impact of economic pressures on american libraries and their decisions concerning scholarly and...

Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory, Vol. 3, pp. 153-237( 1979) 0364-6408/79/030153-85$02.00/O Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved. Copyright 0 1979 Pcrgamon Press Ltd

SPECIAL REPORT

IMPACT OF ECONOMIC PRESSURES ON AMERICAN LIBRARIES AND THEIR DECISIONS

CONCERNING SCHOLARLY AND RESEARCH JOURNAL ACQUISITION AND RETENTION

BERNARD M. FRY and HERBERT S. WHITE

Graduate Library School

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana

U.S. National Science Foundation

Division of Science Information

Grant Number 76-23592

I. Introduction to the Study Preface Related Research Advisory Committee

IL Findings and Recommendations Summary of Major Findings Further Research Recommended

III. Conduct and Results of Library Survey Methodology

Selection of Survey Population Library Strata History of Questionnaire Mailing Response Rate to Library Questionnaire Survey Population by Census Region Survey Population by HEW Regions

Specific Findings Librarv Funding Trends and

Reallocations - Median Percentage of Totai Budget

Aitocation Budget Breakdown by Category-

Median Percentage Increase Median Ratio of Book Expenditures

to Serial Expenditures Effect of Budget Reallocation on

Pe~Odi~l Holdings Monographic Series as Serials

Inclusion of Monographic Series as Serials

Able to Separate Periodical Titles from Totai Serials

153

Median Ratio of New Periodical Sub- scriptions to Total Periodical Subscriptions

Median Ratio of Periodical Cancella- tions to Total Periodical Holdings

Median Ratio of Periodical Subscriptions Added to Periodical Subscriptions Cancelled

Median Percentage increase in Net Number of Periodical Subscriptions

Median Percentage Duplication of Periodical Subscriptions

Median Percentage of Periodical Hofdings and Cancellations by Type of Periodical and Library (1976)

Perceptions of the Price of Foreign Journals as Compared to Domestic Journals

Perceptions of the Proportion of Foreign Periodical Holdings in the Library’s Collection

Library Activities to Counter Economic Pressure

Libraries Experiencing Budget Pressures Last Year Serious Enough to Make it Difficult to Main~din Current periodicals List

Libraries Experiencing Budget Pressures I_dSt Year Serious Enough to Make if Difficult to Add Even Highly Valued New Subscriptions

154

Actions Taken to Alleviate Budget Pressures

Incidence and Analysis of Cost- Effective Measures Reported

Examples of Types of Cost-Effective Measures Taken by Libraries

Borrowing/Lending Activity Descriptions Borrowing Lending Participation in I:ormal Inter-Library

Loan and Participation in Consortia and Networks

Percention of the Effect of Availability of Periodical Material Through Borrowing on Periodical Holdings by Types of Library

Periodical Management Decisions Individuals Heavily Involved in

Periodicals Management Decisions

IV. Conduct and Results of Non-US Scholarly and Research Journals Study

Methodology Specific Findings

Distribution of Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals by Country of Publication

Price Increase of Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals to US Libraries 1970-1976

Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals -Prices and Price Increases 1970-76

Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals -Analysis of UC/Berkeley List of Foreign Serials

V. Interviews VI. Appendix

Statistical Tests Library Questionnaire

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

PREFACE

This study reports, to a considerable degree, on the extension of a study undertaken for the National Science Foundation Office of Science Information Services under Grant Number GN-41398. The final report of that study was entitled “Economics and Interaction of the Pub- lisher-Library Relationship in the Production and Use of Scholarly and Research Journals,” was submitted in November 1975, and has been distributed to the public by the National Technical Information Service as PB 249 108. In addition, a book reporting on the findings of that study, written by Bernard M. Fry and Herbert S. White and entitled Publishers and Libraries: A Study of Scholarly and Research Journals, was published by D.C. Heath and Company in 1976. Finally, a number of articles by these same authors have analyzed the results for specific audiences, and have appeared in such journals as Library Quarterly, Special Libraries, Bulletin of the Medical Librav Association, and Serials Librarian.

The initial study covered the years 1969 through 1973, and reported on economic conditions, budgetary pressures, economic alternatives, behavioral patterns, and actions and perceptions by both librarians (including academic, public and special libraries) and various publisher groups. The study’s conclusions were based primarily on the analysis and evaluation of questionnaires received from 401 libraries and 254 journals.

The current study is largely devoted to extending library data through the year 1976. The addition of the years 1974, 1975, and 1976 was considered particularly important, since it is known that the effect of budgetary curtailments began to affect libraries most particularly in the years which followed 1969, and it was expected that many libraries would not have made significant adjustments in policies and practices until several years after budgetary curtailments took effect. It was felt that many libraries would delay the implementation of policy shifts in the hope that funding cutbacks might be temporary, and would be restored in future years without any significant permanent impact on library priorities and activities. However, by the years 1974, 1975, and 1976, librarians have come to realize and accept that curtailments in budgetary growth are not temporary aberrations, and have begun to take steps to deal with the shortfall on a more planned and organized basis. The results of this study do in large part bear out this presumption.

Funds for the present study were provided by the National Enquiry into Scholarly Communica- tion, which funded the first three months of start-up activity, and the National Science Founda- tion. The National Enquiry was particularly anxious for this investigation to have an early start, and preliminary data and conclusions from this study were channelled to the National Enquiry staff as rapidly as possible for evaluation and inclusion, as appropriate, into that organization’s own report and recommendations.

In authorizing this study, NSF limited the scope of the inquiry to the first half of the earlier study, that dealing with libraries. While the grantee had proposed extending the survey data to journal publishers as well, in the belief that a simultaneous extension of both the publisher and

155

156 BERNARD M. FRY and HERBERT S. WHITE

library populations would prove useful in providing comparisons of attitudes and actions, and in developing overall conclusions of what is happening at the interface between these groups (as the earlier study had), the National Science Foundation felt that a continued examination of the publishers of scholarly and research journals would overlap a study already funded and under way by Dr. Fritz Ma&up, which examined the publishing sector in greater detail.

The second study was extended into one area not covered in the earlier 1969-73 effort, an examination of the growth, pricing policies, and library impact of non-US scholarly and research journals. No data had been gathered for journals published outside the United States, although reports from libraries and subscriptions agents indicated that these journals were in fact a cause of even greater concern for US libraries, because of even more rapidly increasing prices, and were therefore subject to greater pressures for cancellation. In conjunction with this analysis of the non-US scholarly and research journal population, questions were added to the questionnaire distributed to libraries which sought to measure library actions and perceptions, and then compare these to the journal data reported.

Bernard M. Fry, Dean of the Graduate Library School of Indiana University, has served as principal investigator for this study since its inception. Herbert S. White, professor in the Graduate Library School and Director of its Research Center for Library and Information Science, has served as co-principal investigator.

The project has benefited from the contributions of two research associates. Elizabeth Johnson served in this capacity from the inception of the project until November 1977, when she left the Bloomington, Indiana area ans was replaced by Stella Bentley. Both research associates have participated actively in the gathering and analysis of data, and in the development of preliminary

findings. As with the previous study, the effort relied heavily on the support and advice of an advisory

panel of administrators in libraries, professional associations, the Federal government, and com- mercial acquisitions agents. This group was helpful both in the framing of questions and in the interpretation of data. Moreover, their stature helped add credibility to the study effort, and is credited in large part for the excellent level of cooperation and response which was achieved from the academic, public, and special libraries which were surveyed.

RELATED RESEARCH

In 1973 there were indications of a growing malaise in scholarly publishing and library acquisitions in the USA. Although questions were already being raised over growing economic pressures upon both librarians and publishers, no statistically significant research had probed for causes and understanding of the forces at work. The study conducted at Indiana University during 1974-75 on the economics and interaction of the publisher-library relationship in the production and use of scholarly and research journals, published in November 1975, broke new ground in an area where there is need to know more on a continuing basis. The firm data which were gathered made a beginning toward bridging the gap in communications between the library and publishing communities, and in its ability to relate its findings and recommendations to the economic interaction of the two communities.

Although no significant and comprehensive research had up to that time focused on the range of problems placing this communication system in jeopardy, a number of related studies bearing on problems of journal economics, and including proposed improvements or solutions, were under- way or had been recently completed concerning: inter-library loan systems, national periodical resources centers, distributive networks and library photocopying. These were cited in the report

Impact of Economic Pressures on American Libraries 157

of the earlier Indiana study and will not be repeated here. A comprehensive but selected bibli-

ography was also attached to the preceding NSF sponsored study. The research study in the overall field of knowledge dissemination undertaken by Professor

Fritz Machlup, to update his 1962 study ten years earlier, continued under a series of grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities, beginning in 1971 and completed in 1979. The Machlup study has recently been named Information Through the Printed Word: The Dissemination of Scholarly Scientific and Intellectual Knowledge. As explained later in the section on methodology in this report, the Indiana research team has cooperated extensively with professor Machlup’s group and has furnished certain machine data

files requested for their use. Similarly, the Indiana research team has necessarily kept in close touch with the National

Enquiry into the Production and Dissemination of Scholarly Knowledge, under the direction of Edward Booher. The National Enquiry study, begun in 1975 and completed in 1976, investigated the professional, economic, and technological problems that existed for scholars and publishers when knowledge is ready for publication in book form. The Enquiry focused more toward the

future and its purpose was to produce “a national solution to the enormous problems that surround and impair the effective and efficient production and distribution of scholarly informa-

tion in all its forms.” Since publication in 1975 of the predecessor report to this current study, the volume of inquiry

and research in the journal communications system has accelerated in many countries and in some cases has taken new directions. A new Journal of Research Communication Studies has been started in the UK under the aegis of the Primary Communications Research Centre, with Professor A.J. Meadows as editor. The establishment of this Centre, sponsored by the British Library, will attempt to bring the results of such investigations together for the benefit of all concerned.

Mention should also be made of the International Group of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) whose investigations have provided useful and otherwise unobtainable information on a range of problems affecting the journal literature. Additionally this organization, in cooperation with the British Library, submitted to ASLIB a proposal which resulted in the report by A.M. Woodward of ASLIB’s Research and Development Department, Factors Affecting the Renewal of Periodical Subscription: Study of Decision-Making in Libraries with Special Reference to Economics. This survey of academic, research and industrial libraries in the UK in 1977 showed that the incidence and severity of financial difficulties in that country has been increasing over the past few years. This study also reported that no causal relationship can be shown “whereby increased inter-library lending leads to an overall decrease in periodical subscriptions by virtue of its associated photocopying.”

A major study of British library-publisher experience was also released by Maurice B. Line and D.N. Wood, and the British Library Lending Division. The proposition examined is that large-scale

photocopying, such as that practiced by the British library, affects the sales of journals to libraries. An extensive survey of demand for journals at BLLD shows a heavy concentration on a relatively small number of titles, most of them well established journals, widely held by libraries and with large circulations. It is concluded, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that economic difficulties experienced by journal publishers and the increased demand on the BLLD are un- related, though both owe something to the economic pressures on libraries.

Although it was decided that the present study, like its predecessor, is not the vehicle through which to examine the question of library photocopying, inter-library loan practices and procedures, and possible effects on the economics of journal publishing, recent studies of this long- standing problem contributed useful data and insights. Excellent work has been done in this regard by King Research, Inc. which reported in its recently released study Library Photocopying in the


United States, as well as in studies of Project MINITEX and others. A slightly less relevant but still important recent study is Costs of Owning, Borrowing, and

Disposing of Periodical Publications, by V.E. Palmour and others. It was prepared for the National

Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), published in October 1977.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

From the inception of the study a select and distinguished Advisory Committee has played a major role in its planning and conduct, the establishment of objectives, and the evaluation and interpretation of results. Members of the committee were selected specifically because of their prominence in American research librarianship and their interest in the work being undertaken. One member of the Advisory Committee, Frank F. Clasquin, Executive Vice President of the F.W. Faxon Company, was particularly helpful not only with comments and suggestions, but also by

providing through his company, computer data concerning subscriptions to foreign scholarly journals by American libraries.

Other members of the Advisory Committee included Hugh C. Atkinson, Director of the Uni- versity of Illinois Libraries; Hendrik Edelman, Assistant Director of Libraries at Cornell University; W. Carl Jackson, Dean of Libraries at Indiana University; and Stephen McCarthy, retired Executive Director of the Association of Research Libraries. James Riley, Executive Director of the Federal Library Committee, and Barbara 0. Slanker, at the time of her appointment Director of the American Library Association’s Office of Research, both represented important constituencies. Julie A. Virgo, who at the time of her appointment was Director of the Division of Education of the Medical Library Association, later became Executive Director of the Association of College and Research Libraries, and made valuable contributions in both capacities.

The Committee met twice, in Bloomington, Indiana on May 17, 1977 to help plan the conduct of the study and the analysis of data; and in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 1978 to review findings and add its perspective to preliminary conclusions.

II. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

1. Library Budget Increases for 19 73- 76 Academic libraries did not, during the budget period 1974-76, do as well as the institutions in

which they are housed. In state supported academic institutions, the library budget rose by 9S%/year, while the college or university budget increased by 10.4%/year. Large state supported academic libraries in particular fared worse than the institution as a whole, increasing their budgets at an annual 8.6%, while the institution’s budget rose 9.9%. Small state supported academic libraries (with less than 2000 periodical subscriptions) did considerably better, increasing their budgets at 14.3%/year. However, some of these statistics may reflect start-up costs for new institutions, which could be expected to be high.

Public libraries serving populations of between 150,000 and 300,000 did better in securing budget increases than public libraries serving metropolitan areas of more than 300,000 people. The smaller libraries increased their budgets at an annual 9.8%, while the largest public libraries in-


creased their budgets by only 8.4%/year. Special libraries, which had exhibited the best budget

increase performance for 1969.73, did not do as well in 1973-76, growing at an annual rate of 9.0% compared to 13%jyear for similarly sized special libraries in 1969-73.

2. Transfer of Funds from the Materials to the Salary Budget Findings of the earlier (1969-73) study indicated a steady shift (at the rate of abouttX%/year)

from the materials to the salary budget in academic and public libraries. While the early data for 1973-76 indicated a continuation of this trend, it may have ceased in about 1974. Statistics for 1975 and 1976, while of insufficient length to constitute a trend, nevertheless point to an absence of budgetary transfers between the labor and materials budgets. This may be because budget categories are now separately allocated, without an opportunity to shift funds.

3. Allocation of Funds io the Mate~aIs Budget Despite the apparent halt in budgetary shifts from the materials to the salary budget, the

materials budget continues to receive a declining percentage of total funds allocated within the academic library. Growing percentages of the library budget are going to supplies and materials, reflecting in part rapid price increases in these categories, and also some budgetary shifts, under which purchased data base access and document delivery services are playing a more prominent role.

4. Ability to Maintain the Library Collection Although estimates of the growth of the literature vary, even conservative approximations lead

to the conclusion that few libraries are keeping up with the expansion of publication in their own fields of interests, and that most are in fact falling behind. This is particuIarly true for monographic purchases in academic libraries, which continue to decline and which, in some libraries, have effectively ceased.

5. Budgetary Shifts from the Book to the Serials Budget One of the most si~i~~ant findings of the 1969-73 study was the dramatic shift in materials

allocation from the book to the serials budget. For large academic libraries, as a case in point, the shift was from $2 for monographs for every dollar spent on serials in 1969 to only $1.16 spent on monographs for every dollar spent on serials in 1973. Based on this rapid change, which endangers the validity of any monographic acquisitions program, the earlier study surmised that this rapid shift would have to decelerate or stop entirely, and this assumption was confirmed, at the tune, by a considerable number of library admi~strators. Data for 1973-76, however, clearly indicates that the shift of funds from the book to the serials budget continued unchecked, in all types of libraries. Large academic libraries were, by 1976, spending $1.23 on serials for every dollar spent on books. Some libraries report an even more dramatic ratio. Interview responses indicate that these shifts reflect the priorities of the faculty to a greater extent than of the library staff, particularly in the physical and social sciences. Many faculty feel that serials must be renewed at ail costs, to maintain continuity and currency. Monographic acquisitions represent, to many faculty, especially in these disciplines, a less urgent priority.

160 BERNARD ht. FRY and HERBERT S. WHITE

6. Shifts Within the Periodicals Budget Despite the attempts to maintain as much of the serials budget as possible, ah groups of

libraries, and particularly academic libraries, continued to face the need to reduce periodicals subscriptions. For the 1969-73 survey the most prevalent tactics were the foregoing of the placement of new subscriptions, and the cancellation of duplicates. Both these tactics continue to be heavily employed from 1973-76 reports, but for the first time a heavy incidence of cancellation of

single and unique titles is reported.

7. management Decisions Although, as reported above, libraries began extensively, during 1973-76, to cancel unique

subscriptions, the survey failed to uncover any evidence that this largely resulted from consortia or network activities, or the perceived availability of the cancelled title on inter-library loan. De- cisions appear to be based on an evaluation of the specific title, or on a relative ranking of related titles, but only within the context of the collection, or of departmental priorities. Questions designed to determine who recommends, influences or makes cancellation or placement decisions produced responses which indicate a complex interaction of librarians and faculty members, with heavy reliance at least for recommended actions on faculty members, branch librarians, and subject specialists, and with little if any indication that local or regional holdings are taken into account.

8. Inter-Library Loan Responding libraries reported a sharp increase in both inter-library borrowing and lending. This

may reflect the fact that, as materials acquisitions budgets fail to keep pace with cost increases and publication growth, individual libraries fall further behind and become more independent on other library holdings. At the same time, however, libraries also report that availability on inter-library loan does not affect their own acquisitions decisions. In short, it may be concluded that libraries borrow what they don’t have, but that they don’t cancel because they are able to borrow; they assume that nothing is too esoteric to be unavailable on loan.

9. Partici~atio~l in consortia and ~etw~~rks Membership in consortia and networks is a continually growing phenomenon. More than 90%

of large academic libraries belong to some sort of formal inter-library organization, and these joiners belong to an average of almost 3 each. Large public libraries report almost as great an incidence of network activity, but there appears to be less overlap in this area, half of the report belonging to only one such organization, which may be an official group set under state auspices. Special libraries are as enthusiastic joiners as either of the other groups. The great majority belong to at least one, and better than a third belong to three or more. Multiple special library membership is not surprising, since they would be likely to be involved in both subject and geographic groupings.

While membership in consortia and networks may well be the required forerunner to cooperative activity in technical processing, acquisitions, and resource sharing, the survey revealed, at least at this stage, very little indication that library management policies were closely affected by cooperative membership. Growing reliance on other libraries appears to come as a necessity as a library’s own programs fail to keep pace with its needs, but there is little evidence of policy coordination and planning.


IO. Incidence of Cost Reduction Activities Virtually all libraries report some cost reduction activity, but it is surprising, in view of the

financial constraints which are evident, that there is not a greater variety of range of activities. Only about half of the libraries in the survey report more than one tactic, and only about one-third report more than two. Cooperative cataloging arrangements far outdistance any other arrangements mentioned, particularly in smaller academic libraries. However, cooperative catalog ing is the most frequently mentioned activity for all kinds of libraries, including public and special. Reliance on purchased services in lieu of using their own manpower is not a frequently mentioned activity, which probably indicates that most libraries do not have total flexibility in transferring funds from one budget category to another.

Automation is not reported as a major cost reduction tactic. The most frequently mentioned automation activity involves the installation of exit controls, which may save money by reducing theft and replacement costs, but does so only indirectly.

II. Involvement in Periodicals Management Decisions Responses indicate a wide variety of involvements in academic libraries, particularly in recom-

mendation for either acquisition or cancellation. Reference librarians, branch librarians, subject specialists, the library director, and where the posts exist, collection development officers and committees are all reported as playing a role in the decision process. The role of the faculty is generally defmed as being one of recommendation. However, academic librarians on the Advisory Board felt that responses to the questionnaire reflected some subjectivity and perhaps wishful thinking, and that the role of the faculty in the actual decision process was much greater.

For public libraries the role of branch librarians is very pronounced, while public library users are credited with a very small role in even the recommendation process. For special libraries users are reported as relied on far more heavily for acquisitions than for cancellation decisions, perhaps because special libraries have more data than academic libraries on use of the collection.

12. Price Increases for Non-US Scholarly and Research Journals Foreign scholarly journals increased their price, during the period 1970-76, at an annual rate of

17.1%, twice the rate of price increase reported for domestic scholarly journals during 1969-73 in the earlier survey. Part of this cost increase derives from inflationary pressures within the country of publication, part from weakening of the US dollar in currency exchange. However, no clear pattern which can attribute price increases primarily to dollar fluctuation can be determined, and British journals increased in price at similar rates to German journals, despite the much stronger performance of the German mark than the British pound.

13. Price Increases for Heavily Subscribed Non-US Scholarly and Research Journals Prices of more popularly ordered non-US journals (as determined from a Faxon list of frequent-

ly ordered subscriptions) increased even more rapidly than prices of foreign scholarly journals as a whole. Their increase, from 1970 to 1976, was at an annual rate of 18.1%.

14. Subscription Patterns in US Libraries for Foreign Scholarly Journals The most important consideration in subscription to foreign scholarly and research journals by

US libraries is publication of all or part of the issue in the English language. While only 55.5% of


an overall sampling of scholarly foreign journals (from Ulrich’s) are published in English, 97% of the 1000 most heavily subscribed foreign journals (from the Faxon list) appear completely or in large part in the English language. Language of publication also plays a significant role in cancellation decisions, with non-En~sh periodicals more likely to be considered candidates for cancellation, by both the library staff and the users.

FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDED

1. Analysis of Cost Reduction Program in Libraries Survey responses have indicated a number of perceived approaches to cost reduction in li-

braries. In particular, these have addressed membership in consortia and networks, and the implementation of cooperative activities in acquisitions, processing, and inter-library borrowing. Many of the recommendations for national programs, particularly in the serials area, are based on the premise of cost reduction and improved cost benefit. Conversely, publisher groups have expressed concern precisely about the impact of such activities on them, which they perceive to be significant. While such economic impact may in fact be taking place, neither this study nor any other of which we are aware has acquired any hard data which quantifies either changes in priorities, or savings achieved. Justifications which are based on the avoidance of further spending are suspect without any indication that this spending was more than a hypothetical exercise. Further studies are needed to examine specific impacts of program changes on the ac~evement of library economies. For this to be accomplished, far more detailed and exacting methodologies for analyz- ing library costs will have to be developed. Efforts such as the Machlup study have addressed this problem, but ultimately many of the mechanisms will have to be developed through or with the close involvement of libraries and library associations.

2. Analysis of Decision Making for Acquisition or Cancellation This questionnaire addressed procedures for decision making for specific title acquisition or

cancellation. What has emerged is a complex and largely intuitive mechanism, under which many individuals participate, but under which decisions usually proceed from the determination of funding to the evaluation of titles, rather than the other way around. In-depth analysis is required to determine how this process in fact works, how it affects priorities as between subject disciplines, between monographs and serials, and between newer and retrospective materials. The importance of individual faculty participation, and the political implications of antagonizing powerful faculty groups for the sake of collection balance, must be examined. Finally, the premise that library decisions in the collection area should be based on availability within a larger system must be examined closely. Is there evidence that such a value system is being implemented? Does the political process involving faculty and other users impact such an overall evaluation, and does it indeed allow it to take place at all? To what extent do the emerging ground rules for implementation of the copyright law impact such decisions?

3. impcr of Intel-Library Loan on Library arzd individual S~bsc$i~tion homilies As a follow-on to the previous point, detailed investigation is needed to determine the impact

of the rapid growth of inter-library borrowing on both library and individual subscriptions. Pub- lishers have claimed that increased inter-library loans hurt subscription placement and increase cancellation among both libraries and individual subscribers. At least one library association has


maintained that increased awareness brought about by inter-library loan increases the probability of placing a subscription, for both libraries and individuals. Responses to this survey, as well as

comments in individual interviews, indicate that inter-library loan has no particular impact on at least library subscription policies, in that these are determined by budgetary constraints, and borrowing follows a financial decision and does not impel it. Specific quantifiable data is needed to determine what impact, if any, the rise in inter-library borrowing and the growing awareness of holdings in other libraries through networks, consortia, and on-line terminal access has on the subscription habits of libraries and individuals, and/or what other factors (quality, price, language, etc.) come into play.

III. CONDUCT AND RESULTS OF LIBRARY SURVEY

METHODOLOGY

Selection of Survey Population The 1969-73 survey population was drawn from a sampling of US academic, public, and special

libraries, through techniques described in detail in the earlier study report already mentioned, and that description will therefore not be repeated in this document. It was determined that for the 1973-76 study, the survey population be the respondents to the earlier (1969-73) study. This was done for a number of reasons. It was felt that these respondents would provide a representative sample of American libraries, but nevertheless a group of libraries already committed to the importance of this study effort, and from which a high rate of response could be expected. This assumption was in fact fully borne out. As indicated in later analysis, the response rate achieved exceeded 85%, a figure considered remarkable when it is considered that the completion of the questionnaire took several hours. This high level of response is consistent for all types and sizes of libraries surveyed for 1973-76, ranging from a low of 76% for large public libraries to a high of 95% for the largest group of academic libraries. Additional responses received after the cut-off date in fact increased the replies from 85% to 88%. While these additional questionnaires are not included in statistical calculations, the information is nevertheless available for future analysis.

In addition, it was hoped that reliance on the same survey population would permit the merging of data from the old and new studies and the development of 1969-76 library statistics. Although the development and continuation of trends in the 1969-73 and 1973-76 data are apparent and are reported where applicable (as well as areas in which shifts have occurred) it was not possible to merge the specific numbers reported, because many of the libraries reported different statistics for 1973 in the 1973-76 survey than they had reported for 1973 in the 1969-73 survey. When correlations were run between the data for 1973 as reported in the first study and the 1973 data as reported in the following study, using only those libraries which had responded to both studies, some of the correlation coefficients were very low, such as .339 for number of periodical subscriptions cancelled and .124 for total items borrowed. Therefore no other comparisons were made between the reported numbers from the questionnaires. Thus, while in each case 1973 fits in well with the range of data reported in that particular questionnaire, the two 1973 reports are not necessarily comparable, and therefore no 1969-76 statistics were calculated. The numbers are too different.

There are several possible reasons for this. The first and most obvious is that perhaps libraries are not as accurate in the keeping and reporting of “older” data. In the earlier survey 1973 data represented the current year, in the later survey it represented data four years old. However, any


urge to scrap the later data for the earlier information must be tempered by the realization that similar “approximations” would have occurred in the earlier survey for 1969 and 1970, and in the later survey to perhaps a lesser extent for 1974 and 1975.

A second reason stems from the possibility that libraries changed their methods of counting or reporting between 1973 and 1976. If this occurred, it is entirely possible that they then recalcu- lated 1973 based on these new criteria. The relative consistency of 1973-76 data patterns, even where the new 1973 does not correspond to the old 1973, points to the possibility of this having occurred.

A third possible reason comes from the shift in definition, and to some extent in category breakdowns, which took place from our first to our second survey. It had been our intention to use exactly the same questions and same question formats to attempt to maximize continuity of data. Unfortunately, this was not possible because NSF preferred that, in those areas in which the Machlup survey and our own sought the same or similar information, the questions be exact duplicates. This was done to avoid duplication of effort for the 77 ARL libraries which were being asked to respond to both questionnaires. In areas other than ARL (where the selection of libraries is obviously limited because of the small size of the group) the Machlup sample was selected specifically so as not to overlap the libraries in our survey population. However, the need for developing exactly the same question in those instances where survey objectives were similar led to discussions and compromises by both parties, and introduced for us changes in definition and new expense categories (such as plant operations and maintenance) which were not in the original survey at all. There is some indication from the way in which these new categories were handled in responses that they caused some confusion, and may have affected the way in which other columns for the same question were completed. Since the overlap group of ARL libraries received both questionnaires in the same mailing, with instructions to answer the newly designed identical questions only once, the intent of saving the responding libraries effort is clear and cannot be argued with. It is also true that this approach did not in any way hurt our response rate and may have aided it. The response rate for the largest academic libraries was the greatest of all. At the same time, the need for compromising on question formats and definitions may have caused some difficulties in data comparisons with our earlier survey, and it may have caused problems for Dr. Machlup as well.

Library Strata

Academic Libraries. The earlier (1969-73) survey divided academic, public, and special libraries into strate depending on evaluation of size, and these same techniques were utilized in the present survey. Since the methodology of sample selection and determination of strata are fully explained in the earlier report, this will not be repeated except in brief summary form. Academic libraries were stratified into six groupings based on the number of periodical titles held, as reported in the 1971 Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS) of the Office of Education. In the original survey, stratum 1 consisted of libraries reporting under 200 periodical subscriptions; stratum 2 included libraries with between 200 and 499 periodical subscriptions; stratum 3, those with 500 and 999; stratum 4, 5000 to 1999; stratum 5, 2000 to 4999, and stratum 6, those with more than 5000. These same strata definitions were employed in the present survey, and only those libraries which responded the first time were contacted in this survey.

In the earlier survey responses from the first two academic strata (those libraries with under 500 periodical subscriptions) were not tabulated, because it was determined that these libraries simply did not have sufficient subscriptions to scholarly and research journals to affect the study,


In the present effort, based in part on earlier response and on an attempt to reduce costs where possible with minimum impact on survey results, a third academic stratum, those libraries with

between 500 and 999 periodical subscriptions, was eliminated. Three strata were consequently contacted, those with between 1000 and 1999 subscriptions, those with between 2000 and 4999, and those with more than 5000. As shown in later tabular data, a response rate of almost 90% was achieved with these academic libraries, with the stratum of larger libraries responding even more fully than the stratum of smaller ones.

Public Libraries. The 1969-73 study used population served as the basis of stratification for public libraries, using data supplied by the Office of the National Center for Educational Statistics. Five strata were utilized, the first included libraries serving between 50,000 and 74,999 people, the second populations between 75,000 and 99,999, the third between 100,000 and 149,999, the fourth between 150,000 and 299,999, and the fifth populations over 300,000. As with academic libraries, the stratum of smallest libraries was eliminated from calculations in the earlier survey because their holdings in scholarly and research journals were simply not sufficient to affect the purposes of the study. For this second study, and for reasons already stated with regard to academic libraries, two additional strata were eliminated. Public libraries were therefore examined in two groups, those serving populations between 150,000 and 299,999, and those serving populations of 300,000 and above. The response rate for public libraries was in excess of 77%.

Special Libraries. As described fully in the first survey report, special libraries were divided into two groups, based on serials budgets as reported in the American Library Directory, with those whose serials were under $50,000 in one stratum, and those above $50,000 in the other. For reasons already described with regard to academic and public libraries, we decided to limit the population for the present survey to the stratum of larger special libraries, and over 85% of these responded.

History of Questionnaire Mailing

Survey Population, The survey population for this follow-up study consisted of those libraries which responded to the earlier survey, minus the strata of smaller public and special libraries, and the stratum of smallest academic libraries. It was the finding of the initial study that these libraries spent so little of their materials budget on scholarly and research journal subscriptions that they were simply not affected to any substantial extent by pricing fluctuations, or by changes in the total spectrum of publication. These revisions in the survey population left a total of 303 libraries.

Machlup Overlap. The first mailing of questionnaires went out in mid-December to the 95 libraries which were also included in the Machlup survey. The due date stamped on these questionnaires was February 15. Of the 95 libraries in this overlap group 72 were academic libraries, 22 were public, and one was special.

The remaining 208 questionnaires were mailed out at the end of February with a due date of April 18. In mid-April the overall response stood at about 60%. The response rate for the smaller special libraries was 24.6%. Since the original rate of response in this stratum was very low, the ultimate response from small special libraries was only a little over 3% of the initial first study sample. In view of this, the survey group was expanded to include the stratum of public libraries serving populations of lSO,OOO-300,000. The smaller special libraries were dropped from the survey and the resultant survey population numbered 273 libraries. A follow-up letter was mailed


April 20, 1977 to libraries in the original group which had not returned the questionnaires, and the questionnaires to the smaller public libraries were mailed April 20, 1977 with a due date of May 27.

Telephone Follow-Up. The first two weeks of July were spent telephoning approximately 80 libraries in an attempt to obtain as high a response rate as possible. Every effort was made to contact the director of the library personally.

Final Response Rates. Questionnaire response files were closed on August 3 1, 1977. The response rate stood at 233 of 273, or 85.35%. Since that time 7 more questionnaires have been received pushing the overall response rate to 88%. The machine files, however, include only the responses from the 233 libraries.

Response Rate to Library Questionnaire by Type of Library and Strata

A high level of response was achieved for all types of libraries in the survey (see Table 1). Academic libraries responded at the rate of almost 90%, and all but 4 of the 77 largest academic libraries (which received our questionnaire concurrently with the Machlup questionnaire) responded. Public libraries responded at the lowest rate, but even these achieved a return of better than 77%. Seven additional responses were received after the machine files were closed, and these seven bring the overall response to almost 88%. These seven returns are not included in the data tabulations, but the information is available for any further studies which might be undertaken.

TABLE 1 RESPONSE RATE TO LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE BY

TYPE OF LIBRARY AND STRATA

Strata Sample Size Returns

Periodicals Held

1001-2000

2001-5000

5001 +

Subtotal

Population Served

150,000-300,000

300,000 +

Subtotal

Serials Budget

Over $500,000

Total Returns

Total Received*

Academic Number % of Sample

29 23 79.31

53 47 88.68 71 73 94.81

159 143 89.94

Public Number % of Sample

38 30 78.95

50 38 76.00

88 68 77.27

Special Number ‘iu of Sample

26 22 84.62

273 233 85.35

213 240 87.91

*Seven were received after the machine files were closed.


Survey Population by Census Region A number of librarians have suggested that there is variation in a number of library activities,

particularly level of funding, based on geographic distribution. In order to attempt such a determination, library responses were analyzed by the nine geographic regions used by the Bureau of Census (see Table 2 and Table 3). Although such a distribution leads to insufficient data for a number of library strata for certain regions, it nevertheless provides a good overview, particularly for academic libraries.

Survey Population by HEW Region On the recommendation of the advisory committee, an analysis similar to the Census Bureau

breakdown was made using the ten geographic regions identified by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (see Table 4 and Table 5). Although such a distribution also leads to insufficient data for a number of library strata for certain regions, it nevertheless provides a good overview, particularly for academic libraries.

TABLE 2 CENSUS REGIONS

1. New England

Maine Vermont New Hampshire Rhode Island Connecticut Massachusetts

4. East South Central

Alabama Mississippi Tennessee Kentucky

7.West North Central

Missouri Kansas Nebraska North Dakota South Dakota Iowa Minnesota

2. Middle Atlantic

New York New Jersey Pennsylvania

S.West South Central

Texas Arkansas Oklahoma Louisiana

8. Mountain

New Mexico Arizona Nevada Utah Idaho Montana Wyoming Colorado

3.South Atlantic

West Virginia Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida Maryland District of Columbia Delaware

6. East North Central

Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan Wisconsin

9. Pacific

California Oregon Washington Hawaii Alaska

Regional Distribution: To determine if there were any regional differences in budget allocations or percent changes in budget allocations, a regional breakdown of the sample was used for some tables. In order to have a standardized, accepted distribution, the nine regions of the US Census Bureau were used.


TABLE 3 SURVEY POPULATION BY CENSUS REGION*

Region

5% % % % % % % % % Academic Academic Academic Total Public Public Total Special Total

2 3 4 Academic 1 2 Public Response

(n=23) (n=47) (n=73) (n=l43) (n=30) (n=38) (n=68) (n=22) (n=233)

1. New England 4.3 8.5

2. Middle Atlantic 34.8 17.0 3. South Atlantic 4.3 12.8 4. East South

Central 4.3 2.1 5. West South

Central 8.7 8.5 6. East North

Central 21.7 23.4 7. West North

Central 8.1 10.6

8. Mountain 0 6.4

9. Pacific 13.0 10.6

*See Table 2 for states in each region.

5.5 6.3 0 0 0 4.5 4.3

13.7 18.2 16.7 15.8 16.2 18.2 17.6 15.1 12.6 36.7 15.8 25.0 22.7 17.2

4.1 3.5 10.0 0 4.4 9.1 4.3

6.8 7.7 3.3 13.2 8.8 18.2 9.0

23.3 23.1 13.3 15.8 14.7 0 18.5

6.8 8.4 6.7 10.5 8.8 9.1 8.6

11.0 7.7 3.3 2.6 2.9 4.5 6 .O

13.7 12.6 10.0 26.3 19.1 13.6 14.6

TABLE 4

HEW REGIONS

1. Maine

Vermont

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Massachusetts

2. New York

New Jersey

3. West Virginia

Virginia

Maryland

District of Columbia

Delaware

Pennsylvania

4. Alabama

Mississippi

Tennessee

Kentucky

Florida

Georgia

North Carolina

South Carolina

5. Ohio

Indiana

Illinois

Michigan

Wisconsin

Minnesota

6. Texas

Arkansas

Oklahoma

Louisiana

New Mexico

7. Missouri

Kansas

Nebraska

Iowa

8. Utah

Montana

Wyoming

Colorado

North Dakota South Dakota

9. Arizona

Nevada

California

10. Idaho

Oregon

Washington

Regional Distribution: To determine if there were any regional differences in budget allocations or

percent changes in budget allocations, a regional breakdown of the same was used for some tables. In order to have a standardized, accepted distribution, the ten regions of the Health, Education, and Welfare were used.


TABLE 5 SURVEY POPULATION BY HEW REGIONS*

Regions

% % % % % % % % % Academic Academic Academic Total Public Public Total Special Total

(n=223)

3 4 Academic 1 2 Public Response

(n=47) (n-73) (n-143) (n-30) (n=38) (n-78) (n=22) (n=233)

1 2

3

4

5

6 7

8

9

10

4.3 30.4

4.3

8.7

26.1

8.7

4.3

8.7

4.3

8.5

8.5

12.8

10.6

23.4

8.5

8.5

6.4

6.4

6.4

5.5 6.3 _ _ - 4.5 4.3

8.2 11.9 13.3 10.5 11.8 13.6 12.0

12.3 11.2 23.3 13.2 17.6 13.6 13.3

12.3 11.2 26.1 7.9 16.2 22.1 13.7

23.3 23.8 13.3 18.4 16.2 4.5 19.7

8.2 8.3 3.3 13.2 8.8 22.7 9.9

8.2 1.1 6.1 1.9 7.4 4.5 7.3

6.8 5.6 3.3 1.5 _ 3.9

12.3 9.8 _ 26.3 19.1 9.1 12.4

2.1 4.2 _ 2.6 1.5 4.5 3.4

*See Table 4 for states in each region.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Library Funding Trends and Reallocations

Kind of Reporting Year Used by Responding Libraries. As part of the effort to coordinate response data between the Machlup survey and this study, libraries were asked to indicate whether the data reported was on a calendar, academic, or fiscal year basis. Since this survey concerns itself largely with year-to-year changes rather than absolute numbers, the kind of reporting year used is not of great significance in the evaluation of the data recorded. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that S/6 of all academic libraries, and half of public and special libraries, use a July-June reporting year, which happens to coincide with the fiscal year in which the organization operates. Some public and special, but few academic libraries, compile budgets and statistics on a calendar year basis.

The libraries which responded to the questionnaire were asked to indicate whether their reporting year was calendar, academic, or fiscal. The response was:

Calendar ........................ 11.2% Academic ....................... 5.6% Fiscal .......................... 82.8%

Upon further analysis, it was found that the vast majority of libraries are using a July-June fiscal reporting year. This is true of 72% of the entire sample, 83% of the academic libraries, 50% of the public libraries, and 50% of the special libraries.

Median Percentage of Total Budget Allocation for Academic Libraries The 1969-73 survey had determined a steady shift (at a rate of about O.S%/year) of budget

dollars from the materials to the salary budget. While this trend can be seen to be continuing for the 1973-76 period, there are indications that the transfer rate is slowing, and may already have


TABLE 6 MEDIAN PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL BUDGET ALLOCATION

FOR ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

Strataa Year Material Salary Binding

Plant Operation

& Maintenanceb All OtherC

1001-2000 1976 30.32 59.77 1.88 0.07 1.96

(n=23) 1975 31.55 61.02 2.21 0.05 5.17

1974 33.12 59.40 2.13 0.04 5.31

1973 32.83 58.63 2.33 0.02 6.19

2001-5000 1976 35.08 56.89 1.99 0.01 6.03

(n=47) 1975 35.32 59.96 1.99 0.01 5.72

1974 35.78 56.67 2.26 0.01 5.28

1973 34.54 57.47 2.60 0.02 5.37

>5000 1976 29.42 61.03 2.49 0.01 7.05

(n=73) 1975 29.64 60.87 2.63 0.02 6.84

1974 30.56 60.08 2.76 0.01 6.59

1973 30.68 59.68 2.98 0.01 6.65

“Based on number of periodicals held.

bIncludes all responding libraries; most of the academic libraries (n=ll7) do not include plant operation and

maintenance in their budget.

‘Supplies, equipment, etc.

peaked (see Table 6). The two strate of smaller academic libraries report lower percentage allocations for salaries in 1976 than in 1975, and even for the largest group of academic libraries the

increase is very slight. Despite the increasing stability of the salary budget as a percentage of the total, allocations to

materials acquisition continue to drop for all strata of academic libraries, continuing a trend already evident for 1969-73. In part this is accounted for by increases in the “all other” category, which included supplies and miscellaneous equipment. While these expenses do not require a large share of the library’s budget, their rate of growth has been substantial, with their share of the library budget increasing by 29% for small, 12% for medium, and 6% for large academic libraries between 1973 and 1976. It was anticipated that budgetary pressures might require a decrease in binding expenditures, and this has in fact occurred in all strata of academic libraries. Some members of the Advisory Committee felt that in some instances binding might be included in other budget categories, and not separately identifiable. Others thought that reductions in acquisitions rates would directly affect binding. In any case, the amount of money spent on binding is not sufficient for such policy changes to have a significant impact on budget distributions as a whole.

As part of the effort to establish consistency with the questions posed in the Machlup survey, libraries were asked to indicate that portion of their budgets devoted to plant operation and maintenance. A later table will analyze the responses for those academic libraries which do budget and pay for such expenses. On an overall basis, the percentage of the library budget which goes to pay for these expense categories can be considered trivial, particularly since 82% of responding academic libraries indicated that their budgets were not charged at all for such expenses.


Materials and Budget Allocations

Academic Libraries. One of the most disturbing findings of the 1969-73 survey was the steady shift of academic library materials budget funds from the book to the serials budget. At the time the report was written, we suggested that this shift had to be halted during the years to follow, or acquisition of monographs could be crippled by unrealistic attempts to maintain serials subscriptions the library could no longer support. In response to the report and conference presentations of our findings, a number of academic librarians did in fact assure us that this shift had stopped.

Accurate as such statements may have been in the specific, they are not borne out by the findings of the current 1973-76 survey. As Table 7 indicates, academic libraries, regardless of stratum, have continued to transfer funds from the book to the serials budget. This shift is most pronounced among larger academic libraries, which already spend a greater portion of their materials budgets on serials than do smaller academic libraries. The stratum of largest academic libraries, which in 1969 spent two dollars on books for every dollar spent on serials, by 1976 spent $1.23 on serials for every dollar spent on books. Later statistics in this report show that these large academic libraries increased their materials budgets by 30.9% over the three budget increase periods 1973-76. When this is related to the information in the accompanying table, it indicates that book budgets increased only 7.1% over the three budget change period, assuring a continuing drop in the actual number of books purchased. During the same time period, the serials budgets increased 64.5%, indicating an attempt not only to renew existing subscriptions through an average annual increase in the serials budget of 18%, but also an attempt to add selected new ones. By contrast, the increase in the book budget averages to only 2.3% year.

