Serials prices: Column 12

October Ivins, Column Editor Serials Prices, 12

SERIALS PRICES: COLUMN 12

October Ivins

Introduction

Column 12 contains updates to two previous discussions. The first discussion in Column 8 was devoted to vendor practices, specifically, the submission of order and payment information to publishers. The second discussion in Column 11 was of citation levels and overpublication. This column concludes with my own report on the serials pricing aspects of the Univer- sity of Oklahoma conference, "Library Acquisitions: Budget Strategies, Vendor Selection, Vendor Evalua- tion."

Ivins is head of serials services at Louisiana State University Libraries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Acknowledgments: In addition to those mentioned in the text, the editor gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals: Chuck Hamaker, LSU Libraries, and Cindy Hepfer, SUNY Buffalo, Health Sciences Library.

UPDATE ON VENDOR PRACTICES: POST-DATING CHECKS AND SEPARATING ORDER

AND PAYMENT INFORMATION TO PUBLISHERS

A year ago, this entire column addressed the impact of serials vendor policies on serials pricing. 1 This segment begins with a summary of the events that precipitated that column and concludes with an update of these issues for the 1991 renewal period.

Background

In November 1989, several publishers contacted Charles (Chuck) Hamaker (see sidebar 1), my colleague as well as the assistant director for Collection Develop- ment at Louisiana State University, and me about a new subscription agency practice. Instead of following the

SERIALS PRICES: COLUMN 12 -- SUMMER 1991 63

Sidebar 1: Bowker/Ulrich's Serials Librarianship Award Announced

Deana L. Astle and Charles A. Hamaker are the recipients of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) Serials Section Bow- ker/Ulrich's Serials Librarianship Award.

The award is for contributions to serials librarianship in areas of professional association, participation, library education, serials literature, research, or development of tools leading to better understanding.

Astle, head of technical services at Clemson (S.C.) University, and Hamaker, assistant director for collection development, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, will receive $1,500 and a citation donated by the R.R. Bowker Company.

"Deana Astle and Charles Hamaker, working both together and separately, have gone far beyond the daily commitment to serials librarianship by raising the awareness of the entire library community of European serial publishers' pricing practices," said Sue Anne Harrington, chair of the ALCTS Serials Section Bowker/Ulrich's Serials committee.

"Their efforts have led to international attention on the pricing policies of journals and publishers' practices. In addition, they continue to encourage other efforts to research pricing and scholarly communication studies and let publishers know that the issue of unfair pricing will not disappear."

customary agency practice of sending both ordering information and payment to journal publishers, generally in September and October, the Faxon Company proposed separating renewal order information from payment by supplying electronic order information to publishers on November 13, along with payment checks postdated for December 22.2 The publishers we spoke to about this new practice were alarmed by several aspects of it. In particular, they were already experienc- ing increasingly late renewal by several agents; they now feared that the practice of issuing postdated checks to publishers might become a new industry standard, and were concerned that smaller publishers with modest staffing levels would have difficulty entering late renewals in time to avoid problems with fulfillment.

At this time, many vendors already employed other methods of maximizing the interest they earned on the money libraries paid them for subscriptions. As is done today, most vendors offered libraries early payment incentives, such as interest payments, that would effectively reduce their service charges. Delaying their payments to publishers for subscriptions allows vendors to maximize the float on funds. In recent years, ithas become standard practice for vendors to negotiate arrangements, which may include the supply of orders on magnetic tape, date of supply, amount of discount, and other terms, directly with large- and medium-sized publishers. The change introduced in September 1989 was to extend such an arrangement to small- and medium-sized publishers without individual negotiation; a "Dear Publisher" form letter was employed. In addition to being concerned about the issues raised by publishers, Mr. Hamaker and I were concerned that any action that placed an additional financial burden on publishers would eventually result in increased prices being passed along to libraries.

We therefore conducted a survey of 25 scholarly and society publishers; one-half of them responded. Of those responding, one-half were unaware of the practice or were aware of it but did not view it as problematic; the other half corroborated the early concerns. We agreed that it would be necessary to conduct a larger survey before deciding whether any public announcement was warranted; we have not yet conducted such a survey. The initial survey was informally discussed at the American Library Associa- tion Midwinter Meeting in January 1990 and subsequently cited in an EBSCO advertisement in the 15 February 1990 issue of Library Journal.

Summary of SR 16:2

I then decided to address the topic in this column in Serials Review. I prepared a set of questions and invited responses to them from three librarians, as well as representatives of three publishers and five vendors.

The librarians who commented were D eana Astle, head, technical services, R.M. Cooper Library, Clemson University; Robert Houbeck, head, acquisitions and serials divisions, University of Michigan Library; and Michael Keller, associate university librarian for collection development, Yale University. For the most part, they suggested that payment arrangements should be negotiated between publishers and vendors, while dialogue among the three groups concerned needed to be improved. Houbeck and Keller supported the continued viability of multiple vendors. Astle and Houbeck acknowledged that changes in library practices, such as late renewal confirmations, may also have caused problems for vendors and publishers.

The publishers' comments were more direct, with both Steve Horvath, director, Sage Periodicals Press,

64 S E R I A L S R E V I E W - - - - OCTOBER IVlNS

and Dorothy Devereaux, circulation manager, MIT Press (Journals), discussing plans to prorate discounts to vendors based on the receipt dates of their subscription orders and payments. The third contributor, John Breithaupt, director-general, marketing, association management, and distribution services, Allen Press, agreed with Horvath and Devereaux that some of the advantages they had anticipated with the transmission of renewal and payment information in machine- readable format (e.g., on magnetic tape) had not been realized. Instead of the faster receipt of payment and order information they had hoped for, receipts have been slower each year since 1988; few vendor payments were arriving before November, and 40 percent of them were arriving in December or later.

