information science and information policy: the use of constant dollars and other indicators to...

Information Science and Information Policy:The Use of Constant Dollars and other Indicatorsto Manage Research Investments

Albert HendersonPublishing Research Quarterly, P.O. Box 2423, Bridgeport, CT 06608-0423.E-mail: [email protected]

Indicators that match the conservation and dissemina-tion of information with its production may improvemanagement of research investments. Constant dollarspending on research is compared with constant dollarspending on libraries 1960–1995. Price’s exponentialgrowth constant is compared with constant dollarsspent on academic research and on libraries. An evalu-ation of the indirect cost policy by which library costs arereimbursed as a function of science grant managementsuggests that it has failed to promote cost-effectiveresearch. An evaluation of the impact of various infor-mation technologies finds enhancements to dissemina-tion but misconceptions of their potential for savings.

Introduction

Enormous resources are invested in research, and everycommentator readily acknowledges the value of scientificand technical information. U.S. Federal science budgets arenearing $80 billion, including almost $15 billion for aca-demic research. Similar levels of activity are apparent out-side the U.S. The academic sector produces about 70% ofarticles and citations in U.S. natural science and engineeringjournals (National Science Board, 1996; Table 5-36, 5-39).Information is the fruit of research, most reliable whenvalidated by peer review for formal publication. It is also anessential ingredient, one that measurably regulates cost ef-fectiveness or productivity (King, Griffiths, Roderer, &Wiederkehr, 1982; King, Castro, & Jones, 1994; Machlup,1962, p. 187–188; Martyn, 1964; Pierce, 1896). The journalarticles and other publications generated by research aroundthe world are presumably collected and disseminated by thelibraries of a handful of universities that are engaged inadvanced research. The concentration is impressive. Half ofacademic library spending in the U.S. is done by 235institutions offering doctoral degrees. For the purpose of

this article, we focus on 125 Research I and II institutions:4% of 3089 college libraries that control 40% of $3.6 billionacademic library spending. These are major academic li-braries that service Federal researchers as well as othercampus patrons and the public (U.S. Dept. of Education.National Center for Education Statistics, 1997, p. 18, B-6) Itis also notable that many fine schools can deliver a bacca-laureate education with libraries far smaller than those con-sidered below.

In spite of the considerable investment in the productionof research information, there is little in the way of policygoverning the conservation of its results. A “policy vac-uum” stifling the flow of scientific and technical informationwas described in detail by the Congressional Research Ser-vice 20 years ago (U.S. Congress, 1975). It appears toremain undisturbed by numerous studies and even by Fed-eral legislation (McClure & Hernon, 1989, pp. xi–xiv) Inaddition to resisting all attempts at a reasoned policy, theresearch community seems to prefer confusion about therelationship of science and libraries. Some observers, forinstance, blame publishers’ prices, excessive authorship,and the proliferation of journals for the declining purchasingpower of libraries (Association of Research Libraries, 1989;Carrigan, 1991; Levy, 1998) Others redefine these libraries’mission as “access to information” rather than “supply ofinformation.” They suggest a new paradigm, that technol-ogy has eliminated the need for comprehensive collections(Buckland, 1992; Exon & Punch, 1997). Yet another pro-posal is that technology will reduce library expenses andproduce savings (Bowen, 1996). Some members of thepolicy community feel that the exponential expansiontracked by Price and Rider could not, should not continue.According to this apprehension, the early end of growthpromises relief from Malthusian nightmares of hordes ofscientists, suggested by Price (1961, pp. 177, 182), compet-ing for scarce research grants and libraries dominating lim-ited resources on the basis of tradition alone (Goodstein,1995; Munn, 1968) Finally, we find serious proposals ad-

Received April 3, 1998; revised June 24, 1998; accepted July 10, 1998

© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE. 50(4):366–379, 1999 CCC 0002-8231/99/040366-14

vocating a revolution in world copyrights, academic pub-lishing, and library dissemination (Association of AmericanUniversities, 1994). Any revolution in copyright law facesinsurmountable inertia, even if successful in changing therules. Price (1963, pp. 1–29) pointed out that as one of theconsequences of exponential growth, near 90% of all sci-entists who ever lived are alive now. Their copyrights willlive 50 to 70 years longer than they, according to thecopyright laws of most nations. Moreover, even in theunlikely event of an academic copyright revolution in theU.S., it would not affect the two-thirds of articles that areforeign or the 30% of U.S. articles not from academe. Thepossibility of the proposed revolution “liberating” a viablequantity of materials from copyright is, therefore, dim.

