Wednesday, July 31, 2002, 7:12:22 AM, you wrote:
AH>         Yes, Price also noted that if you know how many
AH>         papers are published, you can reliably estimate the
AH>         number of authors. Price also pointed out that this
AH>         measure of 'science productivity' has been true
AH>         for over 100 years. As far as I know, the science
AH>         of scientometrics has not detected any change in
AH>         recent decades.

If there have been no changes, I'd appreciate some more recent
references to such.  The changes of the last 30 and 40 years since
Price wrote have been greater than in the 300 or 400 years preceding.
Changes in technology, changes in grant funding, and changes in
educational policies and expectations are just a few of them. Even
though I still remember some of my several years of Latin and how to
use a slide rule doesn't mean that I regularly use either one today.

AH>         The growth of spending on R&D is a more important
AH>         'input' factor than numbers of papers per author.
AH>         It is most easily correlated with the 'output' of
AH>         publication. My question is, why doesn't the growth
AH>         of spending on libraries keep up with spending on
AH>         R&D? [JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION
AH>         SCIENCE. 50:366-380. 1999].

Yes, it would be great if spending on libraries kept up with spending
on R&D.  However, R&D is only one factor in the budget generation and
in the usage of academic libraries.  The needs of most university
libraries are driven by the educational needs of students at the various
levels, and secondarily by the research needs of the faculty.  And a
great many of those faculty have research needs that aren't driven by
outside funding.  I still need to purchase or provide access to materials
for the professor studying Shelley or Marlowe, even though s/he
probably doesn't have a fat research grant like his colleagues in
physics or computer science.

As soon as you have a magic answer on how to get increased R&D funding
into the library, be sure to let us know.  You could sell libraries
the secret and retire a wealthy man.  It certainly isn't for lack of
trying by librarians that most of us have been unsuccessful in getting
significant chunks of the R&D dollars for the library.

AH>         The SERIALS PRICES PROJECT REPORT of the Association
AH>         of Research Libraries (1989) made 'excessive publication'
AH>         a leading factor in its propaganda campaign of the early
AH>         1990s. The theme was amplified by SCIENCE, THE SCIENTIST,
AH>         60 MINUTES, and THE NEW YORK TIMES, whose editors never
AH>         bothered to check the reliability of the ARL as a
AH>         objective source.

As always, one man's "objective source" is another man's "biased
source".  We all have our own agendas, and we're certainly familiar
with yours.  I believe, Mr. Henderson, that we'd all be able to work
together for a common goal if you weren't so busy biting the hand that
feeds you.  I don't know of a single librarian that doesn't feel the
need for more funding for materials of all types, and the staff to
support their acquisition, storage, and access.  I also don't know of
a single librarian that doesn't regularly make pleas to the university
administration for greater funding and the reasons therefor.

Just because librarians are taking advantage of new technologies to
obtain materials that researchers (and others) request doesn't mean
that if it were "the old world" instead of "the new world" we wouldn't
love to have more shelves filled with these items.

AH>         The same sort of peer review that serves editors
AH>         supports approvals of academic research grants now
AH>         in the tens of billions of dollars with huge
AH>         overhead allowances going to profitability.

AH>         It is pitiful.

I know you're really convinced of this "profitability" in academia.
Profitability in the business world can produce fortunes for top
executives and profits for shareholders, as well as income for the
employees.

If that profitability were present in academia, the same should hold
true for the university.  Those of us who are employees get income for
doing our job.  There are no shareholders as such.  The top university
administrators certainly make six figure salaries, but I've not read
of any of them being taken away in handcuffs because they've diverted
funds to their million dollar mansions, bought any private jets, or
had interest free loans of tens of millions of dollars.

AH>         I have made a point of the ratio of
AH>         interlibrary borrowing to total numbers of volumes,
AH>         something that I call COLLECTION FAILURE QUOTIENT,
AH>         but very little about acquisitions spending.

That number will continue to increase as the amount of publishing
increases, and as the prices of those publication continue to increase
faster than almost any other component of the economy.

AH>         Scorn, and I am not certain that is the right word,
AH>         or something of the sort is deserved by the 'enemies
AH>         of the library' described by Crawford and Gorman in
AH>         FUTURE LIBRARIES [1995].

Well, scorn is fine if all you want to do is to attack the offenders.
If you want to reform them, however, there are certainly better
techniques.

cheers

dan

--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  www.gailndan.com  Stop Global Whining!