Similar, although not as pronounced trends appear for smaller academic libraries, whose materials budgets are still more heavily oriented toward monographic materials, and for which the shifts

TABLE 7 MEDIAN PERCENTAGE OF MATERIALS BUDGET ALLOCATION

1973-1976

Strata Year

Academic Library Strataa

Books Serials Microformsb Other Materials

1001-2000 1976 60.03 35.83 2.89 (n=22) 1975 60.43 35.18 2.66

1974 59.47 35.48 3.35 1973 62.41 33.48 2.64

2001-5000 1976 48.97 45.54 3.36 2.13 (n=46) 1975 49.13 46.16 3.03 1.68

1974 51.58 42.68 4.11 1.63 1973 56.05 38.71 4.17 1.07

>sooo 1976 42.86 52.92 3.25 (n=67) 1975 44.62 49.49 4.78

1974 48.56 47.02 3.20 1973 52.38 42.06 4.59

1.25

1.73

1.70

1.47

0.97

1.11 1.22

0.97

aBased on number of periodicals held.

bMicroforms were included with other materials in the earlier study.


are not as dramatic. In the stratum of smallest academic libraries reporting in 1973, these libraries were spending $1.86 on books for every dollar spent on serials, and by 1976 it was still $1.68.

In order to assure consistency with the Machlup study, microforms, which had been included with “other materials” in the earlier study, are reported as a separate budget item. Although it might be assumed, particularly with reductions in binding, that the percentage of the budget used for microforms might be increasing, this does not appear to be the case except for the stratum of smallest academic libraries, who also place the smallest portion of their expenditures into microforms. Larger academic libraries show no consistent trends.

Public Libraries. As noted in the 1969-73 survey, public libraries spend a considerably greater proportion of their budget for salaries than do the other libraries. In addition public libraries also have greater relative plant operation and maintenance costs charged to their budgets, and also

incur higher expenditures for supplies and equipment. Because of all of this, public libraries spend only about l/6 of their budgets on the acquisition of materials, compared to a percentage about twice as great for academic and special libraries.

In the 1969-73 period public libraries, like academic libraries, were increasing their salary budgets at the expense of the materials budget. In the period covered by this study, this shift seems to have been halted (see Table 8). However, a new problem for the materials budget has arisen in the form of plant operations and maintenance expenditures, which include them in their budgets. Unlike academic libraries, most public libraries (75% of those in the survey) must allocate for these expenditures out of their general budgets. When combined with “other” expenses (largely supplies and equipment) the present survey shows that, for the stratum of smaller public libraries, these combined expenditures rose from 16.21% of the budget in 1973 to 18.37% in 1976. Larger public libraries, which spend a smaller portion of their budgets on plant operations and supplies (but which spend a greater percentage on salaries, leaving materials budgets approximately the same) saw their allocations rise to a lesser extent, from 12.07% in 1973 to 13.19% in 1976.


FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Strata” Year

lSO,OOO-300,000 1976

(n=28) 1975

1974

1973

> 300,000 1976 14.40 7 1.95 0.46 6.92 6.27 (n=36) 1975 15.70 71.82 0.46 5.99 6.03

1974 15.60 71.46 0.5 1 6.35 6.08 1973 15.73 71.61 0.59 6.19 5.88

Materials Salary Binding

Plant Operation

& Maintenanceb All OtherC

15.35 65.79 0.49 8.52 9.85

16.70 66.31 0.50 8.20 8.29

16.61 65.85 0.56 7.55 9.43

17.67 65.56 0.56 6.43 9.78

“Based on population served.

bIncludes all responding libraries; most of the public libraries (r1=48) include plant operation and maintenance

in their budget.

(Supplies, equipment. etc.


Public libraries, as noted in the earlier survey, spend a far greater proportion of their materials

budgets on books rather than serials than do academic (particularly large academic) libraries and special libraries. However, even for public libraries the shift of expenditures from the book to the serials budget is noticeable (see Table 9). Smaller public libraries have moved from books to serials by a ratio of 7.55: 1 in 1973 to 6.02: 1 in 1976. Large public libraries have shifted from 7.14:1 in 1973 to 6.19: 1 in 1976, a less dramatic shift. Microforms, measured for the first time as a separate category of materials expenditures in this survey, show a substantial overall increase, particularly in smaller public libraries, although there is considerable fluctuation on a year-to-year basis and the impact on the total materials budget is still small. When combined with other materials which are neither books nor serials, this category can be seen to claim a steadily increasing percentage of the library materials budget. For large public libraries, these expenditures, which include audio record-

ings, film strips, movies, slides, maps, charts, etc., exceeded 11% of the materials budget by 1976, representing a steady rise, and more than doubled since the 1969 expenditures reported in the earlier survey.

Special Libraries. Although there are year to year fluctuations, special libraries continue to be unique among reporting library groups in their ability to increase the percentage of their total budgets expended on materials acquisitions (see Table 10). They were able to do this by keeping the salary budget at a relatively steady proportion of the overall budget, and by decreasing such “miscellaneous” expenditures as binding, supplies, and equipment as a percentage of the whole. It may be that these libraries switched from specially ordered forms and equipment to those generally available within the parent organization, for which they may not be charged. Special libraries very rarely carry the burden of plant operation and maintenance costs in their budgets.

As already reported in the 1969-73 study and confirmed in this investigation, special libraries spend a far greater proportion of their materials budgets on serials than do academic and particularly public libraries (see Table 11). However, the trend toward the shifting of further materials dollars from the book to the serials budget, already pointed out for academic and public libraries, is evident for special libraries as well. In 1973 reporting special libraries were spending $2.23 on


1973-1976 PUBLIC LIBRARY STRATA

Strataa Year Books Serials

150,00~300,000 1976 77.89 12.94

(n=25) 1975 78.16 11.62 1974 80.14 10.89

1973 81.77 10.83

> 300,000 1976 76.36 12.34

(n=27) 1975 78.65 11.76

1974 77.18 12.18

1973 79.71 11.17

aBased on population served.

bMicroforms were included with other material in the earlier study.

Microformsb Other Materials

2.46 6.71

3.04 7.18 2.59 6.38

1.11 6.29

2.12 9.18

1.37 8.22

2.18 8.46

1.70 7.42



FOR SPECIAL LIBRARIES

Strataa

$50,000

(n=22)

Year Materials

1976 29.94 1975 27.98

1974 26.90 1973 26.24

Salary Binding

62.03 1.94 62.75 2.37

64.92 2.41 62.75 2.76

Plant Operation

& Maintenanceb

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.01

All Other”

6.07

6.88

5.74

8.24

aBased on serials budget.

btncludes all responding libraries; most of the special libraries (~15) do not include plant operation and

maintanance in their budgets.

CSupplies, equipment, etc


1973-1976

SPECIAL LIBMRY STRATA

Strataa Year Books Serials

xso,ooo 1976 24.50 69.87 (n=lY) 1975 27.27 67.23

1974 25.52 67.14 I973 30.00 66.99


‘M~~rofo~rns were included with other materials in the earlier study.

Mi~roformsb Other Materials

2.33 3.30 3.43 2.07

3.64 3.70

0.02 2.99

serials for every dollar spent on books. In 1976 it was $2.85 on serials for every dollar spent on books. The impact of microform purchase, measured in this survey as a separate budget item, shows violent fluctuations, based largely on the small number of special libraries reporting these expenditures as a separate materials budget category. However, to the extent it may be surmised that microfo~s would be used as a substitute for serials expenditures, such a conclusion is not warranted by our data, unless it were supposed that, without microform purchase, the shift from books to serials would be still more dramatic.

Later tabular data will show that special libraries fared considerably better than either academic or public libraries in their ability to increase materials budget expenditures between 1973 and 1976. During the three budget increase periods represented, the special libraries in this survey were able to increase their materials budgets by 43.94%. Because most of the expenditures are already being used for serials, shifts from the book to the serials budgets have a more dramatic impact on the former than on the latter. Because of the shifts reported, special Iibraries were able to increase their serials budgets by 50.1%. This translates into an annuat rate of 14.5%, perhaps sufficient or close to sufficient to absorb price increases but certainly not large enough to expand holdings.


Book increases over the period, by contrast, were only 17.6%, which represents an annual rate of 5.6%, not sufficient to maintain present levels of book acquisitions based on published reports of

book prices.

Plant Crperatiun and Maintenance. Earlier tabular data has already shown that expenditures for plant operation and ~intenance is a relatively minor expenditure in all types of libraries. How- ever, this is primar~y true because most reporting libraries are not required to budget for those expenditures at all. It was therefore considered useful to determine the impact of those expenditures specifically for those libraries which are required to include some of these costs in their budgets. Table 12 shows that even in this case the expenditures are minor for small academic and special libraries, presumably indicating that some portion, but not the main part, of such expendi-

tures are allocated to their budget. Large academic libraries which budget for plant operation and maintenance report a larger and growing percentage, probably involving such factors as custodial services and buil~ng maintenance staffed and paid for in the library. Public libraries show the greatest level of budget allocation for this budget category, and while the budgetary level has not yet reached IO%, it appears to be rising. If this is the case, some libraries, and in particular public libraries, may encounter yet another problem in their efforts to provide adequate staff and materials.

TABLE 12 MEDIAN EXPENDITURES FOR PLANT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCES FOR

THOSE LIBRARIES WHICH INCLUDE IT IN THEIR BUDGET

Strata

Academica

PubIicb

Year

1976 1975 1974 1973

Year

1001-2000 2001-5000 >sooo (n=3) (n= 12) (n=ll)

* 0.70 1.60 5.13 0.42 1.42 3.98 1.19 1.40 4.05 0.17 1.16 3.80

150,000-300,000 > 300,000 (n=25) (n=23)

1976 197.5 1974 1973

SpecialC Year

1976 1975 1974 1973


bBased on population served.

CBased on serials budget.

8.53 9.02 8.04 7.62 7.63 7.28 6.95 8.08

> $50,000 (n=7)

0.92 0.90 0.81 0.73


Budget Breakdown by Category-Median Percentage Increase Table 13 presents some interesting evidence of the changes made by library administrators in

distributing their budget increases. It was noted earlier that, for the 1969-73 study, academic libraries found it necessary to transfer allocations from the materials to the salary budget, with the result that salary budgets increased more rapidly than materials budgets. For the period 1973-76 this is true for only the stratum of smaller academic libraries, with larger academic libraries

increasingly holding back from spending salary dollars (our survey did not seek to determine whether these were salary increases for constant staff or additional positions) in order to protect the materials budget. The transfer of funds from the book to the serials budget, already mentioned in earlier commentary, is very much apparent for all groups of academic libraries, but parti~ulariy for large academic libraries. What may be surprising is that the increase in the microform budget is in no case sufficient to indicate any sort of shift from full size serials to microform acquisition. In fact, for the stratum of largest academic libraries, the increase in the microform budget is even smaller than the increase in the book budget. Supplies and equipment expenditures are growing at a rapid pace, and thereby undoubtedly eating into other budgetary allocations.

Members of the Advisory Committee from large academic libraries felt that these changes did not represent choices made by library administrators, but actions taken in response to faculty pressure and priorities.

Academic Libraries. Academic library statistics collected for this survey were compared to institu- tional budget increases at state supported academic institutions, as these were reported in the Chronicle of Nigher Education. Only information for the period 1974-76, representing two budget increases, was available. This indicates that, except for the smallest category of academic libraries, libraries did not do as well as the institution as a whole in the allocation of budgetary increases. For state supported institutions the college or university budget rose (see Table 14), during the

TABLE 13 ACADEMIC LIBRARIES BUDGET BREAKDOWN BY CATEGORY

MEDIAN PERCENTAGE INCREASE 1973-1976

Strataa

Plant Opera-

Total Mate- Micro- tion & Ail

Budget Salary rials Books Serials forms Other Binding Maintenanceb OtherC

1001-2000 23.77 26.03 17.37 15.05 35.37 22.20 -.24 4.95 4.98 60.05

(r-2=23)

2001-5000 28.25 27.84 28.45 14.86 44.32 25.00 -.08 10.68 0.34 52.57

(n=47)

>5000 29.44 26.35 30.90 9.03 46.51 6.91 35.30 6.61 0.09 49.52

(n=73)


bIncludes all responding libraries; most of the academic libraries (~117) do not include plant operation and

maintenance in their budget.

CSuppIies, equipment, etc.


TABLE 14 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF

EXPENDITURES INCREASES FOR

1974-1976

Strata” Library n Total n

1001-2000 30.6 8 18.7 4 2001-5000 20.5 28 24.1 26 >5000 18.0 52 20.9 56 All 19.9 88 21.8 86


period 1974-76, by 10.4%/year (n=86), while the library budget rose only by 9S%/year (n=88). Larger academic libraries are increasing their budgets at a slower percentage rate than smaller ones, although in terms of dollars their expenditure growth is obviously greater. To the extent to which salary increases may represent campus-wide policies applied both to library and academic staff, the impact of this budget growth discrepancy may be expected to be particularly heavy for library materials budgets, ~thou~ late statistics do not appear to indicate this.

Public Libraries. For public libraries, unlike academic libraries, the shift of funds from the materials to the salary budget, noted for 1969-73 for both academic and public libraries, is continuing. Although public libraries spend considerably less of materials budgets for serials than books, the general trend to protect or improve the serials collection at the expense of the book budget is evident (see Table 15). Large public libraries report substantial increases in their microforms

TABLE 15 PUBLIC LIBRARIES BUDGET BREAKDOWN BY CATEGORY

MEDIAN PERCENTAGE INCREASE

1973-1976

Strataa

150,OO~ 300,000 (n=30)

Total Budget

32.33

Salary

31.82

Plant Opera- Mate- Micro- tion & All rials Books Serials forms Other Binding Maintenanceb OtherC

<:f’

23.90 25.55 42.45 5.45 27.5 1 -.lO 48.84 25.78

> 300,000 27.63 30.82 16.50 15.20 30.04 63.50 44.11 -2.12 11.64 35.53


bIncludes all responding libraries; most of the public libraries (~48) include plant operation and maintenance in their budget.

CSuppIies, equipment, etc.


TABLE 16 SPECIAL LIBRARIES BUDGET BREAKDOWN BY CATEGORY

MEDIAN PERCENTAGE INCREASE 1973-1976

Plant Opera-

Total Mate- Micro- tion & All

Strataa Budget Salary rials Books Serials forms Other Binding Maintenanceb Otherc

> $50,000 29.66 28.93 43.94 35.24 53.41 -40.17 0.24 8.71 1.32 40.49

(n=22)

“Based on serials budget.

bIncludes all responding libraries; most of the special libraries (n=15) do not include plant operation and maintenance in their budgets.

CSupplies, equipment, etc.

budgets, and both strata are cutting back from previous levels of binding, an action which may be related to the microform activity.

Special Libraries. Special libraries, which even for 1969-73 did not evidence the general trend of shifting funds from the materials to the salary budget, in fact indicate an ability for 1973-76 to improve the materials budget by holding salary increases to below 9%/year (as stated earlier we did not determine to what extent salary increases represent raises for constant staff or changes in the number of positions), which in turn permitted an annual materials budget increase of about 12.9%/year. Along with other types of libraries, special libraries are reporting greater increases in the serials than in the book budget (see Table 16). However, unlike major academic libraries, special libraries show reasonable growth in the book budget, although it must be remembered that these book budgets represent a smaller portion of the materials budgets than for other kinds of libraries. The decrease in expenditures for microforms may be accounted for by major outlays for retrospective microform materials acquisition on a one-time basis. Since microforms were not reported separately in the 1969-73 survey, this cannot be determined. As is true for other libraries, there is some slackening off in binding activity, since the reported rate of increase for binding expenditures would not be sufficient to cover normal inflationary cost increases.

Plant Operating and Maintenance Expenditures. As already reported, most libraries do not budget for plant operating and maintenance expenditures, and these costs therefore do not appear as significant for the overall sampling of libraries. Those libraries which do pay for these categories from their budgets report increases which are somewhat larger, in virtually all cases, than the increase in their budgets as a whole, but not with enough variation as to point to any major fund allocation shifts (see Table 17).

Median Ratio of Book Expenditures to Serial Expenditures

Table 18 clearly indicates the shift in materials expenditures from books to serials. Regardless of starting point, and on an annual basis without pause, this shift is taking place in all kinds of libraries, regardless of size.


TABLE 17

MEDIAN PERCENT INCREASE IN PLANT OPERATING

AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES FOR THOSE

LIBRARIES WHICH INCLUDE IT IN THEIR BUDGET,

1973-1976

1001-2000

(n=3)

Strata

2001-5000

(n=12) >sooo

(n=ll)

Academica 54.82 22.08 43.34

Publicb

150,000-300,000 > 300,000

(n=25) (n-23)

51.22 43.49

SpecialC

> $50,000 (n=7)

53.73




TABLE 18

MATERIALS EXPENDITURES FROM

BOOKS TO SERIALS 1973-1976

strata 1973 1974 1975 1976

Academica

1001-2000 1.89 1.70 1.72 1.68 (n=22)

2001-5000 1.42 1.24 1.13 1.07 (n=45)

>sooo (n=63)

150,001-300,000 (n=24)

1.25

7.32

1.07 0.88

Publicb

7.00 6.73

0.83

5.54

>_300,000 (n=24)

7.35 7.28 7.27

SpecialC

6.52

> $50,000 0.47 0.38 0.38 0.36 (n=19)



‘Based on serials budget.


EFFECT OF BUDGET REALLOCATION ON PERIODICAL HOLDINGS

Monographic Series as Serials A recent article in Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory discusses the lack of proper

terminology in questionnaires when dealing with serials, continuations, and monographic series.* The author states, “Many a non-librarian researcher, in utter innocence and blissful ignorance, has unwittingly entered this minefield; accordingly, many tabulations and various ~conclusions’ have been damaged and rendered invalid by the resultant explosions.”

Our questionnaire provided an opportunity for the library to check whether or not it included monographic series as serials. Questionnaires which had both boxes checked or which indicated that monographic series were sometimes included as serials were coded as a “yes” answers. How a library categorizes its monographic series for purposes of budgeting materials expenditures could presumably have an effect on the allocation of funds.

An analysis was made to determine the percentage increases in the amounts spent on various categories of materials from 1973 to 1976. A comparison of the mean percentage increase in Materials Expenditures for Books and Total Serials since 1973 revealed no significant difference between the groups based on how they answered the question “Do you include monographic series

as serials?”

Inclusion of Monographic Series as Serials. There is a significant difference between the types of libraries as to whether or not monographic series are included as serials (see Table 19). Few public libraries (19%) include them as serials, but 50% of the special libraries and 59% of the academic libraries did include monographic series as serials.

Able to Separate Periodical Titles from Total Serials There is a significant difference between the types of libraries as to whether or not periodicals

can be separated from total serials (see Table 20). Over two-thirds of both public and academic libraries are able to separate them, but only 36.4% of special libraries are able to do so.

TABLE 19 MONOGRAPH SERIES INCLUDED AS SERIALS*

Response o/o

Type of Library Yes NO No Answer

Academic 59.4 35.0 5.6

Public 19.1 69.1 11.8

Special 50.0 45.5 4.5

X2 = 30.43, p < .OS, 4df, Sig = .OOO.

*Paul, Huibert. “Library Statistics, Questionnaires, and the Machlup Study,” Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory 1 (Spring, 1977): 95-101.


TABLE 20 SEPARATION OF PERIODICALS

FROM TOTAL SERIALS*

Response %

Type of Library Yes No

Academic 13.4 26.6

Public 61.6 32.4

Special 36.4 63.6

*X2 = 12.10, p <-OS, 2df, Sig = .002.

Median Ratio of New Periodical Subscriptions to Total Periodical Subscriptions Table 21 measures the reported ability of libraries to make additions to their periodical hold-

ings, although it does not differentiate whether these funds come from new or transferred bud- geted dollars, or from the cancellation of existing subscriptions. Smaller academic libraries are

TABLE 2 1 MEDIAN RATIO OF NEW PERIODICAL

SUBSCRIPTIONS TO TOTAL PERIODICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS (INCLUDES DUPLICATES)

1973-1976

Strata % 1973 % 1974 % 1975 % 1976

Academica

1001-2000 2.40 2.27 3.19 3.17

(n=13)

2001-5000 4.19 4.34 3.50 3.70 (n=9)

>sooo (n=38)

150,001-300,000 (n=lO)

5.14

5.66

4.58 4.42

Publicb

4.16 4.18

3.62

1.80

> 300,000

(n=9) 3.83 4.79 5.33

SpecialC

4.27

> $50,000 2.79 3.56 2.04 2.61 (n=12)





increasing the rate at which they are adding new titles, perhaps because many of them have long-standing perceived gaps they are trying to close. Larger academic libraries, by contrast report steadily decreasing ratios for new periodical subscriptions. Although estimates of the growth of the literature vary, our own projections would indicate that these large academic libraries are still able to stay slightly ahead of the growth of the literature (in part through cancellation of existing subscriptions) but that they are adding little beyond the newly emerging titles in their own fields.

In the public library sector sharp differentiations occur. Smaller public libraries show a sharp decrease in their addition of new titles, while larger public libraries show a relatively high level, generally above that of any other reporting library group. The ratio of new periodical subscriptions reported for special libraries is surprisingly low, particularly when it is remembered that special libraries are considered more likely to have the flexibility and need to respond to shifts in emphases among their user groups.

