burnam.p65 406 College & Research Libraries September 1998 Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals: A Perennial Dilemma Paul D. Burnam The continuing large increases in the costs of scientific journals is par­ ticularly acute in private, four-year liberal arts colleges. This study seeks to learn how academic librarians in these institutions are coping with the price increases. How do they inform and negotiate with their science departments in the face of inflated costs? What alternate strategies are employed to maintain access when local ownership becomes economi­ cally unfeasible? Using information obtained via questionnaire and per­ sonal interviews, this study describes how liberal arts colleges in the Midwest are confronting these challenges. The conclusion offers sug­ gestions on how to manage a most vexing issue. rivate, four-year liberal arts college libraries experience constant pressure from the rise in costs of journal subscrip­ tions. Subscription prices for the periodi­ cal literature of all disciplines continue to escalate, but the rise is especially acute in the sciences. In his Library Journal article, “Serial Killers: Academic Libraries Re­ spond to Soaring Costs,” Paul McCarthy uses three scientific journals as examples. During the period 1989–1992, two of the titles almost doubled in price, and the third experienced a price increase of 66 percent.1 In Library Journal’s 1997 Periodi­ cal Price Survey, the average cost per title by broad subject area shows scientific titles costing seven times more than arts and humanities titles and twice as much as social science titles.2 Why are there such disparities between the sciences and other disciplines? McCarthy says that it de­ pends on whom one asks. Librarians do not hesitate to level charges of price goug­ ing at scientific publishers. The spokes­ person for one major publisher cites as major reasons a weakened exchange rate for the dollar and the explosion in sheer size of journals by five to ten times. Li­ brarians counter that publishers are not as vigilant in screening out insignificant studies regarding the explosion in jour­ nal content. With regard to the exchange rate question, currency fluctuations are not running at 100 to 300 percent rates as the prices for some titles increased. Some librarians point to the publish-or-perish condition as another driving force of cost inflation. Publishers know that scholars need to publish so the provision of a ve­ hicle to report scholarly research will likely outweigh costs.3 Shrinkage of academic library budgets adds to the pressure of rising costs. Paul D. Burnam is a Public Services Librarian in Beeghly Library at Ohio Wesleyan University; e-mail: pdburnam@cc.owu.edu. 406 mailto:pdburnam@cc.owu.edu Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals 407 Chestalene Pintozzi has pointed out that library budgets have been on the decline since the 1960s.4 Of course, subscription rates for journals are not the only facets of academic life that have felt the impact of inflation. Across-the-board inflation, a reduced pool of potential students, heavier competition for grant funds, a greater demand for institutional financial aid, and other forms of reduced institu­ tional revenue most definitely are trick­ ling down to library budgets. Reasons for This Study The intent of this study was to survey how liberal arts college libraries are cop­ ing with the challenge of ever-increasing periodical prices in the sciences. Its im­ petus came from the author ’s assignment as departmental liaison to the botany/ microbiology and zoology departments at Ohio Wesleyan University. During the past academic year, several annual pub­ lications subscribed to by these depart­ ments experienced a twofold price in­ crease. Because the serials budget did not experience an increase in 1996–1997, the departments had to drop certain titles in order to retain the titles they considered essential. A very careful process of an­ swering departmental questions about funding possibilities and alternate courses of action followed. These circum­ stances proved to be very small in scale compared to a larger elimination of titles due to cost increases that had occurred four years previously. The titles the de­ partments decided to eliminate were those judged to be nonessential to the curriculum or research. As a result, the approach of similar lib­ eral arts college libraries to this issue seemed to possess merit. The project be­ came the focus for a study leave during the summer of 1997. The study focuses on two aspects of this issue in particular. One aspect is how the library communi­ cates and negotiates with the science de­ partments when price increases require budgetary adjustments. How formal or informal is the process? How are the re­ alities of canceling periodical titles ac­ cepted? Do the library and/or the depart­ ments use specific tools to execute the process? The second aspect is how such institutions address the ownership/ac­ cess issue. Do they enter consortial agree­ ments in which individual member librar­ ies take responsibility for building collec­ tion strength in specific disciplines to ben­ efit the consortium as a whole? Do they make changes in the way they support and manage interlibrary loan or docu­ ment delivery? How do they implement electronic databases and use them to ad­ dress this issue? Is the subscription rate for electronic journals more manageable than for their print equivalents? Methodology A survey instrument of twenty-one ques­ tions addressing the issues of journal price increases was created. It focused on the library/departmental process for rec­ onciling budget shortfalls, influence of accreditation criteria, the library’s posi­ tion on access and ownership consider­ ations, the effect on interlibrary loan and documents delivery services, interlibrary cooperative purchasing, and the library’s approach to electronic full-text versions of the literature. The author decided to blend both quantitative and qualitative means of data collection into the study. Such a combination of research method­ ology serves to provide objective infor­ mation about how each library manages scientific journal price increases and sub­ jective information as to the reaction on each campus to these developments. The findings show, for example, how many libraries had to eliminate titles from their science collections over the past five years, how many have a formal process for resolving the impact of price increases, and how many are turning to electronic forms of the literature. The questionnaire served to provide these data. In addition, interviews were conducted with the li­ brary director, the science librarian, or the 408 College & Research Libraries September 1998 serials librarian at twelve libraries to hear how they confront these forces. All participants received assurances about protecting the confidentiality of their remarks. The interviews provided the source for specific examples of how each campus is addressing these issues and seeking solutions. Member li­ braries of three midwestern liberal arts college associations received the survey: The Associated Col­ leges of the Midwest, East Central Colleges, and the Great Lakes Col­ leges Association. Initially, the questionnaire went to the library director. The director had the option of delegating it to the staff member responsible for liaison with the science departments. Thirty-two institu­ tions made up the sample, but that num­ ber was reduced to thirty-one when it became clear that one library represented the undergraduate college of a major re­ search university with many departmen­ tal libraries available to both undergradu­ ate and graduate students. Nineteen aca­ demic libraries received the questionnaire through the mail, accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Geo­ graphic proximity determined which li­ braries received questionnaires only in contrast to those visited for interviews. Those library directors who agreed to be interviewed also received a questionnaire as preparation for an interview meeting. The libraries in figure 1 participated in the study by either completing and re­ turning the questionnaire or agreeing to an interview. Four weeks after the questionnaires went out, postcards were sent to remind recipients to return them within three weeks. Interviews with the director and/ or other designated staff member(s) proved very beneficial. Follow-up ques­ tions identified threads to follow that were not initially apparent. Discussions about the impact of accreditation for American Chemical Society (ACS)–sanc- FIGURE 1 Participating Libraries Albion College Hiram College Antioch College Hope College Baldwin-Wallace College Kalamazoo College Beloit College Lake Forest College Bethany College Lawrence University Capital University Mount Union College Carleton College Muskingum College Coe College Oberlin College Colorado College Otterbein College Depauw University St. Olaf College Earlham College Wabash College Grinnell College Westminster College Heidelberg College tioned majors, efforts to wire and auto­ mate campuses, bibliographic instruction, and the nature of the campus computer infrastructure occurred frequently. Dur­ ing one visit, the author was invited to attend the luncheon meeting of one college’s Friends of the Library organiza­ tion. It was fortuitous to witness what an active and dedicated friends group can do. These opportunities to hear from the interviewees about subscription issues turned out to be most revealing and thought-provoking. It became apparent that the issue of rising costs for scientific journals in liberal arts curricula is signifi­ cant and revealed a problem currently without immediate answers. The spirit of fairness dictated that pub­ lishers also be included. Thus, attempts were made to reach four publishers of scientific literature. Telephone interviews were conducted with marketing represen­ tatives and/or documentation was re­ ceived from them describing the publish­ ers’ perspective. This additional aspect to the study proved valuable because it fur­ ther illuminated what had been found earlier in the library literature about the publishers’ positions.5 In addition, the director of a statewide consortium of four- and two-year colleges and university li­ braries was contacted to obtain his opin­ ion and suggestions. He expressed the Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals 409 bases. Another director explained that the TABLE 1 Over the Past Five Years, Has Your Scientific Journal Collection Met Student, Faculty, and Staff Needs? Response No. of Respondents Increased 4 Decreased 9 Remained the same 10 belief that such colleges should continue to participate and support involvement in consortia. Moreover, he sent a confer­ ence paper detailing how his organiza­ tion is dealing with the issue. Findings Of the thirty-one libraries contacted for the study, twenty-five participated by ei­ ther returning the questionnaire or agree­ ing to interviews. The following tables represent the responses to the distinct choices offered for many of the questions in the questionnaire. The text following each table offers analysis and comments received during the interviews to further explain the quantitative findings. As the responses in table 1 suggest, col­ lection development regarding scientific literature shows little forward motion. Two distinct approaches to answering this question at the libraries were presented where staff were interviewed. One group tried to put its situation in the best pos­ sible light. Some members of this group answered that they were surpassing or holding steady in meeting student and faculty needs. Only one librarian who in­ dicated an increase in ability to meet cur­ ricular needs explained in any detail how it happened. His college’s science curricu­ lum focuses on preparing mathematics and science teachers for secondary schools. The chemistry department at this college had dropped its ACS-accredited local collection was insufficient to meet all faculty and student needs. Close prox­ imity (less than one mile) to a large pub­ lic university and the library of a major pharmaceutical manufacturer overcomes the collection’s deficiencies. Many of the respondents were main­ taining the status quo. They explained that any science faculty requests for new titles had to accompany recommenda­ tions to drop titles judged not to be con­ tributing to the collection’s content. An­ other director who identified with the sta­ tus quo group said his library received enough funds to maintain a core collec­ tion. In addition, it was becoming increas­ ingly dependent on document delivery. One librarian explained that her college depended significantly on gift issues from the faculty, an arrangement that strongly supplemented the titles to which the li­ brary subscribed. In this arrangement, a faculty member subscribes individually to a title. When he or she finishes using the issue, it is submitted as a gift and added to the library collection. This is not an uncommon practice, but this study participant was the only one who showed a degree of dependence on such an ar­ rangement. Some journals do specify a period during which individual subscrib­ ers cannot donate issues to the library. Several titles at this college fall into this category. In view of this circumstance, a gap will occur between the most recent issue in the