The vendors had varied opinions, but all stressed the critical importance of vendors providing a service to both libraries and publishers. Dan Tonkery, president and chief executive officer of Readmore, New York; Bill Leazer, vice president of Majors Scientific Sub- scriptions, Dallas; Ree Sherer, vice president/general manager and F. Dixon Brooke, Jr., corporate vice president/division general manager of EBSCO; and Jane Maddox, North American representative for Otto Harrassowitz, stated that their firms would not separate order information from payments nor postdate checks in the future. Richard R. Rowe, president and chief executive officer of Faxon, made no such statement, but he did note that "in Faxon's case, virtually all payments, including post-dated checks, are made and negotiable well in advance of the beginning of the subscription period."

1991 Update

Receiving several inquiries about 1991 activities encouraged me to find out how Faxon handled 1991 renewals and whether other vendors had changed their practices? In September 1990, Faxon announced in a form letter that order information would be distributed during the week of 12 November, accompanied by vouchers for electronic transfer or postdated checks, respectively, effective on or dated 17 December 1990. 4 In an attempt to determine whether publishers were more satisfied with the Faxon program in the second year, I called four publishers, including the three who had contributed essays for the Serials Review article. 5 Those three publishers did not receive the form letter. The early-renewal-incentive programs implemented by Sage and MIT Press were successful and achieved earlier renewal from several vendors, including Faxon. Allen Press was contacted for direct negotiation by Faxon and also obtained satisfactory results. The American Heart Association received the form letter

but refused its terms and subsequently presented a successful counterproposal to Faxon.

I also called all five vendors who contributed to the Serials Review article. 6 Faxon informed me that it is pleased with the success of the program, stating that only about 12 of the approximately 500 publishers who received letters asked for alternative arrangements. On the one hand, three other vendors (EBSCO, Harrasso- witz, and Majors) continue their objections to the practice of postdating checks and separating order information from payments. On the other hand, Dan Tonkery at Readmore indicated that his firm would be watching publisher and librarian reactions to the Faxon practice carefully, since vendors could not afford to allow a competitor to achieve a competitive advantage.

Neither the three librarians who contributed essays to the Serials Review article nor I have evidence (other than anecdotal) that the fulfillment of titles we order through Faxon has been adversely affected by the agency's new practice. However, the method MIT Press (Journals)employed to encourage timely renewal raises additional concerns. In August 1990, MIT Press (Journals) wrote all subscribers (vendors, libraries subscribing directly, and individuals) to offer them the opportunity to renew at the 1990 rate for 1991 subscriptions if both payment and renewal orders were received by 15 October 1990. Since my library employs several vendors for domestic subscriptions, I investigated to determine which rate we paid for 1991. MIT Press publishes 19 journals; my library subscribes to 13 of them. Two were being transferred to another vendor; the remaining 11 were on order with EBSCO or Faxon. We paid the 1991 price and a service charge for each title except one; for it (the only titlepriced at more than $100) we paid the 1991 price but no service charge.

I admit that I immediately assumed that our agents had paid the publisher the 1990 price but charged us the 1991 price and a service charge; however, I soon realized my own role in this conundrum. My library uses vendor renewal lists to delete titles being canceled or transferred to other vendors, and I recalled that we had asked permission for late renewal this year. Indeed, we did not authorize renewals with Faxon until 16 October 1990 and with EBSCO until 19 October 1990. To further complicate matters, we had prepaid Faxon about two-thirds of our account value in early July, but Faxon was unable to renew any of our subscriptions until we authorized renewal. Both agents had made many inquiries about our renewal intentions regarding titles from other publishers before the authorization deadline.

Ron Akie at Faxon was glad to discuss such situations with me. He explained that Faxon's policy is to offer the price savings to all customers who have renewed by the publisher's deadline. Some publishers

SERIALS PRICES: COLUMN 12 - - SUMMER 1991 65

(such as BIOSIS) routinely make such offers, and Faxon then sends letters to customers asking for renewal intentions. He further explained that in most cases there is often little relation on a title level between the publisher discount and the library service charge; generally, service charges are calculated for the account as a whole although they are listed by title. Planned enhancements to their software will incorporate a more direct reflection of publisher practices on specific titles. He confirmed that Faxon would be unable to forego a service charge for a $20 title with a 10 percent discount, but a $155 title with a 10 percent discount would probably not incur a service charge. (That explains our one title with no service charge.) He could not determine why, but Faxon was unaware of the MIT Press offer until 2 October 1990. Akie suggested that, if any client feels that he or she has unfairly been denied a reduced rate on any title, Faxon would be happy to investigate and make an adjustment. I think that the volume of publishers agents handle means that some rate letters will be processed earlier than others. In the case of MIT Press, their journals are moderately priced (on average, $75 each for institutions) and perhaps vendors give priority to more expensive titles.

Ree Sherer at EBSCO also helped me to understand how agents make payments to publishers. He explained that publishers want their money as soon as possible, but agents must accommodate customers who authorize renewals over a long range of time and many who use "automatic renewal" but then expect to cancel in mid-October. What EBSCO typically does is make three or four different payments to publishers. Each increment includes the authorized renewals that have been received by that date, but the timing of these payments is ordinarily negotiated with the publishers. Agents must evaluate offers such as that from MIT Press to determine whether the offered discount for early payment would offset the corresponding loss of six weeks' worth of interest that could be earned. EBSCO also attempts to notify customers of special renewal incentives, but sending notifications and processing responses is expensive.

In the specific situation of MIT Press 1991 renewals, I have learned that a better practice for my library would be to authorize renewal in segments, perhaps supplying all "definite renewals" and "definite cancellations" while holding only "possible cancellations" for a later date. Processing multiple renewals from a single library will certainly be more expensive for our agents and for us. It seems that using vendors is growing ever more complicated and these factors must be considered in evaluating the cost effectiveness of employing vendors. At press time, the SERIALST electronic bulletin board and the Newsletter on Serials

Pricing Issues are both discussing similar concerns. It seems that the more we learn the more we have to learn; many questions remain unanswered: Do other librarians have data documenting fulfillment problems and can the cause(s) of such problems be identified? Regarding the separation of payment from renewal information: Did publishers incur additional costs? Who should control payment terms? Is the electronic transfer of ordering data an unqualified benefit? Should other vendors reconsider their decisions not to issue postdated checks? If other vendors adopt this practice, will that create more interest in this issue among publishers and librarians? Do vendors serve libraries and publishers equally? Does the present system of publisher discounts to vendors and library service charges fairly allocate the costs of employing vendors?