Median Ratio of Periodical Cancellations to Total Periodical Holdings

Later tabular data analyzes what periodicals are being cancelled by libraries (scholarly or trade

journals, foreign or domestic, duplicates or single copies). Table 22 reports only the percentage of

TABLE 22 MEDIAN RATIO OF PERIODICAL

CANCELLATIONS TO TOTAL PERIODICAL HOLDINGS (INCLUDING DUPLICATES)

1973-1976

Strata

1001-2000

(n=ll)

% 1973 ‘% 1974 % 1975 o/o 1976

Academica

2.20 0.85 1.55 2.94

2001-5000 0.73 1.60 1.19 1.40

(n=23)

>5000

(n=28)

150,000-300,000

(n=7)

1.08

1.91

1.12 0.96

Publicb

2.33 3.60

1.61

3.00

> 300,000 (n=7)

> $50,000

(n=8)

1.30

0.43

0.85 1.35

Special”

1.47 1.06

1.83

0.90





cancellation as related to total periodical holdings, to obtain a measure of review and evaluation. It is easier in libraries to simply renew subscriptions, and any decision to cancel reflects not only the possibility of budgetary pressures, but also the existence of review procedures. It is always simpler

to forego adding a new subscription than to cancel an existing one. Cancellation rates in academic libraries show fluctuating, but generally upward, trends. Larger

academic libraries tend to be less active in cancellations than smaller ones, perhaps because of the continued emphasis on keeping collection runs. Earlier data has already reported various tactics for attempting to protect the serials budget. Public libraries, which among library types have the smallest emphasis of their materials budgets on serials, are more willing than other groups to cancel existing subscriptions. We surmise that the operative word is willing rather than required, because there is no evidence that serials budgetary pressures are greater for this group of libraries. Special libraries show the lowest cancellation rates of all, a surprising development, particularly when related to the low rate of new title additions. This static condition and conservatism were un- expected for special libraries, and reverses data from the 1969-73 study which found special libraries the most active in both cancelling and adding. It is possible that these libraries did their “housekeeping” earlier than either academic or public libraries, and are therefore now in a more stabilized state.

Median Ratio of Periodical Subscriptions Added to Periodical Subscriptions Cancelled Table 23 compares reported subscription additions and cancellations already reported in the

earlier tables. All library groups report that they are adding subscriptions more rapidly than they are cancelling them, but the increase is particularly slight for small academic libraries and for public libraries (which, as reported earlier, indicate the greater willingness to cancel). Projections of the growth of the literature vary, but even if our conservative projection (from the earlier NSF study) of a new increase of 2% in the scholarly and research literature is taken as a yardstick, then to the extent the overall rates of growth also reflect the growth in scholarly journals, only special libraries are keeping pace with the growth of the literature, and maintaining equivalent collections. However, even this conclusion must be stated cautiously, because it is probable that at least some libraries are ~inta~ing a better than 2% net growth in number of titles, through the cancellation of duplicate subscriptions. In doing this, of course, they would be incurring the potential of other problems, particularly in information service access to the collection.

Median Percentage Increase in Net Number of Periodical Subscriptions The data reported in Table 24 differs somewhat from that derived through the analysis of

reported specific additions and cancellations, because a substantially larger number of libraries were able to report net subscriptions on an annual basis than were able to identify either specific growth or retraction. This points to the “soft” nature in dealing with some of the statistics reported by responding libraries, a problem already addressed in the comparison of 1973 data reported as part of the 1969-74 study, and of 1973 data reported as part of this 1973-76 effort. Many libraries supplied some but not all of the information requested, and therefore the ratios are based on different n’s, which can and does lead to different results.

Net periodical subscriptions numbers reported by this larger group of responding libraries shows different statistics, although it must be remembered that this table reports net growth over a three increase period. On an annual basis, the net growth would be below 2% for all but large public libraries, and closer to 1.4%/year for large academic and special libraries.


TABLE 23 MEDIAN RATIO OF PERIODICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS TO PERIODICAL

SUBSCRIPTIONS CANCELLED

Strata

1001-2000

(n=l3)

% 1973 % 1974 % 1975 o/o 1976

Academic”

0.67 0.19 1.02 0.87

2001-5000 2.87 1.40 1.81 1.70

(n=30)

>sooo (n-38)

2.58 2.31 1.56

Publicb

1.65

150.000-300.000 1.54 1.52 0.52 0.43

(n= 10)

> 300,000

(n=9)

> $50,000

(n=l2)

1.48

2.59

1.22 2.77

Special”

1.96 2.08

0.93

2.68



cBased on serials budget.

TABLE 24 MEDIAN PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN NET

NUMBER OF PERIODICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS 1973-1976

Type of Library strata

Academic” 1001-2000 2001-5000 > 5000

(r1=19) (n=37) (fz=56)

1.10 4.16 4.38

Publicb 150.000-300,000 > 300,000

(ri=l8) (,1=2lj

5.13 9.72

Special” > $50.000

(11=13)

4.17

“Based on number of periodicals held

bBawd on population served.

cBased on serials budget.


TABLE 25

MEDIAN PERCENTAGE NET INCREASE BY NUMBER OF PERIODICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS, BY YEAR

1973-1976

Strata

Academic”

1001-2000 2001-5000 > 5000

Year (n=19) (r1=37) (n=56)

1975-16 0 1.07 1.17

1974-75 1.31 0.85 1.14

1973-74 0.67 1.12 2.02

Publicb Year

150,000-3000 > 300,000

(n=18) (n=21)

1975-76 1.15 0.84

1974-7s 0.47 4.09

1973-74 6.15 8.58

Special”

1975-76

1914-7s

1973-74




> $50,000 (n=13)

0.75

0.71

1.63

Table 25, which examines this net increase on an annual basis, reports substantial fluctuations, but also a general deterioration from the early years to the survey to the latest, for all types of libraries. If the 1975-76 reporting period is used as the basis of future projection, such projections for later net increases in periodical subscriptions become quite bleak.

Median Percentage Duplication of Periodical Subscriptions In the 1969-73 survey, cancellation of duplicate subscriptions emerged as the most popular

approach to the problem of required cancellation, despite the concerns which a number of access studies would raise about the desirability of such action. The present 1973-76 data (see Table 26) indicate a continuation of this trend for certain library groups. Small academic libraries had, and continue to have, a miniscule percentage duplication, and this affords little opportunity for further reduction. Reduction of duplicate subscriptions in the middle stratum of academic libraries continued at a startling rate, and in 1976 these libraries had only l/3 as many duplicate subscriptions as they had in 1973. For large academic libraries, which cancelled duplicates heavily in the 1969-73 period, no clear trend emerges, in that 1976 reports an increase from what had been, until that time, a steady decline. It cannot be determined from this data whether this represents only an aberration, or the start of a reversal. Public libraries which, particularly because of branches, have by far the greatest percentage of duplication, continued present ratios with only a slight decrease in smaller public libraries, and no particular change in large ones. Special libraries report patterns


TABLE 26 MEDIAN PERCENTAGE DUPLICATION OF

PERIODICAL SUBSCRIPTIONS

Academic” Year

1976

1975

1974

1973

strata 1001-2000 2001-5000 > 5000

(n=lS) (n=28) @=27)

0.03 0.68 2.98

0.03 0.83 2.64 0.01 1.06 2.81

0.03 2.02 3.25

Publicb

Special”

Year

1976

1975

1974

1973

Year

150,000-3000,000 > 300,000

(!?=I I) (II= 18)

39.02 49.93

40.61 49.54

41.36 46.79

41.79 49.91

> $50,000

(11=10)

1976

1975

1974

1973




2.67

4.43

4.53

4.21

almost the reverse of large academic libraries, although the small number of libraries responding to this question makes the usefulness of the data somewhat dubious. The 10 special libraries which were able to supply information in response to this question indicate a fairly level percentage of duplication from 1973 through 1975, with a steep drop in 1976.

Median Percentage of Periodical Holdings and Cancellations by Type of Pe~odic~l and t ibraty ( 19 76)

A method of randomly sampling a library’s periodical collection was devised in order to determine its profile. Beginning at seven different points of the alphabet, the library was asked to indicate the next ten titles which are currently being received, resulting in a sample of seventy titles. This profile list was then broken down by type of periodical-abstracting and indexing tool, domestic scholarly and research, other domestic, foreign scholarly and research, and other foreign.

The responding libraries were also asked to attach a list of all periodical subscriptions cancelled during the past year (i.e., 1976). This list too was broken down by type of periodical, and a comparison of the two lists was made, using only the libraries which provided both lists (see Table 27).

As academic libraries became larger, the percentage of domestic holdings, both scholarly and nonscholarly, and the percentage of abstracting and indexing tools decreases as the percent of


TABLE 27 MEDIAN PERCENTAGE OF PERIODICAL HOLDINGS AND CANCELLATIONS BY

TYPE OF PERIODICAL AND LIBRARY

Tvue of Periodical

Strata

Abstracting

and

Indexing

Domestic”

Scholarly

Research

Other

Domestic

Foreigd

Scholarly

Research

Other

Foreign

Academicb

1001-2000 Held 9.95

(n= 12) Cancelled 4.44

2001-5000 Held 4.29

(n=27) Cancelled 1.40

>5000 Held 2.77

(n=34) Cancelled 1.79

30.67 45.92 5.06 8.40

19.64 43.66 6.77 25.49

28.57 44.28 8.10 14.76

17.91 39.33 16.35 25.01

14.11 37.33 7.05 38.74

11.79 31.08 11.83 43.51

Publicc

150,000-300,000 Held 0.06 22.64 74.46 1.42 1.42

(n= 15) Cancelled 0.03 22.60 67.39 3.53 6.45

> 300,000 Held 1.43 15.77 74.59 2.91 5.30

(n=13) Cancelled 0.79 11.11 83.62 3.59 0.89

Speciald

> $50,000 Held 2.86 17.14 32.86 12.86 34.28

(n=ll) Cancelled 4.23 21.97 35.10 12.86 25.84

aSee pp. 213-214 for explanation of scholarly and research journals.

bBased on number of periodicals held.

‘Based on population served.

dBased on serials budget.

foreign holdings increases. Cancellations occur primarily among domestic and foreign non- scholarly journals for all strata.

The holdings of the two strata of public libraries are fairly similar, with a concentration of non-scholarly domestic journals, but the larger public libraries have fewer domestic scholarly

journals and more foreign journals than do the smaller libraries. The cancellation lists, too, are comparable, with both strata cancelling mostly domestic journals, but the smaller libraries cancelling foreign journals at a rate that is considerably higher than might be expected from their holdings.

The special libraries in the sample exhibit holdings characteristics similar to those of the large academic libraries. Their cancellations lists are different, though, in that the special libraries are cancelling foreign journals at about the same percentage as their holdings, rather than at a greater rate. The majority of the special library cancellations are occurring among domestic holdings and abstracting and indexing tools.

Perceptions of the Price of Foreign Journals as Compared to Domestic Journals Although there is clear evidence, some of it in this study, that both greater rates of inflation in

the country of publication and evaluation of the U.S. dollar are causing foreign scholarly and

188 BERNARD M. l:RY and HERBERT S. WHITE

TABLE 28 PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRICE OF FOREIGN JOURNALS

AS COMPARED TO DOMESTIC JOURNALS (PERCENTAGE RESPONDING)a

Academic Libraries b Increasing at

Greater Rate About the Same

Increasing at Smaller Rate No Answer

1001-2000 39.1 34.8 21.7 4.3

2001-5000 31.9 42.6 12.8 12.8

>sooo 50.7 17.8 6.8 24.1

Public Libraries”

150,000-300,000

> 300,000

All Librariesd

10.0 46.7 3.3 40.0

18.4 26.3 7.9 47.4

Academic 42.7 28.7 Il.2 17.5

Public 14.7 35.3 5.9 44.1

Special 77.3 9.1 4.5 9.1

‘Lp<.os. bBased on number of periodicals held (X2 = 17.54.6df. Sig = ,008)

‘Based on population served (X2 = 3.57, 3df. Sig = .3 1 I ).

dX2 = 41.23, 6df, Sig = .OOO.

research journals to increase in price at a substantially more rapid rate than U.S. scholarly journals, this perception is not universally shared by responding libraries (see Table 28). This may be in part because of specific periodical mixes in the libraries themselves, or because of a lack of familiarity with specific pricing patterns. It is interesting that large academic and special libraries, most heavily involved with foreign scholarly journals, were more apt to sense a greater rate of price increase. For special libraries, 85% of those which responded felt that foreign journals were increasing in price at a more rapid rate. For large academic libraries, it was over 67%. By contrast, in no other stratum did as much as 50% of the respondents have this perception, and almost half of public libraries did not answer the question, probably because their contact with foreign journals is only slight.

Perceptions of the Proportion oj' Foreign Periodical Holdings in the Library’s Collection

Only in public libraries, which have relatively few journals as part of their materials budget to begin with, is there a perception by more libraries that the percentage of foreign periodicals as related to overall holdings is increasing, and even there half of the libraries which responded to the question indicated that they perceived no change (see Table 29). In academic libraries, those who perceived a decrease outnumbered those who perceived an increase by better than 9 to 1 and 3 to 1 for the smallest and middle sized libraries, although about half of those responding perceived no change. Only in the largest libraries did a more sizable percentage perceive a decrease than no change, but for these large academic libraries a larger percentage also perceived an increase.

A similar pattern emerges in the report of special libraries, more than half of which believe that


TABLE 29

PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROPORTION OF FOREIGN PERIODICAL HOLDINGS IN THE LIBRARY’S COLLECTION

(PERCENTAGE RESPONDING)

Type of Library” Increased Stayed the Same Decreased No Answer

Academic 9.1 Public 20.6 Special 18.2

Stratum 1 4.4 ~tKttUln 2 8.5 Stratum 3 11.0

40.6 34.3 16.1 50.0 8.8 20.6 13.6 54.5 13.6

Academic Librariesb

52.2 39.1 4.3 46.8 21.1 17.0 32.9 37.0 19.2

Public Libraries”

Stratum 1 13.3 50.0 10.0 26.1 Stratum 2 26.3 50.0 7.9 15.8

aX2 = 27.12, 6df, Sig = .OOOl.

bBased on number of periodicals held (X2 = 6.49, 6df, Sig = .370).

“Based on population served (X2 = 2.42, 3df, Sig = .490).

the percentage of foreign periodicals in their collections is decreasing, while a group much larger than in academic libraries also perceives an increase. Special libraries, in any case, see some sort of shift taking place.

LIBRARY ACTIVITIES TO COUNTER ECONOMIC PRESSURES

Libraries Experiencing Budget Pressure Last Year Serious Enough to Make it Difficult to Maintain Current Periodicals List

This question (see Table 30) measured respondent perceptions and opinions. Later comparisons relate these to actions already taken. Academic libraries feel the greatest difficulty in maintaining current periodicals lists, with large academic libraries affirming this as a problem by a ratio of better than 3: 1. Only half of the responding public libraries do not have major serials expenditure problem. It is perhaps surprising that better than half of the responding special libraries report that

they have not experienced difficulty in retaining those things they wish to retain, although special libraries do expend a substantial portion of their materials budgets for serials.

Libraries Experiencing Budget Pressures Serious Enough to Make It Difficult to Add Even Highly Valued New Subscriptions

Responses to this question (see Table 31), which also measured perceptions and opinions, were similar to those regarding the difficulty in maintaining subscriptions, and these perceptions are also compared in later tables to actual practices reported. As with the maintenance of subscriptions, academic libraries report the greatest difficulty in adding highly valued new subscriptions, with large academic libraries in particular reporting this difficulty, but by a somewhat smaller ratio of


TABLE 30

LIBRARIES EXPERIENCING BUDGET PRESSURES

LAST YEAR SERIOUS ENOUGH TO MAKE IT

DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN CURRENT PERIODICALS LIST (PERCENTAGES)a

Academic Libraries b

Yes No No Answer

1000-2000 65.2 34.8 0. 2001-5000 59.6 36.2 4.2

> 5000 69.9 20.5 9.6

Public Librarie8

150,000-300,000

> 300,000

53.3

39.5 43.3

50.0

All Librariesd

3.3

10.5

Academic 65.1 28.0 6.3 Public 45.6 47.1 7.4

Special 40.9 54.5 4.5

ap < .05.

bBased on number of periodicals held (X2 = 6.43, 4df, Sig =

.169).

“Based on population served (X2 = 2.04, 2df, Sig = .360).

dX2 = 11.59, 4df,Sig = .021.

TABLE 3 1 LIBRARIES EXPERIENCING BUDGET PRESSURES

LAST YEAR SERIOUS ENOUGH TO MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO ADD EVEN HIGIILY VALUED

NEW SUBSCRIPTIONS (PERCENTAGES)a

Academic Librariesb

Yes No No Answer

1000-2000 69.6 30.4 0. 2001-5000 59.6 36.2 4.3 >5000 56.2 31.5 12.3

150,[email protected]

> 300,000

Public Libraries’

53.3 43.3 3.3

34.2 50.0 15.x

All Librariesd

Academic 59.4 32.9 1.7

Public 42.6 47.1 10.3 Special 36.4 59.1 4.5

ap c.05.

bBased on number of periodicals held (X2 = 5.30, 4df, Sig = .25X).

‘Based on population served (X2 = 4.12, 2df. Slg = .127).

dX2 = 9.16, 4df, Sig = ,057.


less than 2: 1. Public libraries, as with the previous question, divide almost evenly, while special libraries, again consistent with the earlier response, report difficulty in being able to add valued subscriptions in considerably less than half of the responses.

Actions Taken to Alleviate Budget Pressures

Academic Libraries. In the earlier survey, libraries reported that as of 1973, the cancellation of duplicate subscriptions was the most common action taken to relieve budget pressures. This is still an active choice, particularly among larger academic libraries which still have some duplicates to cancel. To an increasing extent, however, all strata report the cancellation of only subscriptions, and in fact report this action to a greater extent than the decision to add fewer new periodicals, indicating that a much tougher evaluation of existing subscriptions is taking place. If those report-

ing the adding of no new subscriptions were added to those reporting fewer subscriptions, this would emerge as the most popular category but, since multiple responses were possible, it is probable that many libraries which indicate that they purchased no new titles also reported adding fewer. Although the percentage reporting this action is small, it is surprising that any major academic library (Stratum 3) can adopt a policy of adding no new subscriptions whatsoever.

The practice of shifting funds from other budgets to the periodicals budget, already shown from other tabular data, is reported in Table 32 as well. More than half of academic libraries (two-thirds of the largest) shifted funds from the book to the periodicals budget. A fairly sizable group saved money on binding, but the savings realized in this shift cannot be significant, from the budget allocations reported earlier. It is interesting that very few libraries shifted funds from the salary to the periodicals budget although, of course, the salary budget is larger than all other budget expenditures combined. Members of the Advisory Committee pointed out that, in many instances, such shifts from the salary budget would not be permitted by the Administrator.

About one-eighth of the responding libraries indicated taking no action to alleviate budget pressures. It can perhaps be surmised that these libraries did not suffer or were not aware of pressures which impacted their decision processes.

Although large academic libraries report some incidence of purchasing microforms in lieu of original subscriptions, the practice is often prohibited by the publisher, The more commonly reported activity is the purchase of microforms in lieu of binding. Although this will certainly save space for the library, it is not at all certain that it will save money. This depends, of course, on the cost of the microform, since the cost of binding is usually, within fairly well predictable limits.

Public Libraries. It is perhaps most interesting that no responding public libraries chose to shift dollars from the salary to the materials budget, despite the fact that salaries are known to represent a greater proportion of the public library’s budget than of any other library group (see Table 33). The dropping of multiple copies is still the most frequently reported tactic, which is not surprising since public libraries have a greater incidence of multiple subscriptions. Other substantial groups reported the dropping of only subscriptions and the placement of fewer subscriptions, but in all cases the percentage of libraries reporting such actions are less than half of those from academic library groups. Similarly, a far smaller percentage reported the shifting of funds from the book to the periodicals budget. Since periodicals expenditures in public libraries are relatively small on a percentage basis, maintaining those subscriptions represents an equivalently smaller problem.


TABLE 32 ACTIONS TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE BUDGET PRESSURE, 1976-

ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

Strataa

1001-2000 2001-5000 > 5000

fn=23) (n=471 In=731

Dropped duplicate subscriptions to: Periodicals

Newspapers

Indexing/abstracting services

Dropped the only subscription to:

Periodicals

Newspapers


Added fewer new subscriptions to: Periodicals

Newspapers


Added no new subscriptions to: Periodicals

Newspapers


Purchased microform of periodical in lieu of:

Original

Binding

Reallocated budget to periodicals at the expense of: Books

Binding

Supplies/equipment

Salaries

Other

Other actions taken:

No action taken:

Percentagesb

26.1 34.0

4.3 0.

0. 2.1

78.3 46.8

26.1 10.6

39.1 14.9

60.9 42.6

8.1 17.0

21.7 27.7

13.0 14.9

52.2 25.5

34.8 12.8

4.3 8.5

43.5 34.0

56.5 57.4

21.7 8.5

8.7 6.4

0. 6.4

4.3 2.1

17.3 14.9

8.7 14.9

69.9

17.8

34.2

68.5

30.1

24.7

64.4

50.7

42.5

2.7

26.0

6.8

12.3

26.0

67.1

21.9

4.1

5.5

6.8

21.9

12.3

aBased on periodicals held.

bPercentages are not additive because multiple responses were possible.