library and the issue that has been published most recently. The other type of answer came from directors and science librarians who TABLE 2 How Do the Rising Costs of Scientific Journals Influence Your Response to the Question in Table 1? major. The director characterized the Response No. of Respondents library’s priority for resources as moving slowly toward access with a definite in- Very much 16 terest in more electronic full-text data- Very little 6 410 College & Research Libraries September 1998 TABLE 3 In Response to the Rising Costs of Scientific Journals, Has Your Library Had to Cancel Titles? Response No. of Respondents Yes 20 No 3 readily pointed out the decline of their science collections. Several freely admit­ ted that they need assistance in express­ ing to faculty and academic administra­ tors how acute the situation is. Many ex­ pressed the hope that this study might help bolster their arguments. Four direc­ tors in this category said they received marginal or no increase in their budget during the past five years. One is look­ ing at a 15 percent decrease in his peri­ odical budget for 1997-1998. Another di­ rector, who is working without any in­ crease in her materials budget, said the science department chairs were less than understanding when she sent out memo­ randums explaining the situation. Indeed, a science chairperson at that college even contacted the college president, asking, “What is this all about?” One director described how he and the science faculty worked through two rounds of title can­ cellations in the past seven years. He char­ acterized the current collection as repre­ senting core titles and expressed the fear that another round of cancellations in two to three years would mean elimination of some core titles unless the budget in­ creases. Because of the above data, most participants in this study were either barely holding steady or declining in their ability to support their colleges’ curricula. According to table 2, most respondents asserted that rising costs had a direct and definite effect. Seven characterized the situation as one of stagnation in terms of advancing their science journal collection. Only two schools said their administra­ tions responded with additional funds to continue collection growth. One of these is looking forward to a 17 percent serials budget increase for the 1997–1998 fiscal year after several years of decline. The li­ brary achieved such a notable victory by using statistics showing how its periodi­ cal expenditures ranked in the lower por­ tion of the Great Lakes College Associa­ tion. As table 3 shows, most of the libraries had to eliminate journal titles in the past five years. Four colleges described a quid pro quo arrangement for managing the problem. If a department wished to add a new title, it had to select one to cancel. In two schools, cancellations take place in all departments to maintain a degree of fairness in resolving such an undesir­ able situation. Here, the concept of fair­ ness is debatable because departments that subscribe to very few journals must make cancellations, as well as those with a long subscription list. “Reluctant com­ pliance” and “not happy, but understand­ ing” characterized the remarks summing up faculty reaction. During three of the interview visits, the director or science librarian related how the faculty were un­ aware of the difference between institu­ tional and individual subscription rates. The faculty at these colleges thought only in terms of the individual rate. Of course, the difference between individual and in­ stitutional rates can be significant. In the case of BioScience for 1996, the individual price is $60, compared to the modest in­ stitutional rate of $165.6 A more notewor­ thy example is the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The individual price comes to an expensive, but manageable, $125, whereas the institutional rate sky­ rockets to $1,695.7 Such a price differen­ tial truly drives home the significance between individual and institutional rates. Table 4 offered very illuminating com­ mentary. Sometimes the director bears the news to the department chair, and together they decide what titles to eliminate. At one institution, the director makes the case for cancellations to the library advisory com­ Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals 411 TABLE 4 Does Your Library Have a Formal or Informal Process for Communi­ cation/Negotiation with Academic Departments in Dealing with Journal Price Increases? Response No. of Respondents Fonnal 2 Infonnal 16 mittee. From the committee, news of the need to eliminate titles circulates to all the departments. The process at another cam­ pus has the director communicating to each department a target percentage that must be cut. After the department be­ comes aware of the targeted amount, negotiations between the library direc­ tor and the department proceed until they agree. In another example, the di­ rector decides what titles to cut, and the department is informed after the fact. One director begins the process by ask­ ing his acquisitions librarian to prepare a list of each department’s journals and their current prices. When the list is ready, the library director meets with the depart­ ment chairs individually, typically recom­ mending that they drop a title or two to keep pace with inflation. The chairs are asked to hold meetings with their col­ leagues to discuss use versus cost and then to report their decision to the direc­ tor within two to three weeks. In the event the departments’ decision is to drop no or too few titles, the director decides what to cut, based on usage and cost. He re­ ports that the library and the faculty en­ gaged twice in a review of journal titles in the past seven years. This library di­ rector feels the scientific journal collection is at its essential core. In two or three years, when the next collection review becomes necessary, any cuts required will hurt because core titles will face cancella­ tion. At another school, the acquisitions li­ brarian compiles data on the usage and costs of a department’s subscriptions. Then, in a departmental meeting, the fac­ ulty decides which titles to cancel. At yet another campus, the director communi­ cates the journal situation to affected de­ partments by e-mail. Decisions to cancel go forward by means of electronic com­ munication. In the case of one college, across-the-board cancellations became necessary. Librarians with departmental liaison assignments explained the impact to their respective departments. Each de­ partment was asked to eliminate ten per­ cent of its periodical budget. Departments that did not comply with the ten percent request were asked to cancel