On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Steve Black wrote:
>   Our administrators have expressed interest in electronic journals as a
> means of saving money.  Since it looks like we will need to do a good job
> of disabusing them of that fantasy to preserve a decent collection, I was
> wondering what ammunition my colleagues here on SERIALST could supply me.
>
>   William Miller's essay, "Troubling myths about online information" in
> the Chronicle of Higher Ed, 8/1/97, p.A44 is a good starting point, but
> I think I'll need more.  If any of you have had to address this, and
> have a bibliography or study information or any hints for me, please
> post.  (I would guess that posts to the list would be welcome, since
> this is an important issue for us all).

Your administrators must have read William G. Bowen's article,
"How Libraries can Pay Their Way in the Future" in LOGOS last year
(7,3:237-241). He asks us, "to seek genuine reduction in costs for
the system." He claims that libraries can "pay their way" by going
electronic.

Bowen, who had been president of Princeton University 1972-1988,
also describes the delining share of the university dollar meted out
to libraries as "surprising." He is now president of the Andrew W.
Mellon Foundation which, in 1993, reported that Princeton cut its
library's share by 30 percent between 1979 and 1990. (University
Libraries and Scholarly Communication. Washington DC:
Association of Research Libraries)

The inconsistency here is more than troubling. It impeaches
the reliability of his vision. He was hacking away at library budgets
long ago. [In FUTURE LIBRARIES, Crawford and Gorman paint a
picture of  "enemies of the library." (Chicago IL: American Library
Assn 1995). It is well worth reading.]

The examples of  electronic publishing pointed to by Bowen's
crowd are typically subsidized to produce the appearance of low
cost. A.W. Mellon Foundation may have provided the most generous
grants for this purpose. How long will the subsidies last?

Some economic analysts have confused research information with
entertainment, suggesting that it is a commodity. Research info is
typically unique, has a finite  potential audience, and no real
substitute. The fact that there is lots of free info for those qualified
by ownership of equipment has no bearing on the cost and price of
a unit of research info.

Much of electronic publishing shifts costs from publishers to users,
forcing libraries and researchers to do the printing. Rarely has the
cost shift been summarized. I believe total costs increase. A user
must spend hours downloading a monograph -- and tying up library
equipment. The result is unbound sheets printed on one side. Who
is pleased with this? Has money actually been saved?

Clearly there are costs that are new. Not only equipment but training
and service costs arise to install, maintain, and acquaint users with
the technology. Unlike paper and film, this media demands frequent
upgrades and replacements. Someone must purchase lots of paper,
ink, and energy as well as hardware and software.

There are few estimates of the new cost of technical obsolescence.
Elsevier f.e. was  forced to change technology in the middle of its
experiment. There is strong evidence that magnetic media will
not last near as long as paper or film, suggesting that the
preservation nightmare of the last 40+ years may one day be
considered a walk in the park.

Where is the new money to come from to pay the new costs?
Not from the collection development budget I hope. It seems to
me that libraries need more money, not less, to cross the
threshhold into the Digital Age.

I have also been concerned to see libraries (and instruction) cut
to finance increased administrative expenditures. As a share of
total university expenditures, administration is up 40% since
1945. The "indirect cost" scandals that rocked Stanford a few
years ago identified real estate investments (shopping centers),
a yacht, and other administrative spending. Isn't there some
reason to connect Yale's new office of "VP for New Haven"
with its slip to Number Three, behind Harvard and Stanford,
in ARL's annual ranking of library materials expenditures?

Are your administrators planning a new "VP in charge of _____?"

Here are some references:

TULIP FINAL REPORT from Elsevier. 1996

"Carnegie Mellon U. and UMI 'Virtual Library Project,'"
 by C.B. Lowry and D.A. Troll in SERIALS LIBRARIAN
28,1/2 1996:143-169 (also as NASIG SERIALS TO
THE TENTH POWER) They point out the cost of storage
for libraries is much higher than shelves or file cabinets.

ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AND LIBRARIES, by David J
Brown, summarizes a number of user studies and some
economics questions. (London: Bowker-Saur. 1996) The
chart on p. 42 shows the doubling of R&D expenditures
(constant dollars) while average ARL library spending rose
only 30% 1976-1990. Scholarly electronic publishing is
doomed if there is insufficient market. (p. 152). Brown's
study was commissioned by the British Library.

"Electronic publishing of scientific journals" by P B Boyce
and H Dalterio. PHYSICS TODAY 49,1 (Jan 1996):42-47. Costs
cannot be reduced without loss of editorial quality, according
to this publisher.

PROJECT ELVYN, Ed. by F Rowland, C. McKnight, and J.
Meadows. London: Bowker-Saur. 1995. Details of an early
project indicating electronic media is more difficult than had
been assumed. "The overall conclusion must be that the
transfer of electronic journals between publishers and
libraries requires both well-found libraries and well-funded
publishers." (p.156)

Albert Henderson, Editor,
PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
70244.1532@compuserve.com