Fremont Rider (1944) attempted to justify exponentiallibrary growth on the basis of a century of records of 10leading universities in the United States. He connected theireffectiveness and excellence to expansion of their librarycollections. He suggested the growth rate should continue,and that concerns about the physical size of libraries couldbe overcome by the use of microforms. Library growthslowed after 1944, and the question of effectiveness wasdisregarded in much of the debate that followed (Hender-son, 1994/1995; Molyneux, 1986).

A new analysis of library growth suggested by an econ-omist hired by the British Library promises to clarify therelationship of producers and conservators of research find-ings. Comparing constant dollar spending for academicresearch and for major research libraries in the United States1976–1990, Brown (1996, pp. 42–43) contrasts supply (re-search) and demand (libraries). During this period, supplydoubled while demand rose only by half. From this he isable to conclude, for instance, that it is impossible forlibraries to absorb the oversupply of research.

It is not reasonable to examine the supply and demandrelationship of science and libraries from one viewpointalone. I would insist on a second perspective, reversingroles and measuring supply as libraries and demand asresearch. From this angle it appears that that libraries’capacity has become inadequate for the requirements ofresearch.

Methodology

We expanded Brown’s methodology to cover the pe-riod 1960 –1995, the maximum period for which consis-tent data is available. We compared the results with anestimate of world science growth based on databaseproduction records suggested by Price (1961, pp. 161–195). The extension of constant exponential growth ob-served by Derek de Solla Price (1961) is supported byproduction summaries compiled by the National Federa-tion of Index and Abstract Services (Kaser, 1995). Theexponential expansion of world science publications ap-pears to be constant, unaffected by events as consequen-tial as wars and economic depressions for over 300 years.Like constant dollar data, this indicator reflects changes

in activity unconfused by economic inflation. Together,the three indicators—U.S. research, U.S. libraries, andworld science—make it possible to raise analytical chartscovering 1960 to 1995 (Fig. 1). We can then explainchanging trends with other evidence connected with therelationships and performance of research and libraries.

U.S. Library Growth

Forty-one libraries from the Association of ResearchLibraries, after eliminating all institutions that did notreport, from 1960 to 1995, contribute to the representa-tive set shown in Table 1 (Association of Research Li-braries, 1990). In two instances, Cornell and Northwest-ern, the 1965 data were unavailable; I estimated thesetwo figures from their 1966 data. I converted total ex-penditures using deflators published by the National Sci-ence Board (1996, p. 102) and drew totals for eight pointsat 5-year intervals. All universities but one, Brown, areranked in the top 80 academic institutions’ expendituresfor 1993 (National Science Board, 1996, pp. 169 –171).The index of growth in Table 1a was established by

FIG. 1. Relative growth of world science, U.S. R&D and U.S. libraries1960–1995.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—April 1, 1999 367

dividing the totals for the first period into each subse-quent period. Growth for each institution in Table 1b wasestablished by dividing the individual figures for the firstperiod into each subsequent period. Table 2 shows thegrowth of each 5-year period obtained by dividing thesource for Table 1a for the end of each period by thefigure for the beginning.

U.S. Academic R&D Growth

Constant dollar figures were obtained from National Sci-ence Board (NSB) (National Science Board, 1996, pp. 105–106). Statistics for earlier periods were not acceptable be-cause they included spending on Federally financed re-search centers and were inconsistent with NSB data.

TABLE 1a. Growth of production and conservation of science, 1960–1995.

19605 1.00 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

World science 1.26 1.60 2.00 2.50 3.18 4.00 5.04U.S. academic R&D 2.10 2.73 2.89 3.47 4.15 5.87 6.78U.S. libraries 1.81 2.62 2.66 2.68 3.10 3.79 4.13

TABLE 1b. Growth of U.S. libraries, 1960–1995, and rank by 1993 R&D spending (19605 1.00).