at least one title from their subscription list. Two colleges developed concise and well-constructed tools to assist the faculty in making cancellation decisions. At one school, the serials librarian prepared a title list of each department’s subscrip­ tions. The list also included the current price for the journal and usage statistics, the latter consisting of circulation and pickup figures for that title. Pickup data are based on in-house usage of a title; that is, copies of issues found off the shelf around the library are scanned by a bar code wand to determine how often that title was used in-house. The faculty then use those data in conjunction with their subject knowledge to decide which titles are expendable. At the other school, the director developed a title rating form for each department when a major cancella­ tion took place in 1993. The list gives each title to which the department subscribes and its current price. Next to each title is a space to rate it on a scale of one to four. Each rating category is defined as follows: 1. Core: Journals that are integral to the discipline and likely to experience heavy use 2. Supporting: Journals that are closely related to the specific curriculum offer­ ings of the department and are essential for the support of those courses 3. Peripheral: Interesting journals in a field which are not directly supportive of 412 College & Research Libraries September 1998 TABLE 5 Do Accreditation Pressures Play an Important Role in the Level of Funding Budgeted for the Acquisi­ tion of Scientific Journals? Response No. of Respondents Yes 14 No 11 the department’s curriculum 4. Unimportant: Journals that do not support the curriculum Bolstered by the data on these evalua­ tion forms returned by each department, the library canceled enough titles to stay within the confines of its periodical bud­ get that year. Currently, the library only notifies departments about possible can­ cellations when a subscription increases by more than 20 percent. The question in table 4 offered an op­ portunity to think creatively about the best course of action in the event no pro­ cess exists. Six directors commented on this issue, and their comments ranged from the whimsical to the serious. One director suggested that the business of resolving journal price increases be left to the college president. Another believed that in light of greater use of electronic journals, cancellation of print or micro­ form double subscriptions deserved con­ sideration. Other suggestions included decreasing the monograph allocation. At one college, the ideal solution would take the form of a sequence that begins with the cancellation titles of marginal value to the curriculum without departmental cooperation. Then the faculty would be given basically a blank check to order ar­ ticles via a document delivery service as their needs dictated. One director de­ scribed a plan to establish a core under­ graduate collection, explaining how the libraries that belonged to the Oberlin Group within his state would develop a cooperative purchasing plan. This plan depended on the fact that Oberlin Group member libraries received a 55 percent discount on many journal titles. An­ other director proposed that an across­ the-board review of all periodical titles take place every five years. At one li­ brary, the suggestion was to close the periodical stacks to obtain accurate usage statistics. A slight majority of the respondents in table 5 described accreditation as an im­ portant influence on journal budgets. The accreditation body most frequently men­ tioned was ACS, which provides for a specially recognized major when colleges meet its criteria. In terms of journals, ACS accreditation can take up a significant portion of the journal budget. This cir­ cumstance occurs because a specific run of back files of issues must exist besides a current subscription. One director esti­ mated the ACS segment of the journal budget for his institution at $20,500, a situ­ ation that can cause some hard thinking. At schools where the directors discussed this circumstance, most graduated fewer than ten chemistry majors who opted for the ACS-recognized major. Therefore, this status for a handful of students is becom­ ing an increasingly expensive proposi­ tion. As table 6 shows, accreditation stan­ dards ran in favor of the negative. One director described the situation as a “racket,” where the accreditation bodies also were the publishers of the journals they required colleges to own. A review of ACS’s home page shows that it does address library guidelines for ACS-ap­ proved programs. Chemical Abstracts must TABLE 6 If You Answered Yes to the Question in Table 5, Would You Characterize That Influence As Positive or Negative? Response No. of Respondents Positive 5 Negative 6 Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals 413 TABLE 7 What Position Has Your Library Taken on the Issue of Access and Ownership with Respect to Scien­ tific Journals? Response No. of Respondents Access 3 Ownership 4 Both 8 be accessible in either paper format or electronically. At the minimum, ACS re­ quires libraries to carry subscriptions to twenty or more refereed journals. A mini­ mum of fourteen journals in print is ac­ ceptable if the library can provide faculty and students with the means to gain ac­ cess to the wider literature. Of those four­ teen titles, four must be from the general chemistry content list and at least one each needs to come from the areas of ana­ lytical, biological, inorganic, organic, and physical chemistry. Of the fifty-five titles required, recommended, or suggested from the ACS list, nineteen are ACS pub­ lications.8 In analyzing the replies to the question in table 7, most respondents said they had not made a hard commitment either way. As indicated, the most frequent reply was that the library was trying to fulfill both approaches in supporting user needs. This answer was not an option on the original questionnaire. Most libraries maintain their existing print collections while adding new electronic services that are cost-effective and support the curricu­ lum. One access proponent said his li­ brary could no longer afford to empha­ size ownership. One respondent who said her library had not taken a position ei­ ther way expressed the belief that tech­ nology was making access an option. However, she went on to say that copy­ right considerations prevented access from being a strong option. Regardless of whether participants declared a commitment to ownership over access, several had an opinion on the substance of table 8. Nine libraries de­ clined to state a position on this question. There was wide disparity in the size of budgets among the libraries