Impact of Economic Pressures on American Libraries

TABLE 33 ACTIONS TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE BUDGET PRESSURES, 1976-

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Strataa

150,000-300,000 > 300,000 (w30) (n=32)

Percentagesb

Dropped duplicate subscriptions to: Periodicals 40.0 39.5 Newspapers 3.3 13.2 Indexing/abstracting services 10.0 7.9

Dropped the only subscription to: Periodicals 36.7 31.6 Newspapers 6.7 7.9 indexing/abstracting services 3.3 13.2

Added fewer new subscriptions to: Periodicals 40.0 31.6 Newspapers 23.3 23.1 Indexing/abstracting services 20.0 23.7

Added no new subscriptions to: Periodicah 10.0 0. Newspapers 26.7 0. indexing/abstracting 13.3 7.9

Purchased microform of periodical in lieu of: Original 6.7 5.3 Binding 30.0 28.9

Reallocated budget to periodical at the expense ofz Books 23.3 21.1 Binding 0. 7.9 Supplies/equipment 6.7 0. Salaries 0. 0. Other 0. 2.6

Other action taken: 6.7 18.5

No action taken: 20.0 26.3



193


TABLE 34 ACTIONS TAKEN TO ALLEVIATE BUDGET PRESSURES,

1976-SPECIAL LIBRARIES

Strataa

> $50,000

(n=22)

Percentages b

Dropped duplicate subscriptions to:

Periodicals 31.8 Newspapers 0. Indexing/abstracting services 4.5

Dropped the only subscription to:

Periodicals 45.5 Newspapers 9.1 Indexing/abstracting services 13.6

Added fewer new subscriptions to:

Periodicals 40.9 Newspapers 0. Indexing/abstracting services 18.2

Purchased microfilm of periodical in lieu of:

Original 4.5 Binding 4.5

Reallocated budget to periodicals at the expense of:

Rooks 21.3 Binding 31.8 Supplies/equipment 0. Salaries 4.5 Other 4.5

Other actions taken: 13.6

No actions taken: 21.3



Special Libraries. Since special libraries are already known to spend a greater percentage of their budgets on periodicals than any other reporting group, their reported actions in the face of budget pressures are of particular interest (see Table 34). For this group, the dropping of duplicate subscriptions ranks a definite third choice behind the dropping of only subscriptions and the placing of fewer new subscriptions. The high ranking of the dropping of only subscriptions might be attributed to the process of continuing reevaluation which, according to the earlier study, is carried to a greater extent in special than in academic libraries. However, the fact that these libraries also heavily report, in this response, the adding of fewer new subscriptions (which is not perceived of as being as evaluative a process), it is more likely that the special library, which does not have many duplicate subscriptions to start with, probably had few left to cancel after the earlier years of budget pressure.

Special libraries, like academic libraries, report a shifting of book funds to the purchase of periodicals, although not to as great an extent. These libraries, to an even greater extent than academic libraries, report a reduction ‘in binding expenditures, but we know from other data that neither these expenditures nor any resulting shifts from them can be particularly significant


monetarily. The use of microform is not a very significant tactic here, as in other library groups, in

lieu of full size purchase.

Incidence and Analysis of Cost-Effective Measures Reported

Academic Libraries. Virtually all libraries report having done at least something to try to improve cost effectiveness during the past three years. It is perhaps surprising that they did not report more activity (see Table 35 and Table 36). Better than half of the smallest libraries and over 44% of the largest libraries report at most one such measure, and only about one-third of the medium and largest of academic libraries report more than two. As in the earlier survey, cooperative cataloging arrangements far outdistance any other measures, but it is interesting to note that, in this survey, small academic libraries report far greater incidence of this activity than larger ones. Cataloging also serves at the focus for reported cost effective measures in the areas of automation and of management. However, in the automation area the most frequently reported cost measure was the installation of exit controls, presumably because such controls, by curtailing theft, also reduce replacement costs.

Reliance on purchased services is reported only by the middle size libraries and not at all by either small or large academic libraries. Such services are not a significant factor in academic libraries, for which budgetary ceilings do not normally translate into manpower ceilings, and for which relatively cheap student and student/faculty spouse labor is plentiful.

TABLE 35 INCIDENCE OF COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES

REPORTED AS TAKEN BY ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

strata*

Number of Measures Reported

% ‘j: ‘1

1001-2000 2001-5000 >sooo (17=23) (n=47) (n=73)

0 10.5

1 52.6 2 26.3

3 5.3 4 0.

0.

5.3

Mean no. of measures 1.58

2.5 1.9

37.5 42.6 27.5 20.4

15.0 20.4

12.5 5.6

5.0 5.6

0. 3.7

2.13 2.2

*Based on number of periodicals held.

TABL

E 36

A

CA

DEM

IC L

IBR

AR

Y

PER

CEN

TAG

ES

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

CO

ST-E

FFEC

TIV

E M

EASU

RES

R

EPO

RTE

D

AS

TAK

EN B

Y L

IBR

AR

IES:

TY

PE O

F M

EASU

RE

AN

D A

REA

OF

LIBR

AR

Y

SCIE

NC

Ea

Typ

e of

C

ost-

Eff

ectiv

e M

easu

res

Rep

orte

d as

Tak

en

Are

a of

L

ibra

ry

Serv

ice

in W

hich

C

ost-

Eff

ectiv

e

Mea

sure

w

as

Inst

itute

d

Aut

omat

ion

Coo

pera

tive

Arr

ange

men

ts

Purc

hase

d Se

rvic

es

Man

agem

ent

Stra

tab

Stra

tab

Stra

tab

Stra

tab

IOO

I-

2001

- IO

Ol-

20

01-

loot

- 20

01-

lOO

l-

2001

-

2000

50

00

x000

20

00

5000

>5

000

2000

50

00

>500

0 20

00

5000

>5

000

Ove

rall

oper

atio

n 8.

7 5.

5 8.

7 2.

1 9.

6 Pe

rson

nel

6.4

8.2

Bud

get

8.6

Acc

ount

ing

4.1

Ove

rall

tech

nica

l se

rvic

es

8.2

4.3

2.1

4.3

5.8

Sele

ctio

n 2.

1 6.

4

Ord

erin

g 4.

3 4.

1 4.

3 1.

4

Acq

uisi

tions

2.

1 4.

1 4.

1

Cat

alog

ing

4.3

12.8

5.

5 60

.8

57.4

34

.2

8.5

8.7

2.1

10.9

Seri

als

4.3

8.5

5.5

2.1

4.3

12.3

B

ook

proc

essi

ng

4.3

1.4

Bin

ding

2.

1 4.

3 1.

4 O

vera

ll pu

blic

se

rvic

es

4.3

4.1

Cir

cula

tion

2.1

5.5

Ref

eren

ce

4.3

1.4

2.1

4.1

Exi

t co

ntro

l 30

.4

29.8

19

.2

“Per

cent

ages

re

flec

t ra

tio

of

num

ber

of

times

m

entio

ned

per

tota

l nu

mbe

r of

re

turn

s in

tha

t st

rata

; pe

rcen

tage

s ar

e no

t ad

ditiv

e si

nce

som

e lib

rari

es

men

tion

mor

e

than

on

e ty

pe

of

mea

sure

.

bBas

ed

on

peri

odic

als

held

.


Public Libraries. Like academic libraries, public libraries report very little activity to implement

cost effective measures. Almost everybody reports something (it may be that at least some would have felt that reporting nothing would represent a form of self-criticism), but better than half of the libraries in both public library strata report only one activity (see Table 37 and Table 38).

This lack of focus is also reflected in the considerably greater scattering of responses than for academic libraries. Cataloging, as affected by cooperation and automation, still leads all other areas by a considerable margin. Other areas of claimed effectiveness come most heavily in management, but claims of better management effectiveness on an overall basis, or in cataloging and acquisitions, are difficult to quantify.

Smaller public libraries make some use of purchased services for cataloging, but generally the use of purchased services is not a significant factor.

Special Libraries. Special libraries tended to report a similar frequency of the incidence of cost effective activity (see Table 39 and Table 40). However, these libraries were not as detailed in indicating what they were doing. Cooperative cataloging is here, as elsewhere, the most frequently mentioned activity, and may represent the ability of special libraries to get into such network arrangements as OCLC, many rather recently for the first time. Special libraries are more concerned with automation activities, but these range across a number of tasks without any specific emphasis. Where automatic exit control is reported, it is surmised that this is occurring in special library collections on academic campuses, since a substantial number of libraries in the response group are medical libraries affiliated with universities. The total absence of reported purchased services is surprising when it is recalled that, for many libraries, manpower ceilings above and beyond budget ceilings are factors which further inhibit the library’s activities.

TABLE 37 INCIDENCE OF COST-EFFECTIVE

MEASURES REPORTED AS TAKEN BY PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Strata*


0

1 2

3

4

:5

Mean no. of measures

150,001-300,000 300,000

(n=30) (n = 38)

6.1 0.

60.0 55.6 20.0 22.2

6.7 11.1

6.1 5.6

0. 0. 5.6 0.

1.47 1.94

*Based on population served.

TABL

E 38

PU

BLIC

LX

RA

RY

PE

RC

ENTA

GES

A

NA

LYSI

S O

F C

OST

-EFF

ECTI

VE

MEA

SUR

ES

REP

OR

TED

A

S TA

KEN

BY

LIB

RA

RIE

S:

TYPE

OF

MEA

SUR

E A

ND

AR

EAS

OF

LIBR

AR

Y

SER

VIC

E%

Aut

omat

ion

stra

tab

150,

000-

30

0,00

0 >

30

0,00

0

6.7

5.3

13.3

13

.2

6.7

5.3

Coo

pera

tive

Arr

ange

men

ts

Stra

tab

150,

000-

30

0,00

0 >

300

,000

6.1

18.4

Purc

hase

d Se

rvic

es

Man

agem

ent

~ ~-

st

rata

b St

rata

b

150,

000-

15

0,00

0-

300,

000

> 3

00,0

00

300,

000

> 3

00,0

00

3.3

18.4

3.

3 5.

3

6.7

2.6

10.0

6.7

2.6

3.3

2.6

2.6

5.3

7.9

Are

a of

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

in

Whi

ch C

ost-

Eff

ectiv

e M

easu

re w

as I

nstit

uted

Ove

rall

oper

atio

n Pe

rson

nel

Bud

get

Acc

ount

ing

Ove

rall

tech

nica

l se

rvic

es

Sele

ctio

n O

rder

ing

Acq

uisi

tions

C

atal

ogin

g Se

rial

s B

ook

proc

essi

ng

Bin

ding

O

vera

ll pu

blic

ser

vice

s C

ircu

latio

n R

efer

ence

E

xit

cont

rol

aPer

cent

ages

re

flec

t ra

tio

of n

umbe

r of

tim

es

men

tione

d pe

r to

tal

num

ber

of r

etur

ns

in t

hat

stra

ta;

perc

enta

ges

are

not

addi

tive

sinc

e so

me

libra

ries

m

entio

ned

mor

e th

an o

ne t

ype

of m

easu

re.

bPub

lic

Lib

rari

es b

ased

on

popu

latio

n se

rved

.


TABLE 3-9

INCIDENCE OF COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES REPORTED AS TAKEN BY

SPECIAL LIBRARIES


Strata*

$50,000 (n=22)

0 0. 1 35.7 2 42.9 3 21.4 4 0.

:5 0. 0.

Mean no. of measures 1.86

*Based on serials budget.

TABLE 40

SPECIAL LIBRARIES PERCENTAGES ANALYSIS OF COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES REPORTED AS TAKEN BY LIBRARIES: TYPE OF MEASURE AND AREAS OF

LIBRARY SERVICEa

Area of Library Service in Which Cost-Effective Measure was Instituted

Automation Cooperative Arrangements Purchased Services Management

Stratab Stratab Stratab Stratab

> $50,000 > $50,000 > $50,000 > $50,000

Overall operation Personnel Budget Accounting Overall technical services Selection Ordering Acquisitions Cataloging Serials Book processing Binding Overall public services Circulation Reference Exit control

9.1 9.1

9.1

9.1 9.1

4.5 9.1 4.5

31.8

4.5 9.1

4.5

aPercentages reflect ratio of number of times mentioned per total number of returns in that strata; percentages are not additive since some libraries mentioned more than one type of measure.

bSpecial libraries based on periodicals budget.


TABLE 4 1 EXAMPLES OF TYPES OF COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES

TAKEN BY LIBRARIES

1. Automation (usually initiated, but some discontinued)

a. Computerized systems (on-line and batch), e.g., order lists, periodical

claims, holdings, book processing records, data-bases for reference

b. Other, e.g., exit control system, mag-card typewriters

2. Cooperative Arrangements

a. Shared cataloging, e.g., OCLC

b. Joining network or consortium

3. Purchased Services

a. Commercially prepared catalog cards

b. Automated book selection

c. Pre-processed books

d. Discontinued subscription to LC cards, LC proof slips

4. Management

a. Centralization of procedures, operations

b. Standardization of procedures

c. Reorganization

d. Elimination of procedures, positions

e. Reduction in services

BORROWING/LENDING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Borrowing

Academic Libraries-Median Number of Items Borrowed. As in the 1969-73 survey, medians yield more significant trends than means, because aberrations in both borrowing and lending by particularly active libraries in each stratum distort the statistics. As with the 1969-73 survey, responding academic libraries indicate a generally increased rate of borrowing for all strata, although annual trends are not as clear. Over the period 1973-76, borrowing by small academic libraries showed a decrease, although the borrowing of periodical items grew (see Table 42). For medium sized academic libraries, borrowing increased by 9.5%, and for large academic libraries 25.3%. Periodical borrowing increased, as indicated, for small academic libraries, and fluctuated without significant trend in medium sized academic libraries. In large academic libraries, periodical borrowing in general showed the greatest increase over 1973-76, 18.7%.

As with the previous survey, responding libraries were unable to distinguish between borrowing a full-sized periodical article (or volume containing the article) or obtaining a photocopy from the lending institution. Some librarians have considered the distinction significant, but we feel, as borne out by other studies, that the borrowing process almost invariably ends up in a photocopy, most frequently by the lender, but if not, then by the borrower.

As in the previous survey, academic libraries report that less than half of the borrowed material represents periodical items, which is consistent with the ratio of periodicals and books reported in loan activity. It may be that, up to the present, libraries were not as careful and complete in recording and borrowing and lending of journals (which frequently involved a disposable copy) as

Impact of Economic Pressures on hIericdII Libraries 201

TABLE 42 ACADEMIC LIBRARIES

MEDIAN NUMBER OF ITEMS BORROWED

Strata* Year All Items Borrowed Periodical Items Borrowed

(n=20) (n=14)

1001-2000 1976 335.0 151.5

1975 338.0 186.0

1974 354.5 185.0

1973 361.0 133.5

(n=38) (n=32)

2001-5000 1976 1444.0 715.5

1975 1456.5 811.0

1974 1302.5 602.5

1973 1318.5 715.5

(rz=58) (n=48)

>5000 1976 3751.0 1537.5

1975 3420.0 1377.0

1974 3249.0 1361.0 1973 2994.5 1295.5


TABLE 43 PUBLIC LIBRARIES

MEDIAN NUMBER OF ITEMS BORROWED

Strata* Year All Items Borrowed Periodical I terns Borrowed

150,000- 1976 1452.5 55.0

3000,000 1975 1067.6 70.5 1974 816.0 58.0

1973 504.5 152.0

(n=20) (n=7)

> 300,000 1976 833.5 91.0

1975 1138.5 87.0

1974 1161.5 81.0

1973 904.5 41.0



with books, which had to be accounted for and returned. It will be interesting to note whether the new copyright law, which requires record keeping, changes these statistics to any significant degree.

Care must be taken in any attempted comparison between overall borrowing and periodical borrowing, since a number of libraries were able to provide overall borrowing data, but did not differentiate between books and periodicals in this total.

Public Libraries-Median Number of Items Borrowed. Borrowing of books by small public libraries indicated a sharp increase between 1973 and 1976, while the borrowing of periodicals, not significant to begin with as a percentage of the whole, dropped further. Large public libraries, which exhibited fluctuations in overall borrowing, reported a steady increase in periodical borrowing, with this activity more than doubling between 1973 and 1976 (see Table 43). However, it still remains a small fraction of all borrowing activity, which is largely concentrated in books.

Public libraries, like academic libraries, are unable to distinguish between borrowing of full sized periodical articles and obtaining a photocopy. While able to provide overall borrowing statistics, few public libraries differentiated periodical borrowing data from other items, probably to a large extent because periodicals are not things they borrow extensively.

Special Libraries--Median Number of Items Borrowed. Special library borrowing shows steady growth between 1973 and 1976, increasing between those years at 21.4% for all items, and at 35.2% for periodical items (see Table 44). As with academic libraries, correlations between total items borrowed and periodical items borrowed must be carefully made, because a number of libraries, while able to provide overall borrowing statistics, were unable to specifically identify periodicals in their borrowing statistics. Further, as with academic and public libraries, respondents were unable to differentiate between borrowing a full-sized copy of a periodical article and obtaining a photocopy. However, one significant difference for special libraries is their far greater emphasis on borrowing periodicals rather than books. Unlike academic and public libraries, special libraries indicate that considerably more than half of their borrowing is for periodicals.

Lending

Academic LibratiessMedian Number of items Loaned. All reporting strata indicate sharp increases in lending, both for all materials and for periodicals in particular (see Table 4.5). Again, care must be taken in comparing the two columns, since a number of libraries were able to report overall loan transaction statistics, but not to separate periodicals from other items. Furthermore, through- out this survey, for both borrowing and lending, libraries were unable to differentiate between full sized copy and photocopy in periodical lending. As stated earlier, we don’t believe that this distinction is significant because, as also shown from other studies, the transaction of borrowing or lending a periodical article almost invariably ends up in a photocopy, if not by the lender, then by the borrower.

From 1973 to 1976, small academic libraries report an increase of 239% in the loan of all items, and 138% in the loan of periodicals. The middle stratum of academic libraries reports increases from 1973 to 1976 of 66% in all lending and 104% in periodical lending, while the largest libraries report smaller percentage increases, of 52.8% overall and 65.2% for periodicals.

It may be that the more rapid growth in lending for smaller academic libraries results from


TABLE 44

SPECIAL LIBRARIES MEDIAN NUMBER OF ITEMS BORROWED

Strata* Year All Items Borrowed Periodical Items Borrowed

In=151 Will

> $50,000 1976 1463.0 1126.0 1975 1470.0 1157.0 1974 1319.0 1000.0 1973 1205.0 833.0


TABLE 45

ACADEMIC LIBRARIES MEDIAN NUMBER OF ITEMS LOANED

Strata* Year All Items Loaned Periodical Items Loaned

(n=19) (n=13)

1001-2000 1976 437.0 200.0 1975 378.0 164.0 1974 191.0 105.0 1973 129.0 84.0

W41) (n=32)

2001-5000 1976 1744.0 600.5 1975 1588.0 493.5 1974 1271.0 402.0 1973 1052.0 294.5

>5000 1976 6970.0 3172.5 1975 5966.0 3119.0 1974 5201.0 2172.5 1973 4561.0 1920.5



better communication about regional holdings which results from networks and consortia. In the absence of such information, borrowers almost invariably turn to a larger library, because of better chances for success.

The reported greater rate of growth in lending than in borrowing for these academic libraries (and for public and special libraries as well) is cause for some question about the accuracy of the data being reported, particularly when it is noted, as later tabular data will show, that virtually all of these strata lend more than they borrow. Whom, then, do they lend to? It is important to recall that even the smallest strata of academic and public libraries included in this survey are several degrees of magnitude larger than other academic and public libraries which were identified, and which were excluded because they had little to contribute to the main thrust of this study, which deals with scholarly and research journal subscriptions. Similarly, all of the special libraries in this survey are relatively large special libraries, with periodical budgets above $50,000. Many of them are medical libraries whose collections may be resource centers under the Regional Medical Library program.

For these reasons, actual numbers of items borrowed and loaned are not considered particularly significant, and the ratios of borrowing to lending are particularly misleading. What we believe is significant is the change in the rate of borrowing and of lending, for specific types of libraries, and for libraries in the survey in general.

Public Libraries-Median Number of Items Loaned. Large public libraries in the survey report a surprisingly large amount of lending, behind only the special libraries in the survey and the largest academic libraries. Lending by these libraries increased by 80% from 1973 to 1976 (see Table 46). Large public libraries also report a heavy amount of periodical lending, although the number of libraries able to make the distinction between periodicals and other items lent is small, and may in itself represent a distortion in singling out those libraries which do lend a great many periodicals. The sharp increase in lending by large public libraries may be accounted for, at least in part, by the development of networks and consortia on an intrastate area and statewide basis, under which the holdings of larger public libraries are better known to other libraries. It must be recalled that even

TABLE 46 PUBLIC LIBRARIES

MEDIAN NUMBER OF ITEMS LOANED

Strata* Yea1 All Items Loaned Periodical Items Loaned

(n=15) (n=4)

150,000- 1976 1085.0 38.0 300,000 1975 1567.0 24.0

1974 868.0 47.0 1973 805.0 23.5

(n=24) (n=8)

> 300,000 1976 3826.5 1660.0 1975 3744.0 1261.0 1974 3004.0 1362.0 1973 2124.5 1295.5



the “small” stratum of public libraries in this survey represents service to population centers of at least 150,000 people. There are, of course, many much smaller public libraries, which are not in this survey, but which would presumably represent many of the libraries to which such a large increase of material is being lent. It is probably reasonable to assume that this reported 80% increase in lending by large public libraries from 1973 to 1976 also represents a significant increase in periodical lending, although the 8 large public libraries able to separate out periodical lending activity only report a growth of 28% between 1973 and 1976.

Special Libraties-Median Number of Items Loaned. Special libraries in the survey report even greater lending activity than large academic libraries (see Table 47). However, it must be noted that these are “large” special libraries, with periodical budgets in excess of $50,000. Many of them are known to be medical libraries, for which inter-library loan is a very structured and organized process under the National Library of Medicine’s Regional Medical Library program. The special libraries can be expected to lend to a great extent to smaller special libraries, not in the survey, and to some extent to academic and public libraries.