Institution 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 RANK

Brown 1.79 2.83 2.56 2.41 3.48 4.76 5.09Cal, Berkeley 1.54 1.77 1.78 1.94 2.33 2.65 2.51 12Cal, Los Angeles 1.92 2.62 2.77 2.74 3.37 3.88 3.63 14Chicago 1.74 2.47 2.36 2.33 2.83 3.11 3.44 61Cincinnati 1.70 2.97 4.49 5.75 6.30 6.97 7.42 72Colorado 3.15 3.91 3.52 2.73 3.35 4.75 6.51 27Columbia 1.87 2.57 2.19 2.20 2.57 3.13 3.28 24Cornell 2.33 2.84 2.49 2.42 2.78 3.36 3.69 8Duke 1.87 2.90 3.05 3.06 3.43 4.67 5.72 25Florida 1.41 1.98 2.10 2.67 2.66 4.03 3.52 44Harvard 1.79 2.17 2.13 2.18 2.33 3.60 4.68 15Illinois, Urbana 1.52 1.92 2.05 1.84 1.93 2.09 2.19 16Indiana 2.27 3.95 3.98 3.11 3.05 4.35 4.57 50Iowa 1.76 2.65 2.66 3.09 3.14 3.90 4.72 41Iowa State 1.57 3.67 4.35 4.01 4.42 5.54 6.74 42Johns Hopkins 1.95 2.98 3.92 3.70 5.04 7.47 8.04 11Kansas 1.51 2.27 2.34 2.75 3.29 4.68 3.76 79Kentucky 1.51 2.53 2.49 2.57 2.91 3.21 4.38 67Louisiana State 1.69 1.25 1.44 1.73 2.31 2.02 1.89 36Michigan 1.49 2.07 1.90 1.85 1.91 2.39 2.78 1Michigan State 1.67 2.92 2.59 2.69 3.04 3.58 3.26 39Minnesota 1.54 2.68 3.01 2.70 2.97 3.94 3.89 5Missouri 1.54 2.15 1.88 2.10 2.25 2.64 3.05 64MIT 2.12 3.74 3.56 3.70 5.15 5.18 5.64 3Nebraska 1.50 2.87 2.51 2.80 3.12 3.58 3.70 71New York 1.91 3.05 3.30 3.06 4.06 5.20 6.60 48North Carolina 1.82 2.77 3.05 3.74 4.29 4.37 5.38 29Northwestern 1.74 2.46 3.17 2.88 3.24 3.81 4.12 38Ohio State 1.76 2.63 2.65 3.14 3.61 3.70 3.90 23Pennsylvania 1.67 2.55 2.65 2.55 2.86 3.82 4.37 19Princeton 2.00 3.29 3.48 3.92 4.73 5.39 6.66 69Purdue 1.81 2.80 1.96 2.20 2.17 2.86 2.83 40Rochester 2.50 3.78 3.99 3.18 4.16 4.82 4.66 34Rutgers 1.74 3.32 4.00 4.03 4.49 6.38 6.02 35Stanford 2.14 3.95 4.13 4.39 5.35 6.41 7.05 10Texas 2.91 2.66 1.93 2.26 3.13 2.92 2.95 17Virginia 1.52 3.01 4.74 4.93 5.69 6.81 7.08 56Washington 1.82 2.36 3.07 2.74 3.25 3.52 4.35 4Wash U.-St. Louis 2.47 4.01 3.55 3.44 4.21 5.41 6.28 28Wisconsin 2.01 2.56 2.97 3.07 3.64 4.34 4.62 2Yale 1.15 2.98 2.83 2.33 2.52 3.48 3.87 21

368 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE—April 1, 1999

World Science Growth

We charted a doubling every 15 years.

Results and Discussion

Figure 2: 1960–1975

Following World War II, the massification of universitiesspurred by the GI Bill and government research caused anumber of changes in management priorities. Researchgrants were encouraged. Library costs were contained. Cen-turies of parallel growth of research and libraries ended(Henderson, 1994/1995). Then during the 1960s librarygrowth resumed. The role of information resources wasrecognized and tied to the productivity of research. Thereason for this was the SovietSputnik, the first successfulsatellite, which burst into the news in late 1957. A series ofreports to the President and Congress blamed the superiorityof Soviet science information and education for their suc-cess in space (Bishop & Fellows, 1989). The NationalDefense Education Act of 1958 addressed such concerns. ItsTitle VII was amended in 1964 to finance purchase oflibrary materials (Krettek & Hubbard, 1964). Federal spon-sorship of academic research rose from 63% in 1960 to 73%in 1965 (National Science Board, 1996). Democratic andRepublican platform statements expressed support for li-braries in 1960 for the first time in history (Anonymous,1961, p. 156). Lyndon Johnson mentioned libraries threetimes in his inaugural address. The Library Services andConstruction Act, passed in 1964, underwrote developmentof new buildings (Krettek & Cooke, 1965). Title II-A (col-lege library materials) of the Higher Education Act of 1965provided direct support to collection development, over $24

million in 1967, 1968, and 1969, at a time when collectiondevelopment spending of all higher education libraries to-taled around $200 million (Stevens, 1971). Studies of sci-ence communications flourished, supported by NationalScience Foundation and other Federal agencies, yielding aprofusion of reports. Spending on R&D also increasedsharply as an element of Cold War competition.