that partici­ pated. Participants were not pressed for their total journal budget, although a few volunteered this information. The range extended from more than $50,000 to al­ most $900,000. Despite the level of bud­ geting, most respondents said they could not close the gap between the dollars with which they had to work and the price in­ creases created by publishers. One direc­ tor confessed that he tried overspending annually in hopes of getting an increase from his administration. The result now is that he faces a 15 percent cut in his seri­ als budget for the 1997–1998 academic year. Three libraries showed that they re­ ceived sufficient funding to maintain their core collections and buy new titles as fac­ ulty requested. However, even in these cases, the directors suggested that the chances for collection growth were non­ existent. Most respondents to a question regard­ ing the impact on interlibrary loan (ILL) showed that their volume of activity had increased but that the rise did not relate con­ clusively to the cancellation of journal titles. At one library, the increase resulted from the inclusion of graduate programs in the cur­ riculum. Another school belongs to a state­ wide network that offers a highly developed resource-sharing system. In one case, a library added a .5 FTE to manage the in­ creased ILL traffic following entry into a TABLE 8 If You Answered Positively for Ownership, Do You Believe Your Library Is Receiving Sufficient Budgetary Support to Maintain Its Collection of Scientific Journals? Response No. of Respondents Yes 10 No 6 414 College & Research Libraries September 1998 TABLE 9 Document Delivery Vendors Used by Participants Response No. of Respondents UMI 8 EBSCO 1 OCLC 2 Genuine Article 1 Uncover 9 British Library 1 None 10 statewide academic library network. One library that received no appreciable bud­ get increase over the past five years dur­ ing which $8,000 worth of journal cancel­ lations occurred saw its ILL activity go up 58 percent. Another library reported its staff recognized ILL requests for titles receiving cancellations. Document delivery, a commercial ser­ vice that duplicates journal articles and transmits them quickly to a customer by fax or express mail for a fee, serves as another access option on some campuses (table 9). However, it offers a last resort when urgency of need becomes the driv­ ing force. Respondents said that Univer­ sity Microfilms and Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries’s (CARL’s) Uncover was the service used most frequently. One library tried a major initiative of offering 24-hour access to document delivery to its faculty via fax. The library was will­ ing to subsidize all requests for articles through this service. However, poor-qual­ ity fax transmissions proved the undoing of this plan. The faculty reacted by say­ ing it preferred print subscriptions to such an alternative. As table 10 shows, cooperative pur­ chasing of scientific journals is an option whose time has yet to come. A sizeable majority of the respondents to this ques­ tion had neither tried nor considered it, and those that had tried it experienced only minor success. Copyright implica­ tions killed interest in cooperative pur­ chasing among East Central Colleges li­ brarians. One library reported how one title purchased under a cooperative ar­ rangement returned no benefit to its cur­ riculum. The question in table 11, which relates to materials formats for scientific litera­ ture, yielded no great surprises but did offer additional insights into the access versus ownership debate. All respon­ dents replied that print was still their pri­ ority format. Two commented that online documents were growing in prominence but still placed a distant second to print materials. The purpose of table 12 is to gauge where the thinking on this issue is going within the library community. Respon­ dents placed electronic journals in the access column by a significant margin. The most illuminating observation on this question came from those participants who pointed out that access to back files of an electronic title is the deciding fac­ tor. If library users could still access back issues of an electronic journal even after cancellation of the current subscription, the library owned those issues. If all ac­ cess ended with subscription cancellation, the electronic journal offered only access. The essence of this question will continue to evolve as new technological advances become known. Concerning the full-text databases and/or electronic journals used by par­ ticipants, there was no dominant vendor identified by the responses. The reasons given for the services offered most fre- TABLE 10 Has Your Library Made Any Efforts in Cooperative Purchasing of Scientific Journals with Other Libraries? Response No. of Respondents Yes 5 No 14 Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals 415 TABLE 11 To Which Format for Scientific Literature Will Your Library Be Committing the Better Part of Its Materials Budget? Response No. of Respondents Microfiche o Online o Microfilm o Print 23 CD-ROM o quently centered on cost and relation to the college curriculum. Services available via a graphical user interface (GUI) proved most prevalent. Two of the newer services, Project Muse and JSTOR, were mentioned by seven participants. Lexis- Nexis availability existed at only two col­ leges. Although Knight-Ridder Informa­ tion Services is making more full-text databases available through its Dialog and Classroom Instruction Programs (CIP), participants showed a decline in the amount of usage for this well-established online service. One reason is that Dialog searching has required librarian media­ tion, whereas the databases available through GUI or Web-based interface are searchable by end users. Dialog sold its end-user version to CompuServe early in the 1990s. Many of the same Dialog data­ bases are accessible through CIP at a markedly discounted rate as long as the subscribing institution limits use to course-related research. A Knight-Ridder representative informed the author that only five public and private institutions in Ohio subscribe to CIP. In the Ohio group, Ohio Wesleyan is the only mem­ ber of the consortia that made up the study.9 CIP allows access to many peri­ odicals (mostly business and general in­ terest) and newspapers in full text. Nei­ ther full-service Dialog nor CIP offers any graphics with its full-text databases. There were more disadvantages for turning to electronic journals by academic libraries. Respondents cited advantages as elimination of preservation/binding concerns, elimination of vandalism, the saving of space, and desktop access by users. Disadvantages included lack of