I would welcome reader responses to these questions and will incorporate such responses in a future column.

UPDATE ON CITATION LEVELS AND OVERPUBLICATION

Telephone calls were made between 13 February and 11 March 1991 to these individuals: Richard R. Rowe and Ronald Akie, Faxon; Ree Sherer, EBSCO; Dan Tonkery, Readmore; Lorne Kenyon, North American Representative, Harrassowitz; and Bill Leazer, Majors.

Column 11 (SR 17, no. 1)discussed an article by David P. Hamilton that focused on the low rate of citation of scientific papers ("Publishing by - and for - the Numbers?" Science 250, no. 4986, 7 December 1990) and coverage of that article in Newsweek. The column suggested that, although similar citation patterns had been recognized since at least 1972, this new scrutiny could be useful in two areas. For librarians, it may suggest applications of citation data in our deselection projects. In a broader sense, publicizing low citation levels and the overpublication such levels may represent may have some impact on public policy decisions that affect grant funding and related areas.

There are several new developments that are best explained by describing two more articles by Hamilton, a related article in the New York Times and "letters to the editor" in Science. Hamilton published a second article in Science ("Research Papers: Who's Uncited Now?" Science 251, no. 4849, 4 January 1991: 25). In this article, he again highlighted data analyzed by David Pendlebury of the Institute for Scientific Informa- tion, which compared citation rates among scientific and non-scientific subdisciplines. The non-citation rate for scientific subdisciplines ranged from 9.2 percent for articles on atomic, molecular, and chemical physics

66 S E R I A L S R E V I E W m ~ OCTOBER IV~S

to 86 percent for general engineering. However, the overall non-citation rates were worse in the social sciences (74.7 percent) and humanities (98 percent).

Hamilton also published a longer article in Washington Monthly ("Trivia Pursuit: Too Much of America's Research Money Goes to Studies Nobody Wants to Read," Washington Monthly 23, no. 3 (1991): 36-42). In this article, Hamilton discussed the familiar concerns of journal proliferation and the pressure to publish that drives promotion, tenure, and grant awards. He suggested solutions that include a return to an emphasis on teaching by college and university faculty and new research funding criteria for federal agencies. Although most of his ideas are valid, he seems to have based his article solely on interviews with scientists; there are no footnotes. As a result, some of his suggestions seem odd, for example "it wouldn't hurt for funding agencies to be more aggressive about the extent to which they reimburse library costs--a strategy that could help indirectly cut back on the number of journals in circulation" (p. 42). Despite the article's occasional oversimplifications, I was encouraged to see these issues addressed in a general interest publication. 7

The two Science articles apparently attracted the attention of New York Times writer Gina Kolata ("Who's No. 1 in Science? Footnotes Say U.S.," New York Times, 12 February 1991, B5.)8 In explaining how U.S. scientific prominence can be determined from citation analysis, the article goes on to describe appropriate and inappropriateuses of citation analysis. David Pendlebury, ISI, is mentioned in the article and Eugene Garfield, ISI, is quoted. Garfield specifically challenges the interpretation of citation levels in the first Science article by noting that meeting abstracts and other types of non-research papers are also indexed and were not excluded from the data.

At press time, neither Hamilton nor the editors of Science have published any additional information, but "letters to the editor" have made similar points: that articles may have impact without citation; that citations are rarely complete for political and personal reasons; and that many types of articles (like reviews) should be excluded from analysis. Nine letters discussing the nuances and limitations of citation analysis appear in the 22 March 1991 issue (251, no. 5000: 1408-1411), and one letter appears in the following issue (251, no. 5001: 1546.) The last letter in the 22 March issue is by Pendlebury, who provides a useful response. Among the points he makes are that citation levels are increasing, and U.S. scientists are cited twice as frequently as non-U.S, ones.

It will be interesting to see whether the dialogue continues in Science or in other publications. So far as using citation analysis in serials deselection projects,

the idea still seems to have merit. Several articles by scientists that examine such data for narrowly defined subdisciplines have beeri published, but I am unaware of anyone attempting to do so in a library deselection context.

RECENT MEETING Library Acquisitions: Budget Strategies,

Vendor Selection, Vendor Evaluation 21-22 February 1991

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Commonly referred to as "the Oklahoma conference," a conference chaired by Sul H. Lee, dean of the University of Oklahoma Libraries, and sponsored by his library and the University of Oklahoma Founda- tion seems to have become an annual event. The theme selected for,each conference is typically an acquisitions/collection development topic; this year, it was "Library Acquisitions: Budget Strategies, Vendor Selection, Vendor Evaluation." The conference has much to recommend it; each of eight speakers was allowed an hour (including questions), which permitted more substantial papers than is typical with many conferences. Scheduling the conference for one after- noon and the following morning created an atmosphere that encouraged attention without exhaustion. In recent years, attendance has been about 120 people, but only 80 attended this year, apparently a result of the combi- nation of diminished travel budgets, reluctance to fly during the Gulf War, and a scheduling conflict with the Texas Automation Conference in Houston. All papers will be published in the proceedings as a special issue of the Journal of Library Administration. This report will highlight the presentations pertinent to serials pricing, but all deserved a larger audience.

Speaking first, Ann Okerson, Association of Research Libraries, described the activities of the Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing during its first year and outlined plans for the second year. She highlighted the office's support of electronic publishing developments and changes in public policy and its cooperative efforts with other organizations.