The actual numbers of items lent is therefore not considered as important as the growth in lending activity reported. These large special libraries report an increase from 1973 to 1976 of over 162%, which would have been even greater if 1975 responses were used for the comparison. There was a steady, if less spectacular, increase in the lending of periodical items (again with no possible differentiations between the loan of full sized copies and the supply of photocopies). These periodical loans grew, from 1973 to 1976, by 39%.

It is also interesting to note that these large special libraries, which when they themselves borrow tend to borrow periodicals, now lend, to an increasing extent, books, although it is possible that this statistic is distorted by both the relatively small number of respondents, and the fact that the six libraries unable to differentiate between book and periodical loans may not be

representative. However, regardless of the mix of items being loaned, the sharp increase in lending by these major special libraries is certainly apparent.

TABLE 47 SPECIAL LIBRARIES

MEDIAN NUMBER OF ITEMS LOANED

Strata* Year All Items Loaned

(n=16)

Periodical Items Loaned

(n=lO)

> $50,000 1916

1975

1974 1973


6063.5 2123.5

6741.5 2300.5

5517.5 1968.5 2308.5 1954.5


Participation in Formal Inter-Library Loan and Participation in Consortia and Networks

The fact that all responding academic and special libraries participate in the formal inter-library program established by the American Library Association is not surprising; what might be surprising is that any public libraries serving populations of more than 150,000 do not (see Tables 48,49 and SO). However, since in each instance the negative response came from only one library, it is possible that the question was simply mis-answered. Similarly, the great majority of all responding libraries, regardless of type and stratum, belong to consortia, networks, or other formal organiza- tions. Such membership is particularly prevalent for large academic libraries, more than 90% of which belong, and for which the joiners have membership in an average of almost 3 such organiza- tions. Large public libraries report an almost as great incidence of network activity, but half of

these reports belong to only one such organization, which is probably an official grouping set up under state auspices.

Special libraries, the great majority of which also report at least one membership, have a high number of memberships, with better than a third indicating membership in three or more organiza- tions. This is probably because special libraries would be likely to be involved in groups of a subject as well as a geographic orientation.

TABLE 48 PARTlCIPATION IN FORMAL ILL

(PERCENTAGES) 1976

Strata Yes No No Answer

1001-2000

(r?=23)

Academica

100 0 0

2001-5000 97.9 0 2.1 (flZ47)

> 5000 98.6 0 1.4

Publicb

150,000-3000,000 96.7 3.3 0 (n=30)

> 300,000 92.1 2.6 5.3 (n=38)

SpecialC

> $50,000 100 0 0 (n=27)





TABLE 49

PARTICIPATION IN CONSORTIA, NETWORKS, COOPERATIVES, ETC. (PERCENTAGES)

1976

Strata Yes No No Response

Academic”

1001-2000 91.3 8.7 0

(n=23)

2001-5000 85.1 12.8 2.1

(n=47)

>5000

(n=7 3)

91.8 5.5

Publicb

2.7

150,000-300,000 80.0 20.0 0

(n=30)

> 300,000 86.8 7.9 5.3

(n=38)

> $50,000

(r2=22)

71.3

Special”

18.2 4.5




Perception of the Effect of Availability of Periodical Material through Borrowing on Periodical Holdings by Type of Library

This is a crucial question, which underlies much of the emotional reaction to copyright law changes and interpretation. Many publishers are convinced that the increasing incidence of inter- library loan, which is documented in this study as well as in others, is heavily if not primarily responsible for the deterioration of their subscriber base, among individual subscribers and among libraries. Libraries, on the other hand, argue that their cancellation of subscriptions is caused by decreases in budget, and not by availability on loan. They argue that libraries borrow because they cannot afford to own, not that they cancel because they can borrow. Furthermore, some libraries also claim that inter-library loan can have a positive impact on periodical subscriptions, in calling the attention of the borrowing library and its clientele to titles of which it was not previously very much aware, and which can then be considered for purchase.

A questionnaire which measures perceptions of responding libraries is, while interesting, probably not going to be accepted as valid by the publishers whose suspicions that inter-library


TABLE 50 PRESENT MEMBERSHIP IN CONSORTIA, NETWORKS,

COOPERATIVES, ETC. (PERCENTAGES)

Number of Memberships

Strata 1 2 3 4 5 6 I Mean

Academic”

1001-2000 42.9 33.3 14.3 4.8 4.8 0 0 1.95 (n=21)

2001-5000 26.8 31.7 19.5 9.8 7.3 2.4 2.4 2.56

(n=41)

>sooo

(n=66) 18.2 19.7 31.8 16.7 9.1 4.5 0 2.92

Publicb

150,000-300,000 50.0 20.0 16.7 0 0 3.3 0 1.95

(rz=20)

> 300,000 50.0 28.1 21.9 0 0 0 0 1.72

(w32)

Special”

> $50,000 38.9 22.2 27.X 5.6 5.6 0 0 2.17

(n=18)




practices affect cancellation decisions continue unchecked. A test which measures actual practices, and is not subject to the bias which perceptions by either group bring to the present examination, will have to be undertaken to develop meaningful data on which conclusions and recommendations can be based.

Responding libraries, regardless of type of library and size stratum, report that, for most of them, the availability of periodicals on inter-library loan had no effect on their periodical holdings (see Table 51). This would support their contention that borrowing is a following and not a

lending process. There was, in fact, a greater perception that availability on inter-library loan increased holdings than that it decreased them. This could be caused both by the exposure to a previously unknown title, and the recognition that frequent borrowing indicated that the title was useful and should be purchased. This argument of growth through borrowing is particularly prevalent among responding special libraries. Academic libraries perceived themselves as twice as susceptible to cancellation decisions based on availability through borrowing than either public or special libraries. However, here as with other groups, the substantial majority insists that inter- library borrowing does not impact their periodicals purchase decisions either positively or nega- tively.

To the extent to which inter-library borrowing decreases periodicals holdings, failure to add


TABLE 5 1

PERCEPTION OF THE EFFECT OF AVAILABILITY OF PERIODICAL MATERIAL THROUGH BORROWING ON PERIODICAL HOLDINGS BY TYPE OF LIBRARY

(PERCENTAGES)”

Holdings Increased Stayed the Same Holdings Decreased

Academic

No Response

Stratab

1001-2000

2001-5000

>sooo

8.7 73.9 4.3 13.0

14.9 66.0 12.8 6.4

11.0 61.6 11.0 16.4

Public

StrataC

150,00~300,000

> 300,000

13.3

7.9

76.7 3.3 6.7

60.5 7.9 23.7

All Librariesd

Academic 11.9 65.0 10.5 12.6

Public 10.3 67.6 5.9 16.2

Special 22.7 63.6 4.5 9.1

a.n < .05.

bBased on number of periodicals held (X2 = 4.40, 6 df Sig =.623).

‘Based on population served (X2 = 4.72, 3df Sig = .193).

dX2 = 4.59, 6df Sig = .597.

new titles is more heavily perceived as the action taken than the cancellation of unique subscriptions for existing titles (see Table 52). There is some indication that the availability of inter-library loan permits further cancellation of duplicate subscriptions, presumably because inter-library loan is available as a backstop when the internal copy is in use or cannot be located. This, in fact, confirms some published studies which indicate that libraries frequently borrow what they already own, but simply cannot make available at the time of need.

Individuals Heavily Involved in Periodicals Management Decisions

Academic Libraries. This question, which permitted a multiplicity of answers, also brought a wide dispersion of responses (see Table 53). All strata of academic libraries reported a heavy involvement by faculty in recommendations for acquisition. In smaller academic libraries the additional responsibility falls, not surprisingly, on reference librarians, the library director, .and. serials librarians. As these libraries get larger the role of the reference librarians continues heavy, while that of serials librarians begins to recede, replaced by branch librarians, collection development officers, and collection development committees. The role of the library director in making recommendations also understandably recedes as the library increases in size.

In smaller academic libraries, the library director personally decides acquisition in most cases,


TABLE 52 PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTS OF

BORROWING ACTIVITY ON PERIODICAL REDUCTION PERCENTAGESa

Strata

1001-2000 (n=23)

Dropped Duplicates Dropped Titles Added Fewer Titles

Academica

8.7 13.0 21.7

2001-5000 2.1 21.3 10.6 (n=47)

> 5000 8.2 19.2 27.4 (n=73)

3.3

Public”

10.0 16.7

> 300,000 (n=38)

> $50,000 (n=221

2.6

13.6

18.4

Speciald

9.1

13.2

22.7

aPercentages are not additive because multiple responses were possible.

bBased on number of periodicals held.

‘Based on population served.

dBased on serials budget.

aided by serials librarians. These direct interactions decrease as the library increases in size, with collection development officers, reference librarians, and branch librarians playing a larger role. Faculty, who are heavily involved in recommendations, are not usually involved in acquisitions decisions, presumably because these carry budgetary implications which they do not share. Similar patterns emerge in recommendations and decisions concerning cancellations. Faculty are most heavily relied upon for such recommendations in smaller academic libraries,.followed in order of frequency by serials librarians and the library director. As the library grows in size, the role of the faculty in such recommendations, while still significant, begins to recede, as does that of serials librarians, and particularly that of the library director. Reference librarians and collection development officers and committees, but particularly branch librarians, play an increasing role. As with acquisition, cancellation decisions do not involve the faculty to as great an extent. In smaller academic libraries, these decisions are frequently made by the library director, with some support from serials librarians. As academic libraries become larger, this authority becomes delegated primarily to collection development officers, and secondarily to branch and reference librarians.

The members of the Advisory Committee representing iarge academic libraries expressed some suspicion about the “reality” of the responses made. They felt that, despite ail established mechanisms, periodicals management decisions were frequently political in nature.


TABLE 53 INDIVIDUALS HEAVlLY INVOLVED IN PERIODICALS

MANAGEMENT DEClSlONS (PERCENTAGES)”

Academic Libraries b

Strata

Recommending

Acquisition Deciding

Acquisition

Recommending

Cancellation

Deciding

Cancellation

1001-2000 (n=23) Collection development officer

Library director

Branch librarians

Reference librarians

Acquisitions librarians

Serials librarians

Collection development committee

Regular library committees

Faculty

Other (please specify)

2001-5000 (n=47)

Collection development officer

Library director

Branch librarians



Serials librarians



Faculty


>5000 (n=73)


Library director

Branch librarians



Serials librarians



Faculty


4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3

60.9 87.0 56.5 82.6

8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7

82.6 21.7 56.5 13.0

39.1 21.7 26.1 17.4

56.5 43.5 65.2 39.1

4.3 0 4.3 0

13.0 4.3 13.0 4.3

100.0 8.7 82.6 26.1

30.4 13.0 8.7 13.0

17.0 10.6 17.0 10.6 23.4 48.9 23.4 48.9 23.4 10.6 17.0 10.6 70.2 14.9 59.6 19.1 25.5 12.8 21.3 10.6 57.4 36.2 53.2 31.9 17.0 10.6 14.9 10.6

8.5 4.3 8.5 6.4 83.0 17.0 70.2 19.1 12.8 8.5 6.4 10.6

38.4 52.1 38.4 53.4

15.1 24.7 16.4 20.5 61.6 35.6 61.6 38.4 74.0 34.2 67.1 38.4 24.7 15.1 24.7 15.1 37.0 27.4 45.2 24.7

17.8 12.3 15.1 13.7 11.0 4.1 9.6 5.5 87.7 16.4 61.6 12.3 26.0 21.9 23.3 20.5

aPercentages given denotes % of response group who checked the specific box. Multiple choices were possible.

bBased on periodicals held.


TABLE 54 INDIVIDUALS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN PERIODICALS

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS (PERCENTAGES)a

Public Librariesb

Strata

Recommending Deciding

Acquisition Acquisition Recommending

Cancellation Deciding

Cancellation

150,000300,000 (n=30)


Library director

Branch librarian


Acquisitions librarians Serials librarians



Users


> 300,000 (n=38) Collection development officer

Library director

Branch librarians



Serials librarians



Users


16.7 20 16.7 20 40.0 50 33.3 40 80.0 23.3 76.7 30 80.0 33.3 76.7 36.7 23.3 16.7 23.3 16.7 36.7 23.3 33.3 23.3 10.0 6.7 10.0 6.7

3.3 0 3.3 0 0 0 0 0’

33.3 26.7 23.3 30.0

26.3 26.3 23.7 28.9 28.9 31.6 21.1 36.8 71.1 42.1 65.8 39.5 78.9 31.6 68.4 18.4 26.3 18.4 23.7 15.8 21.1 13.2 23.7 13.2 26.3 21.1 23.7 15.8

7.9 7.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 2.6 2.6 2.6

31.6 28.9 23.7 28.9

aPercentage given denotes % of response group who checked the specific box. Multiple choices were possible.

bBdsed on population served.

Public Libraries. There are significant differences between public libraries and the academic library processes described earlier. Even for the stratum of smaller public libraries, recommendation responsibility for acquisition and cancellation rests most heavily with branch and reference librarians, with collections development officers and committees beginning to emerge as factors for larger public libraries (see Table 54).

The role of the branch librarian in the decision process is surprisingly pronounced, certainly more so than for academic library branch librarians, and this would indicate that public branch librarians operate with considerably more autonomy with regard to their collections than academic branch librarians. The library director personally plays a larger role in the decision process than in academic libraries, particularly in the smaller (although really not very small) public libraries. Collection development officers and committees, not surprisingly, play an increasingly important role in acquisition and cancellation decisions as the library grows in size.

Special Libraries. The large (periodicals budgets above $50,000) special libraries in this survey exhibit characteristics in the decision process which are similar to those of academic libraries, except that most special libraries do not have branches or at least professionally staffed branches,


TABLE 55

INDIVIDUALS HEAVILY 1NVOLVED IN PERIODICALS MANAGEMENT DECISIONS (PERCENTAGES)”

Special Librariesb

Recommending Deciding Recommending Deciding

Strata Acquisition Acquisition Cancellation Cancellation

> $50,000 (n=22) Collection development officer

Library director

Branch librarians



Serials librarians



Users Other (please specify)

36.4 18.2 36.4 13.6

36.4 59.1 40.9 59.1

13.6 18.2 9.1 18.2

68.2 13.6 12.1 18.2

40.9 9.1 31.8 4.5

45.5 9.1 50.0 13.6

9.1 4.5 9.1 4.5

9.1 4.5 13.6 4.5

54.5 0 21.3 9.1

13.6 4.5 13.6 4.5

aPercentages given denotes ‘7 of response group who checked the specific box. Multiple choices were possible.

bBased on serials budget.

and the role of branch librarians in the recommendations process is therefore considerably smaller (see Table 55). These special libraries place a heavy reliance on reference librarians and users for the recommendation of acquisitions, but serials librarians, acquisitions librarians, collections development officers and the library director also have a frequent role. The acquisitions decision is most frequently maintained personally by the library director, possibly because budgetary controls are more tightly enforced. Special library users have no reported role in acquisitions decisions. The special library also relies heavily on a variety of sources for cancellation recommendations, most often reference librarians, but also including serials and acquisitions librarians, a collection development officer, and the library director. Library users play a much smaller role in the recommendation of cancellation than of acquisition, possibly because an acquisition recommendation depends on subject expertise, while a cancellation recommendation can be based on observed or recorded use. As with acquisitions, the cancellation decision is heavily centralized with the library director, with no other group approaching any significant level of participation. Interest- ingly, users of the special library, which have no determination of the acquisition decision, do have some participation in cancellation decisions, presumably because some subscriptions are obtained specifically for the use of one individual, and can be cancelled almost automatically if he indicates that he no longer needs or wants it.

IV. CONDUCT AND RESULTS OF NON-US SCHOLARLY AND RESEARCH JOURNALS STUDY

METHOD

The 1969-73 study surveyed the practices and perceptions of publishers of scholarly and research journals published in the United States. A group of 2,459 domestic journals was identified


through a perusal of Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory, and a sampling of this group was utilized in the study. Criteria for inclusion or exclusion as scholarly and research journals are spelled out in detail in the first study report.

While the scope of the present study precluded extension of data gathering for US scholarly and research journals, it was considered important to gather information about some of the characteristics of non-US scholarly and research journals as these impacted US library budgets and practices. Specifically, we were concerned about the size of the group, its rate of growth, its distribution by both subject and by country of origin, and most importantly on the changes in price which were taking place, taking into account factors of dollar devaluation which, while certainly real in terms

of the purchase price, had to be considered as purely historical and not as trend data. The identification of non-US scholarly and research journals was done in Ulrich’s International

Periodicals Directory, in the same manner and using the same criteria for inclusion as had been used in the earlier study for US journals. A total of 4,141 non-US scholarly and research journals were identified in this manner. As has been explained in earlier reports, criteria for inclusion or exclusion can be argued, and the actual number found is not significant in itself, except in its relationship to the number of US journals identified under similar circumstances.

It was decided that it would be impractical to attempt a direct survey of these journals, in part because geographic and communications barriers would undoubtedly affect the response rate, but primarily because the focus on library impact did not require us to examine the financial health of individual publishers, a task which, in countries with totally government-controlled economies, would not have been useful in any case. Instead, using a sampling of 22% of these journals, we undertook a determination of price and price change, analyzed by country and language of publication as well as subject scope of the journal. The selection of periodicals from Ulrich’s has no relationship to the frequency with which these journals are purchased by US libraries. To attempt a comparison to see whether or not frequently-ordered non US scholarly periodicals exhibited characteristics which differed from non-US scholarly periodicals as a whole, the (/[rich

sample was compared against those journals in the sample which also appeared on a list compiled by the F.W. Faxon Company of the 1.000 foreign titles most frequently purchased by its customers. This list of 1,000 titles includes non-scholarly as well as scholarly journals, and the identification of 126 journals on this list as also being part of the Ulrich sample would lead to the conclusion that approximately 57% of the heavily ordered foreign journals on the Faxon list fell under our definition of scholarly and research.

Finally, at the suggestion of the Advisory Committee, an attempt was made to determine how representative of all foreign scholarly journals available to US libraries the periodicals included in Ulrich were. The possibility was suggested that the Ulrich list might not include as representative a listing of more obscure and less known journals, which were believed to be heavily in the social science and humanities disciplines. This check was undertaken by comparing the Ulrich sample against the classified periodicals computer tape representing the holdings of the University of California at Berkeley. Specific comparisons are presented in the body of the report. However, it should be noted that, since this survey sought to measure the impact of foreign scholarly journal changes on US libraries, relatively obscure journals purchased by major academic libraries such as University of California, Berkeley but not listed by either Ulrich or Faxon would have less of an impact, in their growth and pricing policies, on US library programs and decisions. The holdings of Berkeley may in fact be less representative of the foreign journals acquired by US libraries than the (Jlrich listing because of the specialized holdings of the UC collection, and efforts made to acquire special materials.


SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Distribution of Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals by County of Publication Using the same criteria employed in the identification of US scholarly and research journals,

4,141 non-US scholarly journals were identified in Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory. A sampling of these journals, representing 1,266 titles, was then examined to provide information concerning price increases, rate of new journal start and cessation, and distribution by country of origin, language of publication, and subject discipline.

A sample drawn in this manner from Ulrich ‘s, while it is considered representative of journals available to American libraries, does not tell us very much about the specific impact on American libraries, because it has no relationship to the journals they buy. A journal not even considered of sufficient merit for purchase has no impact even if it decides to increase its price. By contrast, a journal which is considered meritorious may be cancelled or deferred because of its pricing policies. To compare the patterns exhibited by the Ulrich sample to a sample representing foreign scholarly and research journals heavily purchased by American libraries, the Ulrich sample was compared to the listing of 1,000 most frequently ordered non-US titles developed by the F.W. Faxon Company through its customer base (see Table 56). Since this list includes non-scholarly as

TABLE 56 DISTRIBUTION OF FOREIGN SCHOLARLY AND RESEARCH JOURNALS

BY COUNTRY OF PUBLICATION

Country

YO Ulrich’s Sample

(n=1,266)

Argentina .2 Austria .9 Australia 2.1 Bangladesh .l Belgium 1.7

Brazil .3

Bulgaria .l Canada 4.6 Chile .2 Columbia .2 Costa Rica .l Czechoslovakia 1.6 Denmark 1.1 East Germany 2.1 Ethiopia .l Finland .2 France 8.0 Ghana .2 Guam .l Hungary 1.7 India 4.6 Indonesia

Ireland

Israel

Italy Jamaica

Japan

.I

.3

.3

5.1

.2 4.3

% Faxon Sample

(It= 147)

2.0

1.4

1.4

1.4 .I

1.4

.I

2.1

Country

Kenya

Lebanon

Malaysia

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Nigeria

Norway

Pakistan

Peru

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Puerto Rico

Romania

Russia

Singapore

South Africa

Spain Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom United Nations Venezuela

West Germany

Yugoslavia Zaire

% Ulrich’s Sample

(?r= 1,266)

.2

0

.l

.6

7.2

.I

.l

.4

.2

0

.3

1.3

.2

.3

.7

2.8

.2

8

1.3

1.3

4.0

26.1 .4

.l

9.0

.4

.l

% Faxon Sample

(n=l47)

15.0

2.0

.I

.I

4.1

59.9

3.4


TABLE 57 COMPARISON OF

PERCENT’AGES OF ENGLISH AND NON-ENGLISH

FOREIGN PERIODICALS

Language Ulrich’s Sample Faxon Sample

(n= 1.266) (n=147)

English 55.8 97.3 Non-English 44.2 2.7

TABLE 58 COMPARISON OF

PERCENTAGES OF SUBJECTS OF

FOREIGN PERIODICALS

Subiect Ulrich’s Sample Faxon Sample

(n=1.266) (n=147)

Pure science 33.1 42.9 Applied science 37.3 23.1 Social Science 20.9 23.1 Humanities 8.8 10.9

well as scholarly publications, a specific match of the 1,266 journal Ulrich sample to the Faxon list produced an overlap of 147 journals which appeared on both lists, and which can be considered to be those journals in the Ulrich sample heavily ordered by US libraries. Incidentally, extrapolation of this data would indicate that almost half of the foreign journals listed by Faxon as heavily purchased (481 out of 1000) fall into our categorization of scholarly.