serendipitous discoveries from browsing, expense for necessary hardware and soft­ ware, uncertain connection to the curricu­ lum, printing graphics, steep learning curve for staff and users, back file access, Internet dependency, paper consumption, and absence of standardized systems. Although such disadvantages are not in­ surmountable, they do require library ad­ ministrators to think soberly about mak­ ing a commitment to electronic journals. Another question dealt with satisfac­ tion with vendor and technical support from online vendors. Participants de­ clared a general satisfaction with the ser­ vices used. Although some problems were mentioned, they were not seen as major obstacles. Among the additional points men­ tioned outside the study questions was staff development for the new electronic technologies. One director expressed con­ cern over the steep learning curve for both staff and end users that will require at­ tention. A central question articulated by one director was whether the vicious cycle of subscription price increases and title can­ cellations will ever cease. Comments re­ ceived by publishers’ representatives will address this issue below. The director and acquisitions librarian at one college pointed out the need for a regular cycle TABLE 12 Would You Define Subscriptions to Electronic Journals As an Act of Securing Ownership or Allowing Access to Required Scientific Literature? Response No. of Respondents Access 15 Ownership 2 Both 3 416 College & Research Libraries September 1998 of journal review to stay on top of the problem. Another library director said she is paying particular attention to journal storage projects and how they may aid her situation. Responses from Publishers As the author discussed the problems as­ sociated with rising scientific journal costs with colleagues, it became apparent that a balanced report on this issue could not be achieved without seeking reaction from publishers. With emphasis on com­ pany size and reputation, Springer Verlag New York, Inc., and Elsevier Science, Inc., were contacted to represent commercial publishers. In addition, interviews were conducted with representatives of two nonprofit publishers of scientific litera­ ture, Annual Reviews Inc., and ACS. As it turned out, contact with a representa­ tive for Springer Verlag could not be made, although he did leave a phone-mail message expressing his sympathy for the libraries’ plight. For those successfully reached, the purpose of the study was explained, and they were asked to ad­ dress the issue from the publisher’s per­ spective. In addition, the question as to any plans for special arrangements help­ ful to the budgetary situation of liberal arts college libraries was posed. John Tagler, director of corporate com­ munications with Elsevier Science, con­ sented to the first telephone interview. He agreed that the gap between library bud­ gets and subscription prices have been widening since the 1980s and explained that, from his company’s perspective, lib­ eral arts college libraries do not represent a large enough market to justify any spe­ cial subscription packages. Moreover, he expressed the belief that there is no reso­ lution to the cycle of subscription price increases and title cancellations. He ech­ oed two of the publisher arguments made in the McCarthy article concerning the downward spiral of the dollar and the huge increase in the sheer volume of sci­ entific literature being produced. Further, he said that for most Elsevier publica­ tions, there were approximately 700 to 1,000 subscribers worldwide per title. Given their esoteric content and such a limited market, there is no way to avoid the high subscription prices. The only hope he saw lay in libraries joining con­ sortia such as OhioLINK, which just reached a group-licensing agreement with Elsevier for electronic access to 1,100 of its titles. In the early going, however, libraries will still need to find funds be­ yond what is budgeted to take advantage of such an innovation as the Elsevier/ OhioLINK service. However, he did share information about possible future offerings that might give some relief. One is a program he called Science Direct that will make ar­ ticles available electronically as either PDF or HTML files. Possibly available in 1998, the plan is to include ownership for archival files. Apparently, Elsevier had considered a small institution package but had dropped it because of the difficulty in defining a small institution. He cited institutions with small enrollments but with highly technical, specialized cur­ ricula as complicating the issue.10 The first nonprofit contact was with Samuel Gubins, president and editor in chief of Annual Reviews Inc. It was his organization’s doubling of its subscrip­ tion rates last fall that heightened this author ’s interest in this issue. He replied to an e-mail query with a fax transmis­ sion of the letter that went out to Annual Reviews subscribers last fall. It explained the price increase and included personal comments on the situation. Until last fall, Annual Reviews had offered only one rate to both individuals and libraries. The letter de­ scribed how the company’s board of direc­ tors had decided that the time had come for institutional pricing if the organization was to maintain its long-term financial stability. It acknowledged with regret that no gradual price increase plan for insti­ tutions had been set up in recent years to alleviate the surprise of their announce­ http:issue.10 Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals 417 ment. His comments, which accompanied the copy of last fall’s letter, described the successful attainment of financial stabil­ ity. As a result, he declared that prices will not increase in 1998, and if sales do well, they will not increase in 1999. He con­ cluded with descriptions of new offerings for Annual Reviews. One is electronic access to titles on an individual subscrip­ tion basis. The Annual Review of Sociology and the Annual Review of Medicine are ac­ cessible electronically. The organization plans for electronic access to all its series during the next year for libraries subscrib­ ing to the print equivalents. Also under consideration are discounts on the pur­ chase of multiple series of the Annual Reviews. For example, a library could subscribe to ten different series and get a discount of X percent.11 The second telephone contact with a nonprofit publishing body was with Pe­ ter Gaviorno, general manager of sales and marketing for ACS Publications. He cov­ ered much of the same ground as Mr. Gubins in justifying ACS’s subscription rates. He gave a breakdown of the ratio­ nale for a subscription price, explaining that 70 to 80 percent of the cost