The second presentation, by Joe Barker, head of acquisitions at the University of California, Berkeley, was the most pertinent to serials pricing and was excellent. Barker used detailed information about service charges paid and discounts earned at his library to illustrate that for five major vendors prepayment discounts offset negotiated service charges so that the total serials service charge is 3 percent, or 1.75 percent of the materials budget. He followed his detailed discussion of negotiating service charges and determin-

SERIALS PRICES: COLUMN 12 -- SUMMER 1991 67

ing prepayment amounts with an analysis of what would be required to achieve additional savings and concluded that those options are not realistic. I agree with his analysis that Berkeley is unlikely to improve its savings, but I think Barker was too optimistic in his assessment that other librarians have already achieved such savings. In my experience, only a handful of librarians can claim similar achievements. His specific example of what is possible ought to encourage other serials managers to review their own bottom lines.

Barker gave five suggestions for action by librarians:

redouble monitoring of vendor service charges and discounts; pull random samples of invoices at least yearly and calculate service charge rates;

watch for deterioration of customer service from vendors;

be systematic in evaluating vendor speed, fill rates, renewal reliability, and claiming support; build a performance history for each vendor;

question the value and price of both established and new fancy services with specific and assertive actions; determine your own cost for performing the same activity and compare it to a dollar quotation for vendor service; and

be even more mindful of our rights and responsi- bilities as vendors' customers; if you're dissatis- fied, communicate the standards you expect and help set a high national standard for vendor work.

Daniel Richards, collection development officer at the National Library of Medicine, presented his perception of the ideal library/dealer relationship in monograph acquisitions. He suggested that recognition of joint interests and mutual benefits characterize the relationship. Noting that both economic and technologi- cal factors have introduced changes, he suggested that librarians can and should become more "active, enlightened, comparison shoppers" in vendor selection and evaluation.

The final paper of the first day was written by Chuck Hamaker, assistant director for collection development at Louisiana State University Libraries. Hamaker was unable to attend and his paper was read by October Ivins. The paper described four studies, two each for monographs and serials, conducted at LSU to explore use patterns and cost effectiveness of current collection decisions. The first monograph study analyzed circulation of newly cataloged books and found very high use levels; the other study examined faculty

departmental use levels and found a high rate of interdisciplinary use. One serial study examined current periodical use compared to cost. The results indicated that science and technology classifications received 15 percent of use while requiring 50 percent of subscrip. tion costs. The most pertinent study in terms of serials prices was one in which every university department ranked every title received on paid subscription by the library. The results showed a huge amount of interdisci. plinary use that suggests problems with attempts to conduct cancellation reviews by giving academic departments control of titles by discipline. For example, chemistry faculty assigned a ranking of "essential" to titles costing $500,000; only $50,000 of these titles were not also ranked essential by at least two other departments.

Bob Houbeck, head of acquisitions and serials at the University of Michigan, was the first speaker of the second day. "Listening to the Technology, or Libraries and the 'Higher Capitalism'" was a thought- ful, philosophical examination of the problem of academic research and the lessons that can be applied to "manage our shrinking budgets and indeed the future of our institutions." Houbeck suggests several responses for libraries that include "offering differentiated responses to our different internal constituencies"; ensuring that candidates for senior faculty positions visit the library and include funding for library support in their negotiations; and making sure the library is receiving its share of indirect cost reimbursement from research grants.

Fred Lynden, assistant university librarian for technical services, Brown University, followed with "Strategies for Stretching the Collection Budget." These suggestions were grouped as collection management measures, budgetary strategies, and political factors. The budget strategies included some innovative recommendations such as purchasing currency abroad to get favorable exchange rates, establishing endowment funds to support periodicals, and seeking allocations from academic departments. Some political factors suggested were: forging alliances with faculty and with other institutions, establishing a university-level committee, encouraging donations of either subscriptions or money, challenging publishers, and advancing access rather than acquisitions.

In "Vendor Selection, Vendor Collection, or Vendor Defection?" Dana Alessi, director, academic marketing with Baker and Taylor, compared the rankings of monograph vendor selection criteria by junior college librarians with those of attendees. The top five (of seventeen criteria), with some variation by library size, for junior colleges were 1) accuracy of order fulfillment, 2) discount, 3) customer service, 4)

(Continued on page 76)

68 S E R I A L S R E V I E W - - - - O C T O B E R IVINS - -

Jim Cole, Column Editor

THE CASE IN POINT

Jim Cole

From the Column Editor: Despite the refinement of the cataloging rules that has occurred over the past several years, cataloging remains more an art than a science. Especially for serials, there often seems to be within the framework of the code and the rule interpre- tations a multiplicity of possible solutions to any given problem. These may vary from library to library, depending upon such factors as the needs of the patron and the degree of sophistication of the catalog. The answers given in this column are those of its editor. Readers may, however, have alternative solutions, and they are both invited and encouraged to share them here.

Cole is associate professor and serials cataloger at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Question: I do not see in AACR2 any rule pertaining to dates of publication vs. dates of coverage. An example of this problem is Archives of Toxicology. Supplement. Supplement 1 carries on the title page the publication date of 1978; its contents are the proceedings of a meeting held in 1977. Supplement 13, containing the proceedings of a meeting held in 1988, has no publication date on the cover or title page° On the verso of the title page is a copyright date of 1989, and the first page of text also has a citation that includes "Suppl. 13, [pages] (1989)." I would gather from AACR2 that I ought to use the date of publication, or, failing that, the copyright date. I don't see any discussion of dates of coverage. The OCLC record (#4158456) uses the date of publication. In cases where there is no date of publication or copyright date, should I use the date of coverage? If I can, then sometimes

THE CASE IN POINT - - SUMMER 1991 69

in a serial run I might end up using the date of publication for some volumes--when it is present--and the date of coverage for others--when no date of publication or copyright date is apparent--in check-in records!

Answer: Two different types of dates are given in an AACR2 serial record--" identifying" chronological designations in Area 3 and dates of publication, distribution, and the like, in Area 4. Care must be taken in ascertaining how a date is being used on the item, since its use determines how the cataloger is to record it.