One further cautionary comment is probably appropriate. Although F.W. Faxon’s major role among US subscription agencies would tend to assure a broadly representative sample, it must be noted that a number of acquisitions agents specialize in procuring the scholarly publications of certain countries (particularly in Western Europe). To the extent to which American libraries might use Faxon for the majority of their subscriptions but special agents for certain titles, this might cause such titles to be underrepresented in the sample. There are striking differences between the countries of origin on the Ulrich and the Faxon list. Countries such as Canada, France, India, Italy, and the Eastern European countries appear more frequently on the Ulrich than on the Faxon list. By contrast, better than half of the journals on the Faxon list are published in the United Kingdom. Only the Netherlands, among major publishers of scholarly and research journals, rank more highly on the Faxon than on the Ulrich list.

Comparisons by language of publication clearly indicate the reasons for this shift (see Table 57). When American libraries purchase foreign scholarly journals, they overwhelmingly purchase


journals written in English, or at least with English abstracts or summaries. This holds for over 97%

of the Faxon sample, compared to only 55.8% of the Ulrich sample. Much of the reason for this comes from the inability of many Americans to use foreign

language material with any degree of fluency, and the fact that there is enough information available in English so that they don’t have to try. It was noted from the Ulrich sample that Dutch, Japanese and Danish journals are published in English in more than half the cases, and Swiss journals in almost half the cases. By contrast, French, Italian and Russian journals are published overwhelmingly in their native language, and only some include even English titles or summaries. The absence of German journals on the Faxon list, although German articles frequently carry English summaries, may be partly accounted for in the practice of many American libraries in purchasing German scholarly journals through specialized vendors.

Comparison of the Faxon and Which lists from a subject standpoint also yields interesting differences (see Table 58). The Faxon list is heavily oriented to pure science journals (42.9% of the total), with applied science and technology and social science journals both at 23.1% and humanities journals last at 10.9%. By contrast, on the Ulrich list of foreign scholarly and research journals applied science and technology journals are the most populous group (at 37.3%) followed by pure science (at 33.1%) social science (at 20.9%) and the humanities (at 8.8%).

This Ulrich distribution differs significantly from the distribution of US scholarly and research journals drawn from the same tool for the 1969-73 study. In that investigation, 39.4% (almost twice as many) of the journals were in the field of social science, with a corresponding reduction in other disciplines. Applied science journals were 29.2% of the US sample, pure science journals 19.2% (considerably less than the Ulrich foreign journal rate but less than half of the Faxon list), and humanities journals at 12.2%, which is a higher percentage than in either of the foreign lists.

One possible explanation for the greater representation of social science journals on the US list is that many foreign social science research journals are issued as government publications, which are excluded from our survey population under the definitions which we have established. This is supported by the analysis of the University of California at Berkeley list (described later) which indicates a very large number of government-produced foreign social science journals received by the university library system.

&ice Increases of Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals to US Libraries 19 70-76 The journals in the Ubich sample increased their prices, in US dollars, by 158.24% during the 6

price increase potential years between 1970 and 1976. This averages to an annual increase of 17.1%. By comparison, the journals in the Faxon sample, representing journals most frequently purchased by American libraries, increased in price over the same period by 170.73%, for an average annual increase of 18.1%.

Either listing reveals a price increase rate substantially greater, in fact twice as great, as that reported for US scholarly and research journals for the 1969-73 survey. These increases in foreign journal prices to US libraries stem from two factors. The first is the increase in price which the journal imposed in its own currency of publication. Factors which would influence these pricing changes would vary, including size and perception of market penetration and assumed user willingness to accept an increased price, but would depend largely on internal factors within the country of publication, including its own rate of inflation.

The second, and to some extent, more significant impact for US libraries, has been the change in purchasing power of the US dollar. During the period 1970-76 the dollar declined in value against most western currencies. Major exceptions are the British pound and the Italian lira, against which the dollar strengthened, and most Latin American currencies, which are pegged to the dollar


and rise or fall with it. The application of currency revaluation factors to the price increase incurred by American libraries serves to separate the part of the increase ascribed to economic factors within the country of publication from that part due to state of health of the US currency. This distinction is considered useful, in that fluctuations in the value of the dollar are reported daily in the newspapers. Libraries with substantial foreign purchases would do well to monitor dollar fluctuations against currencies of the producers of much of their periodical and book materials, and include this information in their planning. This technique of analysis only works, of course, for uncontrolled currencies. Eastern European journal prices, for example, are set in at least conjunction with if not under the direction of government policy, and probably depend more on the desire to earn “hard” currencies than on economic factors, which are impossible for us to

measure in a controlled economy in any case. The tabular data indicates sharp differences in rate of increase between countries of origin. In

part, but only in part, these are accounted for in a weakening of the dollar in currency exchange. This weakening of the value of the dollar was, among publishers of significant numbers of scholarly and research journals, particularly pronounced with regard to the Swiss franc, against which the dollar weakened by 4.8% over the 1970-76 period. The dollar also fell substantially against the currencies of West Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark (between 24% and 45%) and, to a lesser extent against Sweden, Japan, and France (between 16% and 20%). Among other countries with substantial scholarly publishing activities, the US dollar gained only against the currencies of Great Britain, Italy, and India. There was relatively little change compared to Canada, Spain, Australia and the Latin American countries which largely tie their own currencies to the US dollar. The dollar weakened by about 20% against Eastern European currencies, a largely artificial action in view of the controlled nature of these currencies and their exchange. This artificiality becomes evident when the modest price increase for Soviet scholarly journals is contrasted against a price increase rate for Czech journals almost four times as great, despite the fact that both of these countries maintain an artificial exchange rate which rose against the dollar by an equal amount. A note of concern and caution for US libraries is very much in order in the fact that, as this report is being written, the dollar is sinking to new lows on the stock exchanges of Frankfurt, Zurich, and Tokyo. The implication in purchase prices to US libraries will

be direct and serious (see Tables 59-67). While weakening of the US dollar can be considered a factor in journal price increases, it is not

the only factor. To a large extent, inflationary trends within the country of production, and other factors which this analysis did not attempt to identify, are also involved in the determination of the increase in price charged by non-US scholarly journals. The overall rate of price increase was particularly pronounced for the Netherlands, Australia, Czechoslovakia (as mentioned previously), and Switzerland, all of which showed a 1970-76 price increase of over 200% from the Ulrich sample, and close to 300%, or almost 26%/year from the Faxon sample for those Swiss and Dutch journals for which Faxon receives a large number of orders. It is true, of course, that changes in journal size, changes in frequency of publication, and the splitting or merging of titles would have an impact on pricing changes, but that impact could be either positive or negative, and would in any case also affect US journals, whose prices increased at half the foreign rate. For those countries of publication indicating the greatest price increase, it should be noted that the dollar weakened particularly against the Swiss franc, substantially against the Dutch guilder, but only moderately against Czech currency and hardly at all against the Australian dollar.

United States currency devaluation is therefore not necessarily the predominant factor. Internal rate of inflation within the country of production must also be considered. This may explain why the rates of price increase for West German and British journals are comparable, although the dollar weakened by 45.8% against the deutsch mark and gained 25% against the pound. It is


probably not coincidental that the rate of inflation in West Germany is considerably less than in most of Europe. By contrast the 160% British increase during the years 1970-76 would presumably be even greater for US libraries were it not for devaluation of the pound against the dollar, a trend which, it should be noted, has now reversed itself. Just as the US trade deficit brought about in large part by increasing oil imports affects many sections of the US economy, so it appears to increase the budgetary problems of American libraries.

Pricing patterns for Eastern European journals show interesting results but indicate, in a controlled economic setting, no patterns. While Czech journals increased substantially in price, the Soviet Union considered it desirable to keep such price increases to modest levels. Other Eastern

bloc journals ranged somewhere in between. (text continued on p. 228)

TABLE 59 BREAKDOWN OF TOTAL PERCENTAGE PRICE INCREASE

OVER SIX YEAR PRICE CHANGE PERIOD 1970- 1976 FAXON SAMPLE

English Non-English No. of Language No. of Language

No. of Mean % English Mean % Non-English Mean % Country Cases Increase Language Increase Language Increase

Australia 3 177.926 3 177.926

Czechoslovakia 2 189.311 2 189.311

United Kingdom ‘77 154.830 77 154.830

France 2 SO.69 1 1 62.105 1 39.276

India 2 25.962 2 25.962

Japan 4 200.577 4 200.577

Netherlands 14 295.496 14 295.496

New Zealand 2 67.705 2 67.705

Norway 3 98.065 1 150.000 1 144.196

Switzerland 6 292.471 6 292.477

West Germany 5 108.236 4 114.509 1 83.140

Description of sub-populutions: Faxon sample (n=126), mean = 170.731% increase; dependent variable: total

percentage price increase; broken down by country and language; countries representing greater than 1% of the sample or more than one journal; language coded as either English or non-English.

TA

BL

E

60

BR

EA

KD

OW

N

OF

TO

TA

L

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

P

RIC

E

INC

RE

AS

E

OV

ER

S

IX Y

EA

R

PR

ICE

CH

AN

GE

P

ER

IOD

19

70-1

976

ULRICH S

AM

PL

E

Cou

ntry

No.

of

Cas

es

Mea

n 4

Incr

ease

No.

of

Eng

lish

Lan

guag

e

Eng

lish

Lan

guag

e

Mea

n %

Incr

ease

Non

-Eng

lish

No.

of

L

angu

age

Non

-Eng

lish

Mea

n %

Lan

guag

e In

crea

se

Aus

tral

ia

25

245.

007

Bel

gium

18

19

2.98

4

Can

ada

4s

100.

746

Cze

chos

lova

kia

14

235.

683

Den

mar

k 8

144.

871

Eas

t G

erm

any

18

144.

385

Eng

land

25

4 15

9.95

0

Fran

ce

II

159.

605

Hun

gary

13

17

3.52

4

Indi

a 46

88

.631

Ital

y 36

92

.346

Japa

n 42

18

5.23

4 N

ethe

rlan

ds

52

283.

622

Rus

sia

20

63.8

11

Spai

n 10

69

.653

Sw

eden

8

62.7

04

Switz

erla

nd

46

205.

312

Wes

t G

erm

any

90

177.

092

25

245.

007

4 19

8.71

3

44

101.

899

3 18

0.63

7

5 17

3.77

6 _

-

246

159.

426

3 13

1.00

0

1 27

5.00

0

45

87.4

89

4 10

6.72

0 32

17

5.95

8

39

297.

805

1 10

.000

_

_ _

20

276.

679

14

198.

099

_ _

14

191.

347

1 50

.000

11

250.

696

3 96

.665

18

14

4.38

5

8 17

6.06

8 14

16

0.76

5

12

165.

068

1 14

0.00

0

32

90.5

49

JO

214.

916

13

241.

073

19

66.6

44

10

69.6

53

8 62

.104

26

150.

41s

76

173.

222

Des

crip

tion

of

’mh-

popu

lati

ons:

U

lric

lz’s

sa

mpl

e (j

r=91

l)

, m

ean

= 15

8.24

0%

incr

ease

; de

pend

ent

vari

able

: to

tal

perc

enta

ge

pric

e in

crea

se:

brok

en

dow

n by

co

untr

y an

d la

ngua

ge;

coun

trie

s re

pres

entin

g gr

eate

r th

an

1% o

f th

e

sam

ple;

la

ngua

ge

code

d as

eith

er

Eng

lish

or

non-

Eng

lish.

TA

BL

E

6 1

PR

ICE

IN

CR

EA

SE

T

O U

.S.

LIB

RA

RIE

S

OF

F

OR

EIG

N

SC

HO

LA

RL

Y

AN

D R

ES

EA

RC

H

JOU

RN

AL

S

1970

-197

6

Cou

ntry

Mea

n %

Incr

ease

LllL

ich

Sam

ple

Faxo

n Sa

mpl

e

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e $

Dev

al.

% I

ncre

ase

Loc

al

from

O

ther

M

ean

%

Loc

al

from

O

ther

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s In

crea

se

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s

Aus

tral

ia

Bel

gium

Can

ada

Cze

chos

lova

kia

Den

mar

k

Eas

t G

erm

any

Fran

ce

Gre

at

Bri

tain

Hun

gary

Indi

a

Ital

y

Japa

n

Net

herl

ands

Spai

n

Swed

en

Switz

erla

nd

USS

R

Wes

t G

erm

any

New

Z

eala

nd

Nor

way

245.

0

193.

0

100.

7 23

5.7

144.

9

144.

4

159.

6

160.

8

173.

5

88.6

92.3

185.

2

283.

6

69.7

62

.7

205.

3

63.8

177.

1

9.8

235.

2

30.0

16

3.0

6.3

94.4

20.1

21

5.6

24.1

12

0.8

20.7

12

3.7

16.1

14

3.5

25.0

18

5.0

21.2

15

2.3

15.8

10

4.4

25.0

11

7.3

21.2

16

4.0

37.0

24

6.6

4.2

65.5

18.6

44

.1

74.8

13

0.5

20.6

43

.2

45.8

13

1.3

_ _ -

177.

9 9.

8

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

189.

3 20

.1

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

50.7

16

.1

154.

8 25

.0

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

26.0

15

.8

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

200.

6 21

.2

295.

5 37

.0

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

292.

5 74

.8

insu

ffic

ient

da

ta

108.

2 45

.8

67.7

10

.7

98.1

30

.7

161.

1 _ _

169.

2 _ _ 34.6

179.

8 _ 41.8

_

179.

4

258.

5 _

217.

7 _ 62.4

78.4

67.4

TABLE62

PRICEINCREASETO U.S.LIBRARIESOF

FOREIGNSCHOLARLYANDRESEARCHJOURNALS

1970-1971

Ulr

ich

Sam

ple

Faxo

n Sa

mpl

e

Cou

ntry

Mea

n %

Incr

ease

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e

Loc

al

from

O

ther

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s

Mea

n %

Incr

ease

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e

Loc

al

from

O

ther

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s

Aus

tral

ia

17.9

9 .V

17

.09

25.3

.V

Bel

gium

3.

05

2.3

0.75

no

da

ta

_

Can

ada

5.04

3.

6 1.

44

no

data

_

Cze

chos

lova

kia

13.2

4 7.

9 5.

34

14.2

7.

9

Den

mar

k 3.

53

1.1

2.43

0

1.1

Eas

t G

erm

any

2.31

0

2.31

in

suff

icie

nt

data

Fran

ce

12.0

9 .2

11

.89

0 .2

Gre

at

Bri

tain

13

.98

1.2

12.7

8 6.

7 1.

2

Hun

gary

2.

22

7.9

-5.6

8 no

da

ta

Indi

a 5.

21

0 5.

21

7.1

0

Ital

y 2.

04

.8

1.24

0

.8

Japa

n 6.

26

2.6

3.66

32

.5

2.6

Net

herl

ands

13

.81

3.3

10.5

1 27

.6

3.3

Spai

n 1.

43

.7

0.72

no

da

ta

_

Swed

en

7.22

1

6.22

0

1

Switz

erla

nd

5.38

5.

57

-0.1

2 3.

8 5.

5

USS

R

0.62

7.

9 -7

.28

no

data

_

Wes

t G

erm

any

16.6

3 4.

6 12

.03

7.8

4.6

New

Z

eala

nd

-2.3

4 1.

8 -4

.14

0 1.

8 N

orw

ay

16.1

7 1.

4 14

.77

0 1.

4

24.4

_ 6.3

-1.1

2

5:5 _ 7.1 8

2,:v

24.3

_ -1

-1.7

_ 3.

2

-1.8

-1.4

Tot

al

sam

ple

10.3

7 10

.27

TA

BL

E

63

PRIC

E

INC

RE

ASE

T

O U

.S.

LIB

RA

RIE

S O

F FO

RE

IGN

SC

HO

LA

RL

Y

AN

D R

ESE

AR

CH

JO

UR

NA

LS

1971

-197

2

LIl

rich

Sa

mpl

e Fa

xon

Sam

ple

Cou

ntry

Mea

n %

Incr

ease

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e

Loc

al

from

O

ther

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s

Mea

n %

Incr

ease

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e

Loc

al

from

O

ther

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s

Aus

tral

ia

IO.7

7 6

4.77

14

.3

Bel

gium

16

.02

9.9

6.12

no

da

ta

Can

ada

10.8

0 1.

9 8.

90

no

data

C

zech

oslo

vaki

a 16

.82

0 16

.82

8.6

Den

mar

k 29

.91

5.9

24.0

1 0

Eas

t G

erm

any

15.9

6 7.

8 8.

16

no

data

Fran

ce

12.9

6 9.

0 3.

96

7.0

Gre

at

Bri

tain

19

.12

2.9

16.2

2 12

.3

Hun

gary

16

.64

0 16

.64

no

data

In

dia

11.2

3 1.

2 10

.03

0 It

aly

7.22

5.

9 1.

32

0 Ja

pan

22.2

8 12

.2

10.8

38

.8

Net

herl

ands

27

.49

8.4

19.0

9 16

.0

Spai

n 3.

61

7.6

-3.9

9 no

da

ta

Swed

en

1.97

7.

0 -5

.03

44.7

Sw

itzer

land

39

.00

7.5

31.5

46

.0

USS

R

17.4

8 0

17.4

8 no

da

ta

Wes

t G

erm

any

14.0

2 9.

2 4.

82

6.2

New

Z

eala

nd

0 5.

3 -5

.3

0 N

orw

ay

0 6.

4 -6

.4

-1.4

6 - _ 0 5.9

- 9.0

2.9

_ 1.2

5.9

12.2

8.4

- 7.0

7.5

9.2

5.3

6.4

7.3 - _ 8.6

-5.9

- -2.0

9.4 _ -1

.2

-5.9

26.6

7.6

-

37.7

38.5

_ -3.0

-5.3

-5.0

Tot

al

sam

ple

16.6

22

14.2

79

TABL

E 64

PR

ICE

INC

REA

SE T

O U

.S.

LIBR

AR

IES

OF

FOR

EIG

N

SCH

OLA

RLY

A

ND

RES

EAR

CH

JO

UR

NA

LS

1972

-197

3

Cou

ntry

Aus

tral

ia

Bel

gium

Can

ada

Cze

chos

lova

kia

Den

mar

k E

ast

Ger

man

y

Fran

ce

Gre

at

Bri

tain

H

unga

ry

Indi

a

Ital

y

Japa

n

Net

herl

ands

Sp

ain

Swed

en

Switz

erla

nd

USS

R

Wes

t G

erm

any

New

Z

eala

nd

Nor

way

Ulr

ich

Sam

ple

Faxo

n Sa

mpl

e

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e $

Dev

al.

% I

ncre

ase

Mea

n %

L

ocal

fr

om

Oth

er

Mea

n %

L

ocal

fr

om

Oth

er

Incr

ease

C

urr.

Fact

ors

incr

ease

C

urr.

Fact

ors

13.4

2 19

.3

-5.8

8 5.

5 19

.3

-13.

8 12

.23

11.4

0.

83

no

data

_

_

16.5

5 .9

15

.65

no

data

-

_

36.4

0 10

.0

26.4

0 7.

5 10

.0

-2.5

17.8

1 13

.3

4.51

5.

3 13

.3

-8.0

24

.85

10.0

14

.85

no

data

_

_

14.6

3 11

.7

2.93

0

11.7

-1

1.7

13.2

2 -2

.0

15.2

19

.8

2.0

21.8

28

.24

10.0

18

.24

no

data

_

_

5.90

2.

0 3.

90

-6.4

2.

0 -4

.4

10.2

4 .0

4 10

.2

2.8

.04

1.76

18.7

6 11

.3

7.46

12

.9

11.3

1.

6

50.4

6 9.

8 40

.66

38.7

9.

8 28

.9

24.7

0 9.

4 15

.3

no

data

_

-

13.8

6 8.

2 5.

66

0 8.

2 -8

.2

12.3

5 17

.0

-4.6

5 28

.3

17.0

11

.3

9.93

10

.0

-0.0

7 no

da

ta

_

25.6

0 15

.8

9.8

23.8

15

.8

8.0

16.7

9 13

.3

3.49

21

.1

13.3

7.

8

0 12

.4

-12.

4 10

.1

12.4

-2

.3

Tot

al

sam

ple

17.3

20

.9

I-.,-

~,~

- .-

^-__

TABLE65

PRICEINCREASETOU.S.LIBRARIESOF

FOREIGNSCHOLARLYANDRESEARCHJOURNALS

1973-1974

Cou

ntry

Mea

n %

Incr

ease

Ulr

ich

Sam

ple

Faxo

n Sa

mpl

e

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e $

Dev

al.

% I

ncre

ase

Loc

al

from

O

ther

M

ean

%

Loc

al

from

O

ther

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s In

crea

se

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s

Aus

tral

ia

52.1

7 1.

4 so

.77

47.1

B

elgi

um

37.3

5 .O

S 37

.3

no

data

C

anad

a 7.

68

2.2

5.48

no

da

ta

Cze

chos

lova

kia

40.7

7 0

40.7

7 15

.0

Den

mar

k 34

.06

.7

34.8

10

6.7

Eas

t G

erm

any

10.8

9 0

10.8

9 0

Fran

ce

25.8

8 7.