Figure 3: 1970–1985

In the United States, the 1970s brought a sharp financialdownturn for both R&D and libraries. Announced on March31, 1968, Lyndon Johnson’s decision not to seek a secondterm alarmed everyone involved with libraries and research.(I recall Walter J. Johnson, president of Johnson Reprint andAcademic Press, bursting into my office that afternoon withthe news. “It’s all over,” he said. A year later he had sold thecompany to Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, and I had foundanother job.) Universities, for instance, embargoed paymentof page charges to science publishers (Koch, 1968). Theyalso started cutting academic libraries’ share of expendi-tures, resulting in declines in library expenditures per stu-dent, staffing per student, proportions of the library budgetexpended for materials, and the numbers of books added tocollections. Suddenly libraries were competing for moneywith the activities they were supposed to support, and losing(Fry & White, 1975; Talbot, 1984). Title II-A fundingdropped by more than half in 1970 and dwindled to nothingby 1983. The U.S. landing on the Moon in 1969, whichrestored the scientific pre-eminence of the United States,ended the “Space Race.” A report of the National Academyof Sciences (1969) that called scientific and technical com-munication a pressing national problem was generally ig-

TABLE 2. Comparative growth rates in 5-year periods, 1960–1965 to 1990–1995.

1960–1965 1965–1970 1970–1975 1975–1980 1980–1985 1985–1990 1990–1995

U.S. libraries 1.81 1.45 1.02 1.01 1.16 1.22 1.09R&D 2.10 1.30 1.06 1.20 1.20 1.42 1.15World science 1.26 1.27 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.25 1.26

FIG. 2. After Sputnik 1960–1975. FIG. 3. After the Space Race 1970–85.


nored. Support for research, which was substantially tied todefense budgets, was eroded by division over the war inVietnam. It was virtually eliminated by the “MansfieldAmendment” to the military procurement authorization for1970 (Nichols, 1971). U.S. authors decreased their share ofworld journal articles from 38.2 to 35.9% between 1973 and1981 (National Science Board, 1993, p. 421). The NationalScience Foundation shut down its Division of Science In-formation by the end of the decade. Citing the Fry-Whitestudy, the National Enquiry on Scholarly Communication(1979) complained that inadequate library collections werethe most severe problem faced by scholars. Notice thatlibrary growth is absolutely flat between 1970 and 1980,illustrating how vulnerable libraries are to the administra-tive view that they present an infinite sinkhole to the budget(e.g., Munn, 1968). Meanwhile, support for the expansionof R&D resumed by 1975 and continued uninterruptedbetween 1975 and 1985 (National Science Board, 1989).

Figure 4: 1980–1995

R&D was revitalized first by the energy crisis, then areprise of Cold War militarism with the Star Wars initiative,and later a broader enthusiasm for technology, medicalresearch, and environmental studies. Part of that broaderenthusiasm attracted non-Federal sponsors to academic re-search, increasing their participation from 32% in 1980 to40% in 1995. Table 2 and Figure 4 attest that US R&Dapproximates the growth of world science, doubling be-tween 1980 and 1995. Libraries’ expansion, dormant be-tween 1970 and 1980, appears to return. Their expansion iscomparatively weak, 54% between 1980 and 1995, andinsufficient to defuse the stress of inadequacy. At the end ofthe 1980s the “serials crisis” finally exploded (Associationof Research Libraries, 1989). Nevertheless, libraries’shrinking financial allocation continues (Advisory Panel forScientific Publications, 1992; Andrew W. Mellon Founda-tion, 1993; U.S. Dept. of Education. National Center forEducation Statistics, 1997). Photocopy statistics skyrocked(Association of Research Libraries, 1996; OCLC, 1989). In1989, the Association of College and Research Libraries

