ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 150 / C&RL News been given to starting duplicate subscriptions be­ cause the journals were obviously needed by other researchers. However, there appeared to be no ready source of library or university funding for the duplicate subscriptions. Online searching used in a non-traditional m an­ ner provided a fast and efficient solution under tight time constraints. Information gathered from the searches done on this project would have been impossible to obtain by hand in time to meet the deadline. This same approach could also serve well in similar situations th at dem and th at journal col­ lections be evaluated. One question must first be answered: is the evaluation im portant enough to offset the cost in time and money of doing the on­ line searches? If the answer is yes, online searching will generate meaningful results quickly. ■ ■ Scientific literature: P rod u cers an d consum ers By Vicky Reich Chief, Serials D epartm ent Stanford University Is there a crisis in science publishing? T here is much smoke these days about a crisis in academ ic and scientific publishing. From some quarters, especially from librarians, but occasion­ ally from scientists and publishers, the w ord is there is too much literature that is too expensive and too little used. From other quarters, including many publishers and scientists, comes word that all is fine. Is there need for a brigade to put out the fire generating all this smoke, or is it just a smoke­ screen? L et’s listen to w hat librarians, publishers and scientists are saying and then formulate some questions. Many prom inent librarians say we are experi­ encing a crisis caused by, among other things, a half-dozen profiteering publishers who are goug­ ing a captive academic library market. The publishers say that price increases have oc­ curred for good reasons. Higher subscription rates are due to the devaluation of the dollar, or because a title has grown in size providing more words and information for more dollars, or because of inflat­ ing production costs. High subscription rates also subsidize new titles th at are losing money. Pub­ lishers say th at new and expanded titles are needed because scientists w ant to be published and if pub­ lisher X doesn’t accept the manuscript, publisher Y will. Very occasionally publishers say they need to increase subscription rates to make more money! (Commercial publishers return a profit to stock­ holders, non-commercial publishers provide ser­ vices to association members.) The library profession has responded to this per­ ceived crisis in a num ber of ways. ARL prepared a statem ent which summarizes the library profes­ sion’s concerns and proposes some long term solu­ tions. Institutions have strengthened resource shar­ February 1989 / 151 ing plans, and have questioned their commitment to com prehensive collecting. L ib ra ria n s have passed resolutions, organized task forces, m et in committees and have held conferences. The litera­ ture is full of articles which analyze journal cost by almost every conceivable variable. But w hat do the scientists who produce and use this “over-abundant and overpriced” literature think? Do the researchers think there is a crisis? W ithin the last few months several interesting items have been published. A July 1988 article in the New Scientist asserts th at scientists are swim­ ming not drowning in the tide of research and th at the noise of a crisis is being made by librarians and information scientists who don’t even use the litera­ ture. O ther scientists differ. Contrast this attitude w ith the recent actions of the H arvard Medical School. The July 29 Science headline reads, “H ar­ vard tackles rush to publication.” H arvard guide­ lines substantially reduce the number of papers (now between 5-10) required for promotion and tenure. These actions intend to reduce fraud and error and to emphasize the quality of publication over quantity. Scientists have analyzed the costs of their literature, but do they generally believe that there is too much scientific literature being pub­ lished, and th at it costs too much? W hether or not there is a crisis in science publish­ ing triggers other questions which may facilitate consideration of the issues: 1) Is information a free market commodity that should be priced at w hat the market can bear? W hat is the role of the private m erchant in the in­ formation market? 2) Is use of the library for cutting-edge research low or non-existent? It seems th at in these hot areas of research the cost and size of the literature is in creasing rapidly. If so, why? 3) Tenure requires peer review and recognition but does it require expensive journals? The tenure promotion process requires a large num ber of p a pers for which the university pays twice: the uni versity pays the authors and the university buys the journals. 4) Are there less expensive ways to provide more information to researchers and at the same time support the im portant uses of journals, e.g., inter disciplinary research and confirm ation of p rior work? Can the transferring of information be sepa rated from the archiving of information? 5) How can library staff and faculty work to gether to change the current relationships between publishers, faculty, and university libraries so th at university resources are not so strained? Stanford University Libraries have initiated a se ries of actions designed to assess faculty interest in discussing these issues and to involve them in craft ing and im plem enting an action plan. A small num ber of librarians and faculty have been invited to discuss the rising costs of scientific information and w hat the Stanford community should be doing about them. O ur hope is th at the interest generated for the specific issues surrounding the price of sci ence information will broaden into an examination of the overall relationships among researchers, the academic community and publishers. We would very much appreciate hearing how other institu tions are addressing these issues. ■ ■ Looking backward, 1989-1955 A very interesting article in the July 1955 issue of College b Research Libraries made some predic­ tions about w hat the future of academic libraries would be fifty years hence, in 2005. Haynes Mc­ Mullen, then associate professor of library science at Indiana University, foresaw many trends that have since come to pass (changes in student study habits, changes in faculty research procedures, changes in the governance and administration of university libraries, an interest in collecting popu­ lar culture), but he missed on a few im portant points. W ith the 20/20 hindsight available to us in 1989, we can now take a look back to those simpler days before future shock became commonplace. McMullen wrote: “It is unlikely th at the typical university library staff of 2005 will employ any me­ chanical devices which are not already in existence in 1955. There will be three reasons for this appar­ ent lack of future progress: (1) recently developed instruments such as indexers, transmitters, transla­ tors, and copying devices may require many years before they can be developed to the stage where they can be economically used in a variety of li­ braries; (2) some entirely new instruments will be invented during the next 50 years, b ut they quite probably will be so expensive in 2005 th at only a few libraries will be able to afford them; (3) there may be a limit to the amount of speed and effi­ ciency faculty members will accept. “Librarians will not approve of this apparent backwardness on the p art of scholars, but it will be the result of habits of thought which are hard to change. If a m an is going to spend a period of six months to six years in producing a piece of re­ search, it cannot make much difference to him if the librarian is able to assemble and to present him w ith the m aterial he needs w ithin a period of two days instead of a period of two weeks.” Upon reading this one recognizes w ith a shiver how wrong some of our own confident statements about future trends may be. ■ ■