9 33

.8

40.2

G

reat

B

rita

in

17.6

7 4.

9 22

.6

16.2

H

unga

ry

24.7

1 0

24.7

1 0

Indi

a 10

.59

4.7

15.3

0

Ital

y 8.

90

11.6

20

.5

5.6

Japa

n 25

.79

7.1

32.9

43

.8

Net

herl

ands

40

.23

3.8

36.4

3 32

.8

Spai

n 14

.14

.9

13.2

4 no

da

ta

Swed

en

18.3

0 1.

6 16

.7

13.6

Sw

itzer

land

33

.42

6.0

27.4

2 27

.2

USS

R

25.9

9 0

25.9

9 no

da

ta

Wes

t G

erm

any

48.4

6 3.

0 45

.46

2.9

New

Z

eala

nd

26.9

0 3.

0 23

.90

23.2

N

orw

ay

50.1

5 4.

0 46

.15

53.7

1.4 - 0 .7

no

data

7.9

4.9

0 4.7

11.6

7.1

3.8

- 1.6

6.0

0 3.0

3.0

4.0

45.7

_ _

15.0

107.

4 -

48.1

21.1

_ 4.

7

17.2

50.9

29.0

-

12.0

21.2

_

1

26:2

49.7

Tot

al

sam

ple

25.0

6 22

.533

TA

BL

E 6

6 P

RIC

E I

NC

RE

AS

E T

O U

.S.

LIB

RA

RIE

S

OF

FOR

EIG

N S

CH

OL

AR

LY

AN

D R

ES

EA

RC

H J

OU

RN

AL

S

1974

-197

s

Cou

ntry

hstr

alid

Bel

gium

Can

ada

Cze

chos

lova

kia

Den

mar

k E

ast

Ger

man

y

Frdn

Ce

Gre

at

Bri

tain

H

unga

ry

Indi

a

Ital

y

Japa

n

Net

herl

ands

Sp

ain

Swed

en

Switz

erla

nd

USS

R

Wes

t G

erm

any

New

Z

eala

nd

Nor

way

Ulr

ich

Sam

ple

Faxo

n Sa

mpl

e

$ D

eval

. %

Inc

reas

e $

Dev

al.

% I

ncre

ase

Mea

n %

L

ocal

fr

om

Oth

er

Mea

n %

L

ocal

fr

om

Oth

er

Incr

ease

C

ur.

Fact

ors

Incr

ease

C

ur.

Fact

ors

31.2

1 9.

0 40

.2

15.6

9.

0 24

.6

16.0

7 5.

6 10

.47

no

data

-

_ 9.

97

4.0

14.0

no

da

ta

_ _

22.1

1 0

22.1

1 4.

0 0

4.0

23.8

5 5.

7 18

.15

-3.5

5.

7 -9

.2

51.0

3 0

51.0

3 no

da

ta

- -

14.2

7 11

.8

2.41

-2

.0

11.8

-1

3.8

16.4

0 4.

7 11

.7

24.1

4.

7 19

.4

35.1

9 0

35.1

9 no

da

ta

_ _

6.81

3.

5 10

.3

4.2

3.5

7.7

11.8

7 .4

12

.3

15.2

.4

15

.6

30.5

6 1.

8 32

.4

1.7

1.8

3.5

15.9

0 6.

0 9.

90

22.8

6.

0 28

.8

18.7

1 .5

18

.21

no

data

_

-

17.0

6 6.

5 10

.56

12.0

6.

5 5.

5 19

.99

13.4

6.

59

27.9

13

.4

14.5

6.

0 0

6.0

no

data

_

-

14.4

1 5.

0 9.

41

10.3

5.

0 5.

3 21

.98

no

data

_

5.5

13.6

19

.1

1.64

no

da

ta

_ -1

.7

5.6

-7.3

Tot

al

sam

ple

18.1

7 20

.6

TA

BL

E

67

PR

ICE

IN

CR

EA

SE

T

O U

.S.

LIB

RA

RIE

S

OF

FO

RE

IGN

S

CH

OL

AR

LY

A

ND

RE

SE

AR

CH

JO

UR

NA

LS

1975

1976

Ulr

ich

Sam

ple

Faxo

n Sa

mpl

e

$ D

eval

. 70

Inc

reas

e $

Dev

al.

% I

ncre

ase

Mea

n %

L

ocal

fr

om

Oth

er

Mea

n %

L

ocal

fr

om

Oth

er

Cou

ntry

In

crea

se

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s In

crea

se

Cur

r. Fa

ctor

s

Aus

tral

ia

16.3

3 6.

1 22

.4

11.2

6.

1 17

.3

Bel

gium

28

.24

5.0

23.2

4 no

da

ta

_

Can

ada

_

33.6

0 3.

0 30

.60

no

data

_

Cze

chos

lova

kia

_

19.0

3 0

19.0

3 14

.1

0 14

.1

Den

mar

k 13

.59

5.2

18.7

9 57

.2

5.2

62.4

E

ast

Ger

man

y 2.

66

0 2.

66

no

data

-

Fran

ce

_

29.8

2 11

.7

45.5

2.

6 11

.7

14.3

G

reat

B

rita

in

32.5

2 18

.9

13.6

2 29

.5

18.9

10

.6

Hun

gary

41

.51

0 41

.51

no

data

-

_

Indi

a 30

.08

6.9

37.0

23

.5

6.9

30.4

It

aly

16.9

5 27

.5

44.4

33

.3

27.5

Ja

pan

60.8

11

.28

.l 11

.18

8.9

.I

8.8

Net

herl

ands

23

.88

4.5

28.4

31

.5

4.5

36.0

Sp

ain

13.9

0 16

.5

30.4

no

da

ta

_

Swed

en

-

7.30

5.

1 12

.4

51.8

5.

1 56

.9

Switz

erla

nd

19.0

4 3.

1 15

.94

21.3

3.

1 U

SSR

18

.2

9.58

0

9.58

no

da

ta

Wes

t G

erm

any

_ _

13.4

4 2.

0 15

.4

49.6

2.

0 51

.6

New

Z

eala

nd

0.77

no

da

ta

_ 5.

0 17

.4

22.4

N

orw

ay

25.6

1 no

da

ta

_ 19

.9

4.4

24.3

Tot

al

sam

ple

22.9

28

.2


Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals-Prices and Price Increases 19 70- 76 Pure science journals are the most expensive of all the subject disciplines, a finding which also

matches that for US scholarly and research journals in our earlier study. Pure science journals also report the largest percentage price increase between 1970 and 1976, which means that the gap between these journals and other disciplines is widening. Applied science journals rank second, and are, on the Ulrich’s list, more than twice as expensive as social science and humanities journals, which trail both in 1970 price and also in the increase in that price from 1970 to 1976. Generally, this matches the patterns reported for US journals for 1969-73. Foreign journals were, in 1970, consistently more expensive to US libraries than their domestically published counterparts, by a margin of 40% to 60%, compared to listings for both types in Urich’s, except for social science journals, for which foreign publications were only 16% more expensive. By 1976, of course, given the twice as rapid price increases of foreign scholarly journals, the gap had widened substantially in

all disciplines. To the extent that Ulrich’s represents a listing of journals published, and Faxon represents a

listing of journals purchased by US libraries, Table 68 presents further bad news. More frequently purchased journals are more expensive, for all disciplines except the humanities, and are rising more rapidly in price in all disciplines, except for the humanities. We see a repeat of US journal characteristics. The more expensive and more popular journals are increasing more rapidly in price than those journals which are sold for the lowest price and which, according to the earlier survey of US journals, are in the greatest financial difficulty. There appears to be clear evidence that journals increase their prices based not only on their financial needs, but also on their perceptions of the willingness of their customers, to a great extent US libraries, to absorb those price increases. They may be right in their observation. It has been suggested by some US librarians that publishers who impose large price increases be “punished” through cancellation. There is some evidence, based on price differences and price increase differences between the Ulrich’s and Faxon list, that these may be the journals most heavily in use, which the library cannot cancel, except perhaps by getting rid of the few remaining duplicates.

TABLE 68 SCHOLARLY AND RESEARCH FOREIGN JOURNALS

MEAN PRICES AND PERCENT PRICE INCREASE, 1970- 1976

Ubich s Sample Faxon Sample

Discipline

Pure science

Mean 1970

Price

35.31

Mean 1976

Price

98.21

Mean %

increase

178.14

(n=306)

Mean 1970

Price

45.92

Mean 1976

Price

132.60

Mean %

Increase

188.76

(n=53)

Applied science 20.40 51.34 151.69 30.37 82.40 171.32

(n=339) (12=3 1)

Social science 10.46 25.14 140.30 11.49 28.29 146.23

(n=183) (rz=29)

Humanities 10.00 25.12 151.17 9.62 24.10 150.47

(n=83) (n=13)

Total sample 22.45 57.97 158.24 40.23 108.91 170.73

(n=911) (n=126)


TABLE 69 LIST OF THE LC CLASSES AND

THE EQUIVALENT INDIANA SUBJECT DESIGNATION

LC Class IU Subject LC Class NJ Subject

B Humanities HD-HD4799

HD9000-9999

C, D, E, F, G Social science HE Applied science

H-HC J, K, L Social science

HD480@8999 HF-HX Social science M, N, P Humanities

Q Pure science

R, S, T, U V Applied science

Foreign Scholarly and Research Journals-Analysis of University of California, Berkeley List of Foreign Serials

During the May 17, 1977 meeting of the Advisory Committee, progress on the various tasks of the project were outlined to members of the Committee. Task II is the impact of the economics of foreign (non-US) publication of scholarly and research journals on US libraries. The Committee was interested in the results of the analysis of the characteristics of the sample taken from Ulrich’s 16th edition. They were particularly concerned that Ulrich’s might not be adequate in its reporting of humanities and social science materials. It was suggested that other lists of serials be examined

to compare the distribution of titles by subject. The University of California at Berkeley was one of the suggestions of the Committee as it was

known that Berkeley had automated serials control and might be able to provide a listing of their foreign journals.

Arrangements were made for the General Libraries at Berkeley to run the serials list, printing out those titles which were non-US publications. The list was printed with the titles in Library of Congress classification order. The LC tables were matched with the subject headings used in the Indiana list of scholarly and research journals. It was determined that classes A and Z would not be included and that class H would be divided in order to fit the Indiana subject divisions (see Table 69).

An average number of titles per page of printout was calculated. The number of pages in each LC class was counted and an approximate total number of titles per class was calculated. Table 70 shows the subject distribution of the Berkeley list according to this preliminary cut.

A comparison of the Berkeley list with other lists used in the study revealed some interesting differences. The percentage of social science titles was particularly high. During the counting process it was noted that many of the titles being counted were government publications. Government publications were not included in the Indiana list nor in the Ulrich’s sample except in certain instances where the government was the sole or almost only published in the country. Other differences in the Berkeley list and the other lists were also recognized: (1) the Berkeley list includes non-current as well as current titles, and (2) the list includes materials other than scholarly and research journals.


TABLE 70 SUBJECT DISTRIBUTlON

AT BERKELEY

Category % of Total

he Science 16.5 Applied Science and Technoiogy 25.5 Social Science 46.1 Humanities 11.9

In order to see what percentage of the list might be government periodicals, a trial count of the H schedule which was considered to be social science was taken. An average of 60% of the items were found to be government documents.

A revised list was made in which government documents and titles no longer being received (as indicated by the absence of an open entry) were scanned for on a page by page basis and eliminated from the count.

Limitations of time and personnel did not allow for title by title consideration of the remaining entries to see if each matched the definition of scholarly and research journals used. Table 71 shows that the resultant distribution of titles in the revised Berkeley list still includes not only non-scholarly and research periodicals, but also other serials as well.

The revised Berkeley list is very similar to the list from the earlier NSF study in the percentage of pure science and social science titles. There is a large difference, however, in the percentage of applied science and technology titles (Berkeley having about 10% fewer) and humanities titles (Berkeley has &LO% more). There are two reasons which may account for these differences: fl) as noted, some of the items in the Berkeley list are not scholarly and research according to our definition; and (2) some of the items on the Berkeley list, especially in humanities, are periodicals that a large research library would acquire but which may not be well enough known to appear in directories like ~~~c~‘s. The second reason is considered the more likely, and provides some substantiation for the Advisory Committee’s feelings that the Ulrich’s list might not be totally representative of available titles as a whole. However, the University of California at Berkeley is not exactly a representative library, and to the extent to which the titles left out of Ulrichk are

TABLE 7 1 REVISED SUBJECT DISTRIBUTION AT BERKELEY

Foreign Foreign U.S. U.S. Foreign Foreign Journals Journals

Journals Journals Journals Journals Original Revised X974-NSF 1977-Contu Ulrich ‘5 f:axon Berkeley Berkeley

Category List (IU) List (IU) Sample Sample List List

Pure science 19.2 17.1 33.1 42.9 16.5 21.5 Applied science and technology 29.2 30.8 31.3 23.1 25.5 19.5 Social science 39.4 38.6 20.9 23.1 46.1 37.2 Humanities 12.2 13.5 8.8 10.9 11.9 21.8


largely esoteric and not likely to be purchased by American libraries, their existence would have little impact on the economic analysis of American libraries which is the main thrust of this

investigation.

V. INTERVIEWS

A significant number of personal interviews with library administrators were carried out by both the principal and co-principal investigators. These informal discussions, which took place during meetings of the American Library Association, Special Libraries Association, American Society for Information Science, and a number of regional meetings, were designed to elicit more direct and in-depth comments, and to confirm and revalidate the reactions transmitted through the more formal and constrained questionnaire process.

Basically, these personal discussions served to confirm the impressions already conveyed, and perceptions from these interviews have been incorporated into the analysis where appropriate. However, a number of direct quotations, while not quantifiable, are nevertheless useful in transmitting attitudes and depth of feeling not easily captured in questionnaires, and for these reasons they are reported herewith.

Our budgets are not really increasing at an unfair rate, in that we get more funds at the same pace as the

university budget. However, that is totally inadequate to the inflationary pressures we have encountered. While

we have the capability of switching funds between the salary and materials budget, we have not done so on a

conscious basis. We, like most academic libraries, have switched funds from books to serials. We have done this

not because of faculty pressure (faculty input at our university is only advisory) but because our own library

staff feels that renewal of many of the serials is a mud. By contrast, the value of a specific monograph title is not

apparent. More than half (perhaps as much as 75%) of our monographic purchases did not come from the normal

library budget, but from university year-end funds and special gifts. To the estent to which these have now

virtually dried up, they have caused the greatest impact on our failure to buy more monographs. We have depended on these special sources of “found” money to buy monographs.

We are not getting enough funds to build the collection adequately. Retrospective buying has suffered greatly.

Cancellations have forced us, for the fust time, to take a close look at our subscription lists, and this has had

some beneficial results, such as getting rid of junk.

Serials are eating up the budget; there are fewer dollars for monographs. Because of the high price increases of

science serials, the flow is from social sciences and the humanities to science.

Cooperation among university libraries is not as easy or as widespread as many idealists would like it to be. Often

the faculty either stops a cooperative effort or makes it quite clear they disapprove of it. They are interested

only in having the material in their library.

We have cancelled 512 titles within the past 5 years through our participation in CRL, but this has had no effect

on our borrowing.

Our library does not cancel subscriptions because patrons use ILL borrowing service; rather, the volume of

requests submitted by patrons to the ILL borrowing service increases because subscriptions are cancelled.

Membership in CRL led to our holdings remaining the same. However, a lack of membership in CRL would have resulted in a need to increase.

We tend to cancel in this order:

1. Titles which show little or no signs of use.


2. Titles in foreign languages.

3. Unusually expensive titles.

4. Titles in fields where the university has recently discontinued course offerings.

5. Translated titles.

6. Titles which our faculty say they have never heard of or never use. We never cancel a title solely on the basis

of its presence in a nearby library.

Being permitted to take multiple year prepaid subscriptions has helped in hofding down serials costs.

No relation between additions and deletions of titles in periodicals because of ILL.

Our decision to cancel periodical and serial subscriptions were influenced more by fiscal situations than our

ability to borrow.

We generally cancel when a title is no longer needed due to course changes or changing faculty needs. Thus we

cancel few titles.

We have been worried for a long time about the increases in serials costs, and we have been trying to hold the

line in anticipation of a budget crunch. We now limit serials (arbitrarily~ to 50% of the total materials budget.

When we reach that level, maybe within this year, we plan to cut enough titles to compensate for new additions.

The director has assigned serials collection development to the heads of our subject divisions, who form a Serials

Committee. The Committee members receive recommendations from their faculty and make many of their own.

The committee makes the decisions on additions and cancellations.

The cancellation of subscriptions in 1973 and 1976 was not undertaken solely as an economy measure, although

that element was certainly present and was utilized to elicit the cooperation of our faculty. Since its inception in

1973 the principal intent has been to establish an annua! review of our subscriptions with the resulting

cancellation of those which are no longer required to support on-going academic programs. In this fashion we

hope to keep our collections alive, vital, and growing and to do this at the lowest possible cost.

Our periodical subscription list has decreased solely because of the exorbitant price increases not because of

availability elsewhwere. The ability to borrow has alleviated our problem as a consequence, not as a cause.

Medium Size Academic Library

At present the allocation of funds for materials is roughly 2-l for journals vs. books. Availability on loan is not

considered a determining factor in retention of subscription or in acquiring new journals. We have a state-wide

inter-library loan system which works reasonably well. Faculty, however, appear to want materials close at hand.

We have drawn up criteria for retension and selection of new journals:

A. Heavy use by students

B. Heavy use by faculty

C. Combination of A and B D. Research use and professional development

Lists of journals are circulated to sponsoring departments for evaluation using above criteria; then the lists and

evaluations were circulated to all departments for further evaluations. As a result, 175 journals were cancelled to come within the overall budget of the University and the separate budgets of the sponsoring departments. The

cost of journals was not considered a factor; duplicates, however, were among the fist eliminated.

Medium-S& Academic Library

This library has had no serious funding problem for maintaining and increasing its materials collections the last few years. There was a one-third increase in materials funding this past academic year over the prior year.

Allocations of funds are made to schools by a University library committee. Three-fourths of the funding for


journals goes to science departments and about 15% to social science and 10% to humanities. There was- a

reduction in binding from $10,000 to $6,000 this past academic year with the resulting savings going to the

purchase of journals.

Private Academic Library

Microforms are purchased at a minimum; little used. Schools and departments make overall decisions on

retention and selection of new journals and books. The present funding for materials is equally divided between

journals and books. Collection is strong in humanities; however, there is a continuing shift in reallocation of

funds from books to journals. This began in 1974 when a low point in the library budget was reached. Since that

time there have been annual increments of about 10%. In 1974 books accounted for roughly 60% of the budget

and journals 4OY0, in contrast with the 50-50 level this year. This library in the past two years has become

increasingly dependent on inter-library loan with an academic library in a neighboring state. Trips are made twice

weekly to the other library with requests for loans and photocopies of both journals and books. Photocopying is

accomplished on private machines outside the loaning library.

University Library

This is a relatively new and growing library and had no appreciable problems to date in purchasing journals,

although the library requires written justification in each instance when a new journal is added. Selection and

retention decisions are made by schools and departments except for reference materials which are made centrally

by the library staff.

State University Library

Long established library has cancelled perhaps 500 journal titles in past three years. Cancellation made on the

basis of circulated lists to sponsoring departments which indicate priorities for retention. Cost of journal in past

year became a issue for the first time. This library expects to continue cancellation of up to 100 journals

annually unless budget is raised sufficiently to cover inflation costs. Present ratio of journals to books is 60-40.

Medium-Size Library; Private University With Some State Assistance

Materials budget has been up 10% each year since about 1970, however, last year the increase was only 3%. The

proportion of journals vs. books rose in recent years but is now stable at 40-45% of budget. This ratio has been

established by the university library committee and concurred with by the faculty senate. High cost journals are

identified in annual lists circulated to faculty with the suggestion that their retention must show a high rate of

use. Duplicates have long since been cut to a minimum. There has been no reduction in binding allocation and

little transfer to microforms. The overall university library committee has not been useful in determining policies

for selection and retention. These decisions are made by departments and individual faculty. Citation indexing of

journals is used by some departments as a measure of value. Library does not rely on inter-library loan to much

extent, except for little used material.

Special Library of Large Corporation

Library funds in past three years have been increased in rough proportion to rising costs of journals and books.

New journals are purchased on justified requests approved by corporate management. Allocation of materials

funds is roughly 80-20 for journals and books.

Government Contract Laboratory Library

Materials budget has increased at 10% annually with journals accounting for about 75% of total materials budget.

New journals are purchased on basis of individual requests filtered through division management to library.


VI. APPENDIX

STATISTICAL TESTS

When all of the data which was received from academic, public, and special libraries had been tabulated, it was evident that some statistical testing should be done to determine if there were any peccant differences between the responses by strata and by type of library. The risk of up to a 5% chance of error was considered acceptable for the variables being tested, so the 0.05 level of significance would be appropriate for rejecting the hypothesis that a significant difference did not exist between strata or types of libraries. Two tests were used, depending on the data being compared, chi square and analysis of variance.

Cross-tabulation with chi square was used to test for the significance of the difference between two or more groups with respect to certain characteristics when the groups had been classed into categories or when the number of categories within the variable was limited. The groups were considered to be significantly different if p< 0.05.

The analysis of variance test was used to simultaneously compare the means of the different groups for interval data. The objective was to determine if the means were different. Again, the groups were considered to be significantly different if p < 0.05.

The statistical test data may be obtained through the authors.

LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE

The following is the questionnaire which was completed by selected librarians and used to compile the statistical data presented in this study.


II,‘ I 1 t 1 I I I IIIII

I I I I I 1 L


1.

8

9.

10.


‘

impact of economic pressures on american libraries and their decisions concerning scholarly and...

Documents