(1989) revised its Standards for University Library Collec-tions, eliminating assertions that weak collections hamperedresearch. Title II-A (college library materials) was deletedby the Higher Education Amendments of 1993, after adecade of not being funded. The American Library Associ-ation called attention to the devaluation of the U.S. dollarand its impact on the purchasing ability of libraries collect-ing foreign research (American Library Association, 1987).Analyses of the AMIGOS database indicate a growingconcentration of common acquisitions. Suggestions by Per-rault (1994) and Schwartz (1994a, 1994b) of insularity maybe corroborated by extraordinarily high incidence of cita-tions to U.S. authors by U.S. researchers, a characteristicthat is not shared by authors elsewhere (National ScienceBoard, 1996; Table 5-41). U.S. authors decreased theirshare of world journal articles further, to 33.6% by 1993(National Science Board, 1996, p. 207). By the 1990s, largerstudies of science communications dwindled (King et al.,1994, pp. 3–5).

The relationship of research and libraries is a natural one,forged hundreds of years ago and still vital in the 20thcentury. In planning the government–academic partnershipfor research after World War II, universities were, “. . .charged with the responsibility of conserving the knowledgeaccumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to stu-dents, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds” (Bush,1945, p. 19). The Federal government, which financed 60 to70% of academic research during the period studied, as-sumes its “fair share” of overhead expenses (England,1982). Libraries that conserve research information for useby government scientists have a financial connection toresearch via indirect cost payments (U.S. Executive Officeof the President, 1995). Universities receive a percentage ofscience grants to cover the indirect costs of research. Indi-rect costs total over $4 billion in support of $8 billion directcosts. Calculated as a ratio averaging two points for every100 points of direct costs, the library reimbursement totalsapproximately $160 million or about 10% of library spend-ing by 125 institutions classified as “Research Universities”by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-ing. This is perhaps the only remnant of the aborted Federalscience information policy.

The financing of libraries via this indirect cost processhas serious faults. Some of these are reflected in Figures1–4. U.S. library and research growth separated before1975, well illustrated by constant dollar trends. Indirect costreimbursements make no practical connection of Federalresearch with libraries. Universities have no obligation toaccount for library reimbursements, as they do with $2billion support for facilities. Not surprisingly, the formulaused to calculate reimbursements reflects university popu-lation segments and not the needs of researchers, their use oflibraries, or economic relationships of supply and demand.Research rebounded after 1975. Why not libraries?

Notwithstanding its spirited growth, research is also trou-bled. Obviously, academic research activity produces pub-lications that academic libraries collect and conserve. Li-

FIG. 4. Star Wars, etc. 1980–1995.


braries are used by students and researchers in a synergetic,never-ending cycle. As I pointed out earlier, libraries andresearch each simultaneously perform the dual economicroles of supply and demand. One can reasonably demon-strate that libraries’ growth and size are related to theproductivity or effectiveness of research and education(Kerr, 1994, p. 174; Machlup, 1961; Rider, 1944; VanHouse, 1990). King et al. (1994) summarized studies doc-umenting the importance and heavy use of libraries forresearch. It reasonably follows that if libraries cannot absorbthe work product of research and disseminate it, their per-formance will suffer and the quality of research and educa-tion will decay (Axford, 1962; Henderson, 1994/1995;Rider, 1944). Inevitably, researchers express difficulties inkeeping abreast of relevant, useful information in preparingviable proposals and executing distinguished research(Garvey, 1979; Herring, 1968; Huth, 1989; Lederman,1991; Spitzer et al., 1995).

The productivity of science is elusive, difficult to gradevia surrogates such as citation data and sheer numbers ofpublications. Items of information are borrowed across di-verse lines of research and blended; unintended results mayhave breakthrough significance (Holton, Chang, & Jurko-witz, 1996). Seeking some measure of productivity in sci-ence, economists Stephan and Levin (1992) analyzed pub-lications of scientists found in the Survey of Doctoral Re-cipients maintained by the National Research Council. Theyfound that the average age of scientists was climbing andproductivity was in decline (pp. 156–166). Nowhere in theirstudy can we find any reference to information resourcesthat are critical to productivity, to the expansion of infor-mation generated by research activity, or to the gap sepa-rating research from library growth. If they had focused oninput as much as output, they might have enriched theiranalysis and reached different conclusions for the loss ofquality and what to do about it.

