Re: Harnad vs. Henderson: A view from the bleachers (2 messages) Birdie MacLennan 19 May 2000 17:02 UTC
2 messages, 83 lines: (1)--------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:58:20 -0400 From: David Goodman <dgoodman@PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU> Comments: To: Kathleen Thorne <kathleen@sjsu.edu> Subject: Re: Harnad vs. Henderson: A view from the bleachers Writing from one of the larger ARL libraries, I do not think there is one of us that does not feel the same pressures as smaller institutions. Publishers should no longer feel confident that any library will not respond to cost pressure. Neither they nor Al Henderson should be deceived by the statistics that show that many of our parent institutions are in a healthy economic condition. Most university administrators, many faculty, and not a few librarians are convinced that a large part of library expenditures, especially for scientific journals, are for materials whose costs are not justified by their use to anyone. In past generations, the most enlightened administrators in the wealthiest institutions were willing to support such costs if they had the financial resources, because they knew that the results of research could not be disseminated otherwise. Now they know perfectly well that there are good alternatives. Whether they are willing to change their ways in the evaluation of faculty for appointment and promotion in a manner that will encourage these alternatives remains to be seen. David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library dgoodman@princeton.edu 609-258-3235 (2)---------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:10:46 -0400 From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Harnad vs. Henderson: A view from the bleachers on 18 May 2000 Kathleen Thorne <kathleen@sjsu.edu> wrote: > Albert Henderson wrote: > > If you would look at the skyrocketing of academic R&D funding, > > rather than publishers' prices, you might see that it was the > > universities that betrayed you and your patrons -- not the > > publishers. > > Skyrocketing of WHAT R&D funding??? Perhaps the ARL libraries have such > funding, but please, Mr. Henderson, wake up and understand that ARL > libraries are only a small minority and are >very< different from most of > us. Many of the university libraries, such as mine, are funded by the > state and most certainly do NOT have the enormous amount of grants and > bequests and slush funding that those few big ones do. Our spending is > closely watched by state governments and there are many fewer ways our > administrations can hide or syphon off monies from the library to their > own pockets or to pet projects. Reserves? Profits? We have none. If we > don't spend the budget we receive this year, the legislature will > certainly give us less next year. [snip] My point was that firing up R&D generates more papers. This factor forces science publishers' prices up 5 to 10 percent a year before inflation and other factors. Look at PHYSICAL REVIEW. When I first saw it, it was "almost browsable." Today browsing is a joke. You need an index for access to only one of its several sections. The imbalance between the growth of R&D and libraries is a chronic policy defect that has everything to do with the management of higher education and science policy. A fundamental error was made at the top. The worst of it is that the loss in research and education productivity is likely to be greater than whatever angst you and I may feel. It is time they admitted their error and applied remedies. Libraries and publishers, in my opinion, would fare better as "comrades in adversity" than as "hostiles." Thanks for your comments. Albert Henderson Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532@compuserve.com>