represents production and 20 to 30 percent covers postage. He also saw no immediate reso­ lution to the cycle, saying that electronic alternatives to ACS publications will cost more in the short term. He did describe three special subscription plans currently available, but liberal arts colleges are not the prime beneficiaries. One plan grants a ten percent discount to institutions that subscribe to all thirty-four ACS publica­ tions. The second plan calls for a ten per­ cent discount under what he called the “school plan” for seventeen particular titles. The third plan comes under the name “biochemistry/biotechnology plan” for six or seven titles, but he did not give the discount percentage. He mentioned that the marketing division is considering conducting analysis of its subscriber base through focus groups or the establishment of a library advisory panel.12 Conclusions This study began with no expectation that any earthshaking facts about the impact of journal prices on library budgets would be discovered. The findings are not sur­ prising, but much was learned from inter­ views with colleagues at similar institu­ tions. All kinds of libraries—public, special, and academic—are trying to manage at various levels. Some predictions about the journal price issue were confirmed, but others, however subtle, were altered. One cen­ ters on the level of library funding at pri­ vate liberal arts colleges. Before this study, the author believed that most college li­ braries received funding at generally the same level. Thus, the difference among periodicals budgets at the libraries con­ tacted was mildly surprising. Often it stems from the degree of support from the traditional sources of revenue for lib­ eral arts colleges. Ohio Wesleyan, for ex­ ample, like many other schools, experi­ enced fiscally austere times in the 1990s, and other schools fared even worse. If pe­ riodical budgets were generally compa­ rable, there were marked differences in other budget areas, such as the degree of information technology development, condition of the physical plant, and staff­ ing level. Another revelation concerned faculty and administrative awareness of the im­ plications of the journal pricing issue. It was enlightening that faculty often do not know that publishers may have both in­ dividual and institutional subscription rates and that institutional rates are usu­ ally significantly higher. Much was learned about tangential matters relating to academic librarianship such as the problems posed by campus computer infrastructure, the variety of computer platforms and software, the ramifications of the level of library in­ struction offered, and the dynamics among librarians, faculty, and adminis­ tration. Although these concerns do not constitute the main thrust of the study, http:panel.12 http:percent.11 418 College & Research Libraries September 1998 learning about them still influenced the study’s focus. For example, the level of computer literacy among faculty and stu­ dents is directly related to the benefit de­ rived from electronic databases and jour­ nals. In addition, the capabilities of the campus computing system determines the degree to which online systems can be incorporated into the curriculum. The process of resolution of subscrip­ tion price increases between the library and the science departments is typically addressed through informal communica­ tion. The director contacts the chair of the department affected, or the library liaison contacts his or her counterpart in the de­ partment. Most contacts take place via telephone and, increasingly, e-mail. “Re­ luctant understanding” was the phrase that best characterized faculty reaction to library communications regarding the need to review subscriptions. All parties involved hate having to deal with the prospect of canceling titles when sub­ scriptions increase in price or having to take time to review the importance each discipline’s titles makes to the curriculum. Librarians conveyed the sense that they were “walking on eggs” when trying to manage the issue of journal price in­ creases. The image of angry and/or dis­ appointed monarchs slaughtering mes­ sengers bearing bad news came to mind more than once. Therefore, it would seem that librarians need to be more forthright in presenting the matter of journal price increases to their faculty. They should take a proactive approach to informing their faculties about what must be done. A more assertive approach from the li­ brary side will serve to dismiss any lack of understanding about journal price in­ creases. Librarians can clear up any con­ fusion about the differences between in­ dividual and institutional subscription rates on the faculty and administrative side. A few libraries developed tools to help in the subscription review process. Tools can be defined as evaluation forms that include title costs, usage figures, a rating scale for relevance to the curriculum, or all these elements. These tools will help librarians and faculty resolve the matter of journal price increases as quickly, effi­ ciently, and amicably as possible. The most effective example of such a tool was at the library where the director created a form with a one-to-four scale for judging a title’s importance to the curriculum. Because all indications are that the cycle of price increases and title cancella­ tions will continue, findings point toward establishment of a formal process of jour­ nal subscription review as the best solu­ tion to this problem. A formal process brings faculty and library staff together to resolve a common problem. A periodic journal review dispels confusion about in­ dividual and institutional subscriptions, as well as any notions about blame. How such a process is actually implemented will depend on the campus political cli­ mate. Ideally, however, library and fac­ ulty should agree on a periodic review of all periodical subscriptions every two or three years. Such a period will provide enough time for new titles to establish a track record of usage and relevance to the curriculum. Initial setup of such a process will depend on support from the college’s chief academic officer (provost, dean, or vice president for academic affairs) and from influential and respected faculty members who are strong library support­ ers. At the time of review, the library should be ready to provide an evaluation form giving the most recent price for a title, usage figures for circulation and in­ house use, and a rating scale mutually agreed upon with the faculty as to the journal’s relevance to the curriculum. Armed with this information, the faculty can make informed judgments about what will be kept or canceled. All faculty should be involved in the