The generic weakness of peer review—and, therefore, ofscience—is that referees may be no better informed than theauthors they judge. An accurate appraisal of research pro-ductivity is obtained by comprehensive assessments of allpublications in a well-defined specialty some time afterpublication. In examples of this approach, evaluators re-jected half to three-quarters of all research as lacking sci-entific merit. They pointed out that poor research typicallylacks adequate preparation (Herring, 1968; Spitzer et al.,1995). The passage of time fosters general disseminationthat illuminates and consequently improves the evaluationof particular research (Garvey, 1979, pp. 91–114). Thelibraries available today are larger but half empty comparedto those of 30 years ago. Investigators today know more,perhaps, but they are less well informed about new findingsof potential relevance.

Comparing constant dollar spending at libraries withworld science output clarifies a second problem area. For-eign authors account for more than 65% of science journalarticles. Libraries are importers of finished work product,spending a small fraction of the cost of its production.

Figures 3–4 indicate growth of world science while U.S.libraries stagnated. The debasement of libraries (and theirusers) is aggravated by revaluation of foreign currency.There is probably no other category of higher education orscience that bears this burden. The German DeutschMark,for instance, tripled in its U.S. dollar exchange value be-tween 1960 and 1995, escalating the prices of Germanpublications. The devaluation of the U.S. dollar that cutsinto library purchases is not addressed by either science orhigher education policy.

The figures also invite notice of the disparity between thescope of the library mission and the narrow, ephemeral, andpolitically vulnerable nature of each year’s crop of Federalgrants. Long-term mission goals of libraries, being finan-cially tied to the short-term financing of U.S. research andeducation, suffer. The library serves future as well aspresent needs as it confronts an exponentially growingworld literature. It may play its most crucial role prior to theawarding of a grant, yet Federal support appears afterward.It often serves referees who are responsible for the qualityof projects based at other institutions, institutions that re-ceive grant-related support. Total income for sponsoredresearch may vary as projects are started and finished.Undoubtedly, this difference, like the occasional separationof domestic-world expansion of research, contributes to theproblems of libraries and the service they provide.

Inadequate library funding sullies all higher educationand cultural interests, across the entire spectrum of knowl-edge. Not only science is poorly served by libraries’ inabil-ity to absorb and disseminate the full scope of publishedinformation. Academic libraries provide a core marketplacefor cerebral texts of all kinds, at one time providing areliable home for a thousand or more copies, justifyingprintings that resulted in affordable prices. Publishers andauthors of intellectually challenging books in all fields havebeen forced to make decisions in adversity—reducing printruns, narrowing coverage, abandoning lines, raising prices,appealing for production subsidies, abandoning markets,reorganizing, selling out, and shutting down—as a result oflibrary impoverishment during periods of rising researchactivity (American Physical Society, 1971–1990; Helle-mans, 1986; Henderson, 1995, 1998b; King Research,1976–1977; Thatcher, 1995; Winkler, 1997).

Brown’s (1996, pp. 41–43) explanation for the inade-quacy of financial support for libraries is that the agenciesthat sponsor research are separate and distinct from thoseresponsible for the libraries used by researchers. The Balkannature of the political environment may be even morecomplex. Organizations chartered for “the advancement anddiffusion” of various scientific disciplines have been muteon the library crisis in spite of their awareness of the chronicand pervasive nature of the problem, powers of accredita-tion, and active posture on other policy questions (Hender-son, 1998a). The Congressional Research Service (U.S.Congress, 1975) noted that minor improvements in dissem-ination were more often offset by inaction, reorganizations,and cuts in support: a “feudal posture which impeded the


realization of national goals” (p. 61). Gorman (Crawford &Gorman, 1995; Groman, 1994) amplifies Talbot (1984),pointing out that libraries’ money is diverted for otherpurposes under a cloud of shameless excuses and canards.To counter this trend, Advisory Panel for Scientific Publi-cations (1992) recommended that major library collections,as national resources of economic significance, should bepublicly financed and controlled by a directorate that rep-resents the entire research community. Several hundredresearchers have also petitioned for reform of indirect costguidelines regulating library reimbursements (Hoke, 1994).

