Re: Open Letter to Research Councils UK: Rebuttal of ALPSP Critique Hamaker, Chuck 02 Sep 2005 15:01 UTC
That first sentence should have read: "he neglects to acknowledge what libraries spend on serials" Chuck Hamaker Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services Atkins Library University of North Carolina Charlotte Charlotte, NC 28223 phone 704 687-2825 -----Original Message----- From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU] On Behalf Of Hamaker, Chuck Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 10:19 AM To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Open Letter to Research Councils UK: Rebuttal of ALPSP Critique The main factual issue with most of the statistics Albert Henderson uses, is he neglects to include what libraries spend on serials. The crux of his argument instead looks at "total" library budgets compared with research spending or overall institutional budgets. His "profitability" figures are even worse, as they bear even less relationship to library serials expenditures. Ignoring what libraries spend on serials but raising the only loosely related issue of institutional funding levels is not a new approach for Mr. Henderson Here's a quote from him in 1999: Chronicle of Higher Education: >>From the issue dated October 8, 1999 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Scientific Research and Library Spending "If the Fact File included figures on academic research spending for the same period, comparing it with library spending, we would see that research spending increased 36 per cent, while library spending increased only 24 per cent. This is nothing new, of course, but it is important. ..." It's also of course irrelevant to what has been spent on serials. Or from 1990 a similar argument in the Chronicle of Higher Education in a letter on the Gordon and Breach lawsuits: From the issue dated January 3, 1990 "Concerned members of the learned community who wish to contribute a useful study might compare the growth of library budgets, staffs, and buildings to the growth and changing needs of their clientele since 1960. They would provide a more useful perspective on the journal pricing question. Ultimately, I believe they would show the responsibility lies more with the educational and political establishments than with publishers." The increases in library spending for serials has been at or above research (R&D) increase levels, leading the curve, not trailing it as would be expected if publisher pricing increases were a direct result of increased research spending. It is not a point that Mr. Henderson's statistics refute. A look at the ARL statistics on the increased spending on serials demonstrates the dramatic increases in serials spending. Because of the development of the big deal and other means of accessing serials in the last three years the numbers of serials purchased by research libraries has increased dramatically. And currently at least, per unit costs are dropping. Its time to stop blaming libraries and their institutions for not spending enough on serials. For the ARL figures see: http://www.arl.org/stats/arlstat/graphs/2004/monser04.pdf Chuck Hamaker UNC Charlotte Atkins Library