Over the short run the general cost of providing service from electronic resources is about the same as paper. What is saved on check-in, binding, and so so on, is spent on contract administration, computer services, and so on. In the long run, it is correct that there is a savings to be expected in the net size of science library buildings. Already I have observed several academic departments reclaim library space for other needs, This is one of the reasons I am aware of the possibility academic administrators might do likewise with acquisition funds. (my personal view, as always)
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Andrew Odlyzko wrote: > On Tue Jul 22, David Goodman wrote: > > > For administrators in gleeful expectation of the "library windfall," > > I note that the percent of the total US research university > > library budget devoted to serials costs in 2002 was only 26%. > > http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/graphs/2002/2002t4.html > > This covers print journals, electronic journals, databases, > > newspapers, etc. ; it includes all fields of study. If 3/4 of it > > were science journals, that comes to less than 20% of the total > > library expenditure. > > But the 26% figure for serials costs is just for external purchases. > To that has to be added the cost of checking the journals in, shelving > them, binding, etc., as well as the space, cleaning, and related costs. > If you get away from paper, you eliminate that as well. (Although some > of it will be a displacement, since printing on scholars' desktop printers > will increase.) > > Andrew Odlyzko > Dr. David Goodman Princeton University and Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU [email protected]