Brown (1996) used constant dollar analysis, populationtrends, Gross Domestic Product comparisons, demograph-ics, and other statistical measures to forecast the potentialfor electronic publishing. Confronting the enthusiasm forthe utilization of computers and telecommunications, heraised questions of economics and viability. A series ofexperimental studies demonstrated problems of technicalobsolescence, user apathy, administrative complexities, newneeds for training and maintenance, lack of standards, andan enormously high cost of infrastructure (pp. 43–55).Eventually he concluded that the new media cannot surviveunder marginal conditions (p. 152). New technology re-quires more money, not less. Librarians wonder where theywill get the extra money they need to buy technology whenthey cannot afford to maintain paper collections on oldfashioned shelves (Crawford & Gorman, 1995; Webster,1997).

The growth of technologies affecting formal researchcommunications outpaced the “information explosion” 100-fold (Koenig, 1982). They include photocopying, micro-forms, computers, and communications. Can the enhance-ment of “conduits” span the “content” gap between thegrowth of research and libraries demonstrated in Figure 1?There has much rhetoric by promoters, and little analysiseither by information scientists or economists. New tech-nologies have required new investments, often highly spec-ulative. They have provided new benefits with new coststhat may include unforeseen side effects, impediments tooverall effectiveness. There are two classes of technology:real and envisioned.

Real technology made an impact on behavior and createddisagreements in policy. Photocopying, for instance, wasembraced by researchers from its beginning and sanctionedby the “Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1937,” which providedthe beginnings of fair use as defined in §108 of the Copy-right Act of 1976 (U.S. Library of Congress, 1988, pp. 6–7).The Xerox 914 copier proliferated in the mid-1960s—thanks to a huge market extending far beyond academe(Jacobson & Hillkirk, 1986). Researchers’ private librariesburgeoned. The contribution of photocopying to justify cutsin university library allocations is debatable when one con-siders the cost effectiveness of research. Did it do harm? Forinstance, a purchasing agent might study usage and comparecost per use of subscriptions to the cost of an equal numberof photocopies (Kingma, 1996). Many disagreements arenoted regarding the methodologies and accuracy of such use

studies (Butkovich, 1996; Naylor, 1994). There is no agree-ment on what a “use” is. A volume reshelved in the currentperiodicals room does not illuminate value per use. What isthe effect of such choices on the cost effectiveness ofresearch? Melvin J. Voigt (1979) commented, “It seems soobvious that use of any multimillion-volume research li-brary . . . can bemeaningfully studied only by concentratingon that research use, not on statistics hopelessly distorted bythe intensive use of relatively few volumes by undergradu-ates.”

Nonetheless, many universities relied on such cost-per-use studies and often chose to go with photocopies. Thephrase “interlibrary loan” (ILL) soon became a euphemismfor photocopying, and prevailed as an excuse to cut libraryspending. In response to this trend, the Copyright Act of1976 forbid libraries from substituting interlibrary photo-copies for a subscription or purchase [17 U.S.C.§108(g)(2)]. Nonetheless, it seems clear that librariesadopted, or were forced to adopt, photocopies to substitutefor collections (King, 1987; King, McDonald, & Roderer,1981). By the end of the 1980s, OCLC (1989) reported a500% increase in ILL requests by academic and researchlibraries between 1979 and 1988. The average growth ofinterlibrary borrowing among a sampling of Association ofResearch Libraries members outpaced the growth of theircollections 2 to 1 over 2 decades (Henderson 1994/95).Economic forces created a new “document delivery” indus-try that collects copyright fees (which are not a part of ILL),that depends on photocopy technology, and that uses fax,e-mail, and MIS technology to good advantage (Mitchell &Walters, 1995).

Dependent on photocopying, the wide adoption of “ac-cess, not ownership” policies deeply eroded U.S. libraryassets. This may become the “information Pearl Harbor” ofthe new millennium, shocking those who have not paidattention to the early warnings. Comparisons of the holdingsof over 70 large academic research libraries with an inter-national bibliography find a decline in holdings and agreater concentration of publications held in common (Per-rault, 1994; Schwartz, 1994a, 1994b). Thirty to 60% of newbooks published during the 10-year period, ending in 1988,in fields such as sociology, psychology, and internationalrelations, where comprehensive collecting might be ex-pected, was not acquired by any of the libraries. Chrzas-towski and Schmidt (1993, 1996) examined serials cancel-lations at five academic research libraries and found theelimination of many unique titles, particularly expensiveforeign science journals. The national collection is shrink-ing. ILL and document delivery depend on sources that arecomprehensive and up to date. It should come as no surprisethat leading document delivery suppliers are now locatedoutside the U.S. (ASIDIC, 1996, p. 36). This would havebeen unimaginable 30 years ago. In short, many of ourlargest libraries are becoming “satellites” as defined byTrueswell (1969). If this downside of the “Matthew Effect”(Merton, 1968; “from him that hath not shall be taken awayeven that which he hath.” Matthew 13:12 and 25:29) plays


out, 20% of the collections may eventually remain to takecare of 80% of the users, probably undergraduates. Ad-vanced researchers will be second-class patrons.