Area 3 (Numeric and/or Alphabetic, Chronological, or Other Designation Area)

While coverage dates and other identifying chronological designations are to be included in Area 3, such designations are not found in every serial record, since, in order to be included, a date must uniquely identify the issue. Area 3 may thus contain both a beginning and ending chronological designation (for example, "Vol. 1, no. 1 (January 1989)--vol. 2, no. 12 (December 1990)"),justonedate (for example," Vol. 1, no. 1 (January 1989)--voi. 2, no. 12" or "Vol. 1, no. 1--vol. 2, no. 12 (December 1990)"), or none (for example, "vol. 1, no. 1--vol. 2, no. 12"), depending upon whether the dates are unique to the issues. In addition, for a chronological designation to be recorded in Area 3, it must normally be taken from the chief source of information, the other preliminaries, or the colophon, or from a formal statement elsewhere in the item (cf. Library of Congress Rule Interpretation 12.3C1, Cataloging Service Bulletin 23). Moreover, just as the Library of Congress has instructed the cataloger when recording a series statement "not [to] construe the date of publication, distribution, etc., as constituting a part of the series numbering" (LCRI 1.6G, CSB 31), so a publication, distribution, and the like date is not to be considered a chronological designation of a serial. One further point must also be borne in mind: when cataloging a serial that is a monographic series (as is Archives of Toxicology, Supplement), one must be careful not to intermix data pertaining to the monograph with those pertaining to the series. In your example, the conference dates appear on the Supplement's monographic title pages and are imbedded in the subtitles of the monographs. The dates therefore relate to the monographs and not to the serial. Thus no date would appear in Area 3 of the record for the Supplement.

Area 4 (Publication, Distribution, Etc. Area)

An imprint date is recorded in Area 4 of the description. This is typically the publication or copyright date or, if neither is known, the printing date. The printing date may be given in brackets as an inferred publication date if it is assumed that the date of manufacture and the date of publication coincide (LCRI 1.4F6, CSB 47). When the date of publication, distribution, and so on is unknown and the item bears no copyright or printing date, an approximatepubliea- tion date is to be given in accordance with rule 1.4F7. Oftentimes such a date must be inferred from the contents of the item--the dates of the bibliographic references, period covered by the report, and so on. All approximate dates must be bracketed, since they do not appear on the item.

Question: I am cataloging a serial issued four times a year. Each issue has a chronological designation and volume numbering (e.g., vol. 1, no. 1 is dated October 1990, and vol. 1, no. 2 is dated December 1990). Can the chronological designations beused both as coverage dates and imprint dates? The imprint date wouldn't then have to be bracketed, would it?

Answer: Frequently the only date found on an issue of a serial is a chronological designation that would be given in Area 3 of the description. For instance, a periodical may carry only a date of issuance; an annual report may indicate only the period covered, omitting the date of publication. Undoubtedly this is because the publisher understands that only the chronological designation found on the item is of any true importance to the reader, who probably wouldn't even notice the lack of a date of publication. (Perhaps it was the recognition of this fact as much as the desire to conserve space that caused AACRI to limit the imprint to just place and publisher if dates were recorded in the statement of holdings.)

A date of publication may at times be inferred from a date of issuance or a coverage date, much as for monographs may be the case with a date of release or transmittal [LCRI 2.7B9, CSB 44]. Rule 1.0A1 of AACR2 directs the cataloger to "enclose in square brackets information taken from outside the prescribed source(s)." By definition, an inferred publication date, even when derived from information on the chief source such as a date of issuance, is itself not found on the item, and so must be bracketed.

70 SERIALS REV1EW -- -- JIM COt~

THE FUTURE OF SERIALS LIBRARIANSHIP REVISITED

Lois N. Upham

Upham is adjunct assistant professor, College of Library and Information Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

Introduction

I have been given the opportunity to write an article summarizing the seven papers that have previously appeared in Serials Review in which the future of serials librarianship was discussed, 1 and further, of being asked to add my own thoughts to those previously expressed. By way of establishing some sort of legiti- macy for this activity, I will state at the outset that I have worked as a serials acquisitions librarian, as a serials cataloger, as the database manager for the Minnesota Union List of Serials (MULS) where I was an active participant in the development of the CON- SER Project, as bibliographic trainer for network (MINITEX) participants, and as a library/information science educator in three different ALA-accredited library schools. In the latter capacity I not only offered basic information science and technical services classes, but I also taught a separate serials course. I even worked in the publishing office of a scientific journal for six months. This array of activities is presented as a way of indicating that I bring a wide variety of experiences to the consideration of a possible future for serials librarianship.

Perhaps one of the first points I should make, and certainly based upon the above list of activities it is probably obvious, is that "serials librarianship" can take many forms and is not restricted to a person sitting in the "serials section" of (usually) an academic library. So when we ask "What will be the future of serials librarianship?" we must realize that there is a broad

THE FUTURE o r SERIALS LIBRARIANSIIIP REVISITED - - SUMMER 1991 71

landscape to consider. Each of the seven authors who prepared the previously published papers tended to approach the subject, as I am sure each was asked to do, from his or her own unique perspective. I am now faced with the challenge of trying to address the important points made and to propose a possible future for serials specialists based upon a variety of outlooks as well as my own thoughts on the matter. It is a challenging assignment, indeed!

Reactions to Points Made by the Previous Authors

I will begin my effort by reacting to and in some cases expanding upon what appeared to be some of the main contentions, thoughts, and suggestions of the previous seven authors. I agree with the conclusions of some of them that printed serials are not going to disappear. I still have a hard time imagining The Enquirer or Cosmopolitan--not to mention the morning paper--accessible only via electronic media. What would shoppers do while waiting in line to scan their groceries at the check-out counter? No, I do not think that a complete disappearance is likely, or perhaps even possible.