process. Where departments are reluctant to cancel enough titles to reconcile the budget with the rise in subscription rates, library staff and departmental representatives will Private Liberal Arts Colleges and the Costs of Scientific Journals 419 need to negotiate until a satisfactory agree­ ment is reached. Regarding the question of ownership versus access, ownership still “holds the edge” on access because of tradition and familiarity. However, there is a gradual movement toward access of electronic al­ ternatives to print journals as they become more plentiful and affordable. User com­ fort with technology and campus support for continuing education are two primary factors in determining the rate at which access is embraced. College libraries are turning to elec­ tronic databases and journals more and more. However, the level of dependence on these electronic services still trails the use of print materials significantly. Such services continue to expand awareness and access to literature in all disciplines. The author ’s own tour of the exhibits at the April 1997 ACRL Biennial Conference caused the sensation of one’s head swim­ ming in trying to sort out the volume of services now or soon to be offered in Web- based versions. Many more such products are in development, and such electronic services will continue to be a growing pres­ ence in the academic library landscape. ILL activity rose for many participants, but the reasons for the increase varied con­ siderably. Based on the findings, increased ILL activity cannot be attributed directly to canceled scientific journals. Use of document delivery services re­ mains minimal. Participants use it as a last resort for hard-to-obtain items or when time is of the essence in getting an article. To revisit the original question about the subscription rates for electronic jour­ nals being more affordable than print, the immediate answer is no. Publishers that can produce both print and electronic ver­ sions have the advantage in terms of pric­ ing and marketing their products. Cur­ rently, the best answer from the college library side is for libraries to enter group-li­ censing agreements with publishers as OhioLINK did with Academic Press and Elsevier during the 1996–1997 academic year. At present, group-licensing agree­ ments for electronic journals are an ad­ ditional, but modest, expense for aca­ demic library budgets. The hope lies in more publishers and libraries entering such agreements for electronic journals so that the cost will continue to decrease. Tom Sanville, OhioLINK’s executive di­ rector, pointed out in a recent conference paper that the maximum institutional ad­ vantages of such modest incremental ex­ penses should be clear to academic ad­ ministrators. He went on to say that li­ brary users will use what is available. The words available and immediate are becom­ ing increasingly synonymous. Sanville said that journals that publishers move into an electronic environment will re­ ceive more use and are likely to receive protection within library budgets. Pub­ lishers who avoid using the electronic medium as group licenses increase run the risk of having more of their titles can­ celed. He believes authors will find elec­ tronic journals more attractive vehicles for their work because of their increas­ ing accessibility. Further, he reiterated that modest additional costs will be nec­ essary in the early going but that such an initial investment will yield dividends in an explosion of use. He concluded his comments by observing that if neither vendor nor library becomes too greedy or fainthearted, the transformation of journal accessibility over the next several years will be profound.13 These are help­ ful comments from someone deeply in­ volved with this issue. College libraries need to move more toward such collec­ tive action to find some degree of relief from escalating prices. Librarians also must be proactive in expressing their concerns to publishers about the pressures resulting from rising subscription costs. They should contact marketing representatives, volunteer to participate in focus groups, or join advi­ sory committees so as to have a voice in how the literature is made available. Li­ brarians know what formats of literature http:profound.13 420 College & Research Libraries September 1998 are most useful to their users, and that information needs to be impressed on the publishing community. Group licensing shows very promising potential. Librar­ ians, faculty, and administrators must be prepared to make the initial investment to ensure benefit from future savings. This study indicates that the pressures of escalating scientific journal prices show no signs of abating. To guarantee collec­ tion quality in relation to the curriculum and to make the best use of existing jour­ nal funding, librarians and faculty need to agree on a formal and regular review process. The contribution of full-text da­ tabases and electronic journals still can­ not compare to the value placed on print resources, but they are making positive and constructive inroads as a solution to the journal price dilemma. Group-licens­ ing agreements for such electronic sources will expedite the development of more electronic resources. Only by becoming involved in group-licensing agreements in their infancy will college libraries real­ ize any future savings and relief to the scientific journal subscription rate pre­ dicament. Notes 1. Paul McCarthy, “Serial Killers: Academic Libraries Respond to Soaring Costs,” Library Journal 119 (June 1994): 41–44. 2. Lee Ketcham and Kathleen Born, “Unsettled Times, Unsettled Prices,” Library Journal 122, no. 7 (Apr. 1997): 42–47. 3. McCarthy, “Serial Killers,” 41–42. 4. Chestalene Pintozzi, “Rethinking Scholarly Communication,” College & Research Library News 57 (Feb. 1996): 88-91. 5. McCarthy, “Serial Killers,” 41–42. 6. Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory. 4 vols. (New Providence, N.J.: Bowker, 1996). 7. Ibid. 8. Library Guidelines for ACS Approved Schools. Hp. 16 June 1997. Online. Available at: http:/ /www.acs.org/cpt/library.htm. 9. Laura Graham (Laura_Graham@krinfo.com), “Classroom Instruction Program.” E-mail to Paul Burnam (pdburnam@cc.owu.edu), July 3, 1997. 10. John Tagler, telephone conversation with author, June 4, 1997. 11. Samuel Gubins, telefacsimile sent to author, June 3, 1997. 12. Peter Gaviorno, telephone conversation with author, June 23, 1997. 13. Thomas J. Sanville and Barbara A. Winters, “A Method Out of Madness: OhioLINK’s Collaborative Response to the Serials Crisis” (paper presented at the NASIG Conference, Ann Arbor, Mich., May 30, 1997). mailto:pdburnam@cc.owu.edu mailto:Laura_Graham@krinfo.com www.acs.org/cpt/library.htm