am expressing the viewpoint of a taxpayer and a researcher although I have worked in publishing and have done some library work as well.. Herbert S. White, I recall, was responsible for a cartoon showing two fishermen in a badly tilting rowboat, presumably a publisher and a librarian. The caption was: YOUR HALF OF THE BOAT IS SINKING! What we need is better informed researchers who will then produce more articles with scientific merit. If better library collections and "library research" are not the key to this goal, I will be very surprised. Most of us have speculated on the opportunities afforded by information technology to make information instantly available, easily findable, and even inexpensive. However, the indexing, evaluation, translation, and presentation of a growing and chaotic research literature is labor-intensive and information-intensive. Unless there are several hundred libraries with good collections, well motivated "library" researchers, and investors willing to experiment with specialized technology to address this goal, nothing will happen. It's not just my idea. In the British Library Research Series book on ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AND LIBRARIES (Bowker/Saur, 1996), David J. Brown says, "none of the new media options can survive if there is insufficient market size to be shared around." I would go one step further and suggest that academic research will eventually lose its luster unless it takes more responsibility for quality and cost- effectiveness. Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 70244.1532@compuserve.com