I do, however, believe that in the hard sciences electronic formats of serials publications may in fact become virtually the only ones that will be viable with regard to user need. I believe that the rest of the subject areas will arrange themselves, based both on "hardness" of data and needs of patrons, from those subjects that will depend primarily upon electronic formats to those where print formats will continue to dominate. Alterna- tives such as compact disks will undoubtedly augment both print and electronic options depending upon the nature of the serial and, again, user needs.

I also agree that users, especially when those who grew up with computers enter the workplace, will be interested in "creating their own product." And why not? Why should it not be possible to extract information from a variety of sources and formats to create a document, probably in electronic form but capable of being printed out in whole or in part as need may dictate, that will uniquely fill the requirements of an individual (or group) in a way that no single or even collection of prepackaged items can do.

I am reminded of the classic article "As We May Think ''2 written by Vannevar Bush at the end of the second world war wherein he hypothesizes the MEMEX. I was, in fact, surprised that none of the authors mentioned it, although several sounded as though it was in their thoughts. Although Bush had some of the particulars wrong, I think his ideas were right on the mark. I believe we will have machines that will allow us to access and extract data from information sources throughout our country and ultimately from

around the world, and that we can use this data to create files capable of fulfilling our own particular needs that can be set up in a format with which we are comfortable.

So, where does that leave serials specialists? I hesitate to say "librarians," because I do not believe that the term fully indicates the wide range of tasks that are included in such work, and it certainly does not do justice to all that these specialists will be undertaking in the future. Perhaps this is an appropriate time to briefly discuss terminology, for I think it is a factor that affects even current perceptions of serials work and will certainly affect it even more strongly in the future)

It is probably unfortunate that, although the discipline so long known as "librarianship" has under- gone massive changes, especially during the past 15 to 20 years, we seem to be having difficulty in arriving at mutually agreed upon terminology to reflect these changes. "What changes?" you ask. To anyone who is skeptical, I suggest that you look up the 1965 and 1990 catalogs from your favorite library school (or school of library and information science, or information service, or management, or whatever it is calling itself). Provided that it was in operation in 1965 and had not been closed by 1990, I do not think that it will take long to see a dramatic difference. A simple comparison of course descriptions will certainly prove the point, but look at the pictures and read the text as well. I will bet that high tech equipment figures prominently in the current catalog, while a typewriter may be the "highest tech" item you see in the 1965 catalog.

But back to terminology. Despite the real differ- ences that would be evident if you undertook the catalog exercise, I am willing to bet that the same or very similar course titles may appear on a number of course offerings in both catalogs. Somehow our terminology has just not kept pace with our very real accomplishments. The author who proposed that the best choice of a potential employee was apparent based upon the titles of the courses that each candidate had taken may not, in fact, be making the most logical choice after all. From personal experience in three "library" schools, I know that most of the material covered in the courses that the author listed for the business program is, in fact, also covered in a well- balanced M.L.S. (or M.L.I.S.) program that has a reasonable group of required courses. It is an added advantage that in such "library" schools these subjects are covered from the point of view of an information provider whose main goal is to join the user with needed information, rather than from the vantage point of seeking profit.

72 SERIALS REVIEW - - L o i s N . U ~

Whatever may be the tasks that will be undertaken by serials specialists, I truly believe that one of the most formidable will be that of public relations. It will not really matter how much we can do for people if they do not perceive that we can do it. Updating our verbage--and our image--may seem a waste of energy when there is so much else to be done, but, if we are to truly have the opportunity to prove our skills, patrons will have to be convinced that we are the ones to whom they want to turn. An interesting article that supports the desirability of updating our terminology appeared in the November issue of Delta Airline's Sky magazine, and is entitled "Here Come the 'Info- preneurs'."4 Would you not prefer to have an "info- preneur" working for you rather than employing just a "simple" librarian--even though it may be the same person? I am afraid that many people would.

So, after we tackle terminology, then what? In the foregoing articles a number of references were made to the question of whether it is preferable to have people in professional serials positions who have outstanding technical skills or who are superior managers. My question is, must these attributes be mutually exclusive? I think not. As suggested by at least one author, numerous discussions have been devoted to whether potential employers prefer to hire a professional who can "do" the work upon entry, or whether they will opt for a person who can evaluate a situation and make decisions about it. In my conversations with a number of employers, it was revealed that when "push comes to shove" they prefer the individual who can evaluate and make decisions and, as it was suggested, let them learn the particulars on the job.

While I tend to agree with that choice, I fail to see why information educators should shy away from trying to impart technical skills to their students in the course of a masters program, or why employers should omit any requirement that candidates should possess some basic technical skills. I cannot recall how many complaints I have heard over the years about supervi- sors who tell subordinates what to do--and often how to do it--when they have never done it themselves, and often do not even have a good enough grasp of the specifics to know what will work.

To at least arrive at a reasonable compromise in this regard, I think that every student in a library/information science/service/management program should have the benefit of going through an internship in a "real life" situation. This is already done in school media programs; should it be any less desirable in other areas of specialization? I think that this goal could have two important results: 1) educators and practitioners (in a variety of contexts) would be in closer contact on a continuing basis and, hopefully, on the way to developing meaningful internships, they would come

to better understand and appreciate each other's situations, 2) students would put theoretical information obtained from class study into practice and arrive at not only a better idea of what "management" really means but also a better understanding of the problems involved with the work of "technicians."

Given the evolving nature of serials and their attendant care, these "real life" situations might include such options as working with a publisher, at a company that creates databases or at an abstract and index service, as well as at more traditional information centers. These centers should, however, include those in perhaps less traditional settings, such as corporations, foundations, medical facilities, and networks.

With regard to one particular "technical skill," the idea of revising our thinking about the bibliographic control of serials is worthy of serious consideration. It is certainly a suggestion that I have been presenting to my students for several semesters. This topic has been the s~bject of some interesting thinking on the part of Patrick Wilson 5 and more recently of Michael Buckland, 6 both of The University of California, Berkeley. Along with Intner's work, the articles cited below can form the basis for some new and innovative approaches to this important aspect of serials handling.

