on Sat, 7 Apr 2001 "J.W.T.Smith" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This may be slightly off-topic but for many hard science subjects (in both > UK and US universities) the cost of journal subscriptions can be 90 or > more percent of their library budget. In this case the 'flea' has almost > consumed the 'dog'. The priorities of libraries spending were forced into view by ruthless cuts in university spending on their libraries. Universities that proudly devoted 6 percent of their spending on libraries in the 1960s now part with less than 3 percent. In the UK, statistics reported by the Universities Funding Council and the Publishers Association reported a similar drop. While cancelling thousands of journal subscriptions, these institutions also cut back on purchases of books. In 1992, Ann Okerson and Ken Stubbs projected this trend and offered this conclusion: "If the curve were extended even further, by 2007 ARL libraries would stop buying books entirely, and only purchase serials; by 2017 they would buy nothing ...." (Publishers Weekly 239,34 (July 27) p 22-23) In the meantime, profits of all higher education institutions in the US doubled. Among the private research universities, unspent income has averaged 20 to 25% of total revenues in recent years. > Yet another reason we need a fundamental change in the distribution of > research results and related forms of academic publishing. The current > system is not only illogical its also expensive. The expense to the sponsors of research resulting from ignorance, insularity, duplication, and error is likely to be far greater than the potential for library spending. The damage to library dissemination undermines authorship, peer review, and the training of researchers. Research proposals are made and OKed without the benefit of a comprehensive review of what's been done. In spite of guidelines established by editors, results and reported and conclusions drawn without such a review. Most of the erosion of effective preparation and dissemination has resulted from the short-sightedness of administrators willing to sacrifice excellence. The fundamental change needed would be new leadership that values quality in research and education over retained earnings. Moreover, most of the innovation in effective dissemination for over 300 years has come from entrepreneurs -- not bureaucrats. The "e-" revolution -- which includes hardware as well as software -- is a pretty good example of the fertile contributions of private investment. Best wishes, Albert Henderson <[email protected]> . .