Our outdated ideas about what is appropriate to put into our catalogs must be reconsidered. Why can a 10-page pamphlet be found there but a 95-page article in a serial cannot? The quandary, of course, is in finding the time, labor, and money to handle such a mass of data, especially on an individual institution basis. The answer, I am afraid, must be: We don'tf But what if?. What if it were possible to extract cataloging information directly from the machine-readable format of a serial issue? (Even if the ultimate version is print on paper, the text of most serials will undoubtedly be prepared on a computer.) What if a standard format for--for lack of a better term at this point--analytic records were developed? What if such information could be distributed by organizations such as RLIN and OCLC and could be downloaded directly into an institution's catalog? What if tapes (such as MARC tapes) of analytic records were to be available on a series title basis, or better yet if they were supplied as part of a serial subscription and these could then be loaded into a catalog? There are many possibili- ties, but certainly something has to be done to improve the existing situation. A note of caution, as stated by at least one author: standards are important and must be revised or created, as necessary, to assure that work in this evolving area can be shared.

The idea of the electronic journal was discussed by several authors, and exciting if unsettled times do appear to be ahead. It appears certain that traditional serial publication activities will have to be reconsidered

THE FUTURE OF SERIALS LIBRARIANSIIIP REVISITED - - SUMMER 1991 73

and undoubtedly revised. Consider the following matters:

copyright assignment--What will be the procedure? At what stage will it be requested? This question is particularly important if the work is to be ongoing, such as an online forum;

refereeing--Mechanics of distribution,confidenti- ality, and so on need to be addressed;

editing--Will it even be done? If so, when and how?;

citation--Who gets credit in the bibliographies? How are works cited?;

authorship--Will the appearance of an author's work in a database be considered as important for promotion and tenure as a "real" printed work? Will an institution feel that its image is being as well represented by a mention in a database as it might be when mentioned in a "scholarly" journal?;

preservation--Do we try to save these electronic efforts or are they to be considered ephemeral? If they are to be saved, how? Should they be printed out, thus effectively defeating the purpose of fluidity, and spontaneity, or should they be transferred after a certain time period to a giant retrospective file?;

identification--Is there a procedure for requesting an ISSN for an entirely electronic journal? What will the surrogate that goes to the ISDS Center look like?;

ownership/fees--Will an institution just pay an access fee and then be charged for what it uses or will it pay a flat fee and use--or down- load--what it likes? Or will there be an entirely new paradigm?; and

patrons--What effect will all of this have on the patrons--including any possible economic effect?

Then there is the question of standards. Currently many standards apply to printed serials, in both paper and microform versions; most of these will be inade- quate or even irrelevant for their electronic cousins. They must be modified or, where none exist, developed.

There are probably as many questions as there are ideas, but one certainty, as was suggested by more than

one of the authors, is that serials specialists must become involved in the development of electronic journals as soon as possible, thus assuringthat concerns such as those stated above are adequately considered by the individuals and groups who will be shaping the future both of the journals themselves and, by exten- sion, of those who will be working with them.

. . .and So into the Future

So, after all of this, just what do I see in the future for serials specialists? Let me start with what I think will stay the same. I think it likely that the same sort of people who currently enjoy the challenges of working with and/or teaching about serials will be the ones who will enjoy dealing with the myriad new challenges that will arise in the future. The attributes that appear indispensibleinclude flexibility, innovative- ness, creativity, willingness to accept and even be challenged by change, assertiveness, and a tendency to be proactive rather than reactive and, when necessary, patient. As a profession we are going to have to put increased effort into the recruitment and development of individuals who possess such characteristics.

In order to undertake such a "tall task" we will have to make this a more attractive career path. Part of that will come through the public relations work, which, if done well, should create an increase in both intellectual recognition and salaries. We are going to have to demonstrate that concerns about and care of serials are intrinsic parts of virtually all aspects of information work, and that the traditional habit of saying that "if you can handle books, you can handle anything" must be changed. The fact is, a lot of people did not and do not feel comfortable talking about or working with serials, and when it is stated that "serials are considered in our overall course work" or "serials are included in our overall planning efforts" we will not accept that as sufficient. Accepting this approach is at least part of the reason that serials always seem to be the de facto stepchildren of most systems and curricula. If serials really were included in the "overall" you name it, perhaps that would be satisfactory--even though special treatment would still be preferable. We must at least put effort into assuring that adequate attention is paid in the overall planning and teaching to what is going to become an even more challenging area of information work.

I also want to urge that serials specialists give some serious thought to what can actually be done about some of the situations and problems we see looming before us. Merely protesting them or com- plaining about them is not what I mean--no matter how eloquent the protest or how heartfelt the complaint. What I do mean is devising some realistic solutions to

74 SERrALS REVIEW -- LOIS N. U ~

deal with the situations or to handle the problems, and then getting involved with their implementation. perhaps some of them will not work, or will work incompletely; that does not mean it is useless to try. Remember that, by declining to make a decision about how to handle a difficult situation, we are in fact making a decision, and by and large it will probably be one that we will dislike even more than trying something and finding out that we need to try something else.

I do not think that, as we move into the last decade of the twentieth century, serials work is going to be for the faint-hearted, but then, perhaps it never was. We face a terrific challenge ahead as we come to grips with matters such as handling an increasing variety of serial formats, coping with evolving user needs and expectations, devising new approaches to serials storage, access and control, and probably dealing with a plethora of other changes that we cannot yet imagine. I also think that this can be one of the most exciting areas in which a person will be able to spend his or her professional life. For those who are willing to accept the challenge, I believe there can be many rewards.

NOTES

1. See "The Balance Point" in Serials Review 16, no. 2 (55-64), contributions by F. Dixon Brooke, Jr., Czeslaw Jan Grycz, Karen Hunter, and Herbert White. Also, "The Balance Point" in Serials Review 16, no. 3 (61-67, 80), contributions by Richard R. Rowe, Duane Arenales, and Sheila S. Intner.

2. Vannevar Bush, "As We May Think," Atlantic Monthly (July 1945): 101-8.

3. The author wishes to note that, while she generally disapproves of practices such as supplying a fancy title when a simple one will do, she also believes that using outdated terminology can be equally misleading.

4. Dan Cody, "Here Come the 'Infopreneurs'," Sky (November 1990): 78 +.

5. Patrick Wilson, "The Catalog as Access Mecha- nism: Background and Concepts," Library Resources & Technical Services 27 (January/March 1983): 4-17.

6. Michael Buckland, "Bibliography, Library Re- cords, and the Redefinition of the Catalog," Library Resources & Technical Services 32 (October 1988): 299-309.

What do a convention in Dallas on exceptional children, a symposium in Florence on chemotherapy, and an exhibit in Berlin on telecommunications all have in common?

They all appear in d L WORLD I V MEETINGS Your most up-to-date and complete directory to meetings and conferences throughout the world. Since 1967, WORLD MEETINGS has been the complete periodical guide to forthcoming professional meetings around the g lobe - - i n science, technology, computer science, medicine, management, and the social sciences. Every issue provides hundreds of listings on subject~ r.~qnging from acoustics to X-ray technology, for a full two years. Who would use WORLD MEET- INGS? Professionals who want to keep up to date in their areas, exhibit and meeting planners, experts look- ing to submit papers, and hundreds of others. WORLD MEETINGS lists:

• when and where meetings are to be held • who sponsors them • what topics they will cover • deadlines for submitting abstracts and papers • availability of papers, proceedings, and abstracts • whom to contact for further information

Available in four separate editions, each published quarterly: WORLD MEETINGS: United States and Canada

$175.00" per year WORLD MEETINGS: Outside the United States

and Canada • $175.00" per year WORLD MEETINGS: Medicine (international)

$155.00" per year WORLD MEETINGS: Social and Behavioral

Sciences, Human Services, and Manage- ment (International) • $160.00" per year

• Additional $12 charge for air mailing to an address outside the U.S.A.

To subscribe or for further information, write: WORLD MEETINGS PUBLICATIONS

MACMILLAN PUBLISHING COMPANY 866 Third Avenue/New York, NY 10022/(212) 702-4301

THE FUTURE OF SERIALS LIBRARIANSIHP REVISITED - - SUMMER 1991 75

(Serials Prices, continued from page 62) "CONSER: Cooperative Online Serials Program." Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., 1989. (Pub. 60a).

Heynen, Jeffrey, and Julia C. Blixrud. "The CONSER Project: Recommendations for the Future." Washington, DC:

Library of Congress, 1986. (Network Planning Paper, no. 14).

Jacob, M.E.L. "CONSER: The Role of OCLC." Advances in Serials Management 1 (1986): 43-53.

Striedieck, Suzanne. "CONSER and the National Database." Advances in Serials Management 3 (1989): 81-109.

(Balance Point, continued from page 68)

speed of delivery, and 5) ultimate fill rate. Conference attendees agreed with the first two criteria, but then selected 3) speed of delivery, 4) ultimate full rate, and 5) customer service.

The final speaker was Kathleen Born, marketing manager, academic division, EBSCO, who presented a vendor's perspective of strategies for selecting vendors and evaluating their performance. She suggested that three areas should be considered--service, price, and automation--and listed questions to ask in each category. Her comments about service charge supported those of Joe Barker, as she stated that most librarians focus on the service charge applied to their main renewal invoice, not recognizing that many other transactions incur additional fees or other rates. Born acknowledged that "personality" is also a potent factor and should be recognized as such in the decision-making process.

NOTES

1. "Do Serials Vendor Policies Affect Serials Pricing?" Serials Review 16, no. 2 (Summer 1990): 7-27, 80.

2. Letter' from Ronald E. Akie, manager, publisher services, The Faxon Company, Inc. to "Dear Publisher," 15 September 1989.

3. Paul Gleason, editor of the SSP Letter, invited me to summarize and update the first article for his publication.

"Payment Arrangements among Publishers, Serials Vendors, and Libraries: We're All in This Together?" is scheduled for SSP Letter 13, no. 3 (May/June 1991).

4. Letter from Ronald E. Akie, manager, publisher services, The Faxon Company, to "Dear Publisher," 7 September 1990. (The inside address listed the name of an individual at the publishing house on the versions I have seen.)

5. Telephone calls were made between 13 and 28 February 1991 to these individuals: Dorothy Devereaux, MIT Press (Journals); Nancy Hammerman, Sage Periodicals Press; John Breithaupt, Allen Press; and Mary Taylor, data services analyst at the American Heart Association.

6. Telephone calls were made between 13 February and 11 March 1991 to these individuals: Richard R. Rowe and Ronald Akie, Faxon; Ree Sherer, EBSCO; Dan Tonkery, Readmore; Lorne Kenyon, North American representative, Harrassowitz; and Bill Leazer, Majors.

7. Also reported in October Ivins, "Low Citation Rate of Scientific Papers," Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues, no. 34 (11 March 1991): p. 6-7.

8. First cited by Lelde Gilman, UCLA, and reported in Marcia Tuttle, "From the Editor," Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues no. 33 (22 February 1991)! p. 1.

SURVEILLANCE DEPOSITORY CREATED

The Lesbian and Gay Declassified Documentation Project, designed to collect and index government surveillance and investigatory files on the lesbian and gay male movements, related publications, and participating activists, has been started by a librarian at the University of California, Irvine. If you have received or are interested in receiving your personal or an organizational file under the Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, or state or local Open Records Acts, please contact: Daniel C. Tsang, PO Box 28977, Santa Ana, CA 92799-8977; (714) 751-2856.

76 SERIALS REVIEW -- IVlNS/O'NEILL

Documents

Serials prices: Column 12