The principles of the “Matthew Effect” also describeerosion of the professional practice of librarians who pro-vide critical guidance and dissemination services. Describ-ing and classifying information is at the heart of librarian-ship. Gorman (1995) points out that experienced catalogersare becoming scarce, because so many libraries have shedresponsibility for catalog content. Technology enables basicprofessional work such as cataloging and book selection tobe outsourced through networking and outsourcing (Goos-sens, 1995; Gorman, 1995; Oder, 1997; White, 1998). Bro-derick (1997) adds that the value of service is lost as libraryeducation is overtaken by technology.

Side effects of technology may cost researchers and theirsponsors dearly. For instance, witness the widespread adop-tion of on-line catalogs using purchased and shared data. Asa researcher, Nicholson Baker (1994, 1996) complainedrather bitterly that catalog cards with original local annota-tions—and even books—were recklessly discarded to makeroom for computer workstations. There is also the embar-rassing inadequacy of remote catalogs. The typical entryformat retains the limitations of a 3 by 5 card. The infor-mation given often forces you to examine the book. Take,for instance, a book that contains the biographies of 50artists. The catalog record will not divulge the desired who’swho of its content. Without considering the value to theusers, the expense of upgrading online catalogs to providereasonable analytical detail would presumably overshadowsavings sought from sharing. Similarly partial conversion ofcatalogs omits huge parts of libraries’ collections and ren-ders them useless to the online user.

Libraries are unable to meet the rise of ILL demandspurred by online catalogs (Bustos, 1993). A survey of 190college libraries indicated that many restrictions apply.Most libraries will not lend periodicals, reference materials,software, fragile items, audio-visual materials, or micro-forms. Some refuse to lend best sellers and art books. Mostlibraries borrow books only for affiliated patrons. A few willnot borrow books for undergraduates. About one-third ofthe libraries will do ILL for “outside” patrons, either withthe permission of the director or for a fee. A third restrict thenumber of requests a patron is permitted to submit. (Forexample: five requests per day, per week or in process, or10–15 requests per semester.) Ashton (1997) notes thatuniversities generally rejected the ADONIS document de-livery system because they could not restrict its use.

For researchers, “access not ownership” is a poor sub-stitute for browsable shelves. Photocopies take an averageof a week to appear; more than 10% of orders are not filled(ASIDIC, 1996, pp. 23, 25). Red tape raises a threshold ofinconvenience, and delay that may discourage researchers.Buckland (1975, p. 45) pointed out that when users believethe library is unlikely to hold a given item, they may notbother to seek it there. Shapiro (1997) describes a surveyrevealing that more than 90% of Columbia’s professors no

longer set foot in the main library. Exon and Punch (1997)observe that clients’ demands for the comprehensive col-lection do not disappear.

ILL is labor-intensive even when assisted by technology.Its contribution to reducing expenses was reviewed by theAssociation of Research Libraries and the Research LibraryGroup (Nicklin, 1993; Roche, 1993). The study showedaverage costs totaled near $30 that might have been spent onmaterials that would have more than one use. Documentdelivery, adding copyright fees averaging $5.506 $4.90and service fees averaging $11.006 $47.40, is more ex-pensive (ASIDIC, 1996, pp. 30, 32). Paustian (1981) inves-tigated borrowing and lending for 82 ARL libraries over 5years. He found that large private collections are less likelyto lend as many items in proportion to their collection sizeas large public collections. He suggests that ILL is oftenconsidered a burden.

Perhaps the most effective new technology transformedprinted indexes to databases capable of complex searchesand other tasks. Unfortunately, the databases may becomethe weakest link between decimated collections and poten-tial resource sharing. Williams (1995) points out differencesbetween large database producers, serving legal, medical,and engineering professions, and producers that depend onacademic libraries.Chemical Abstracts, for instance, servesa major industry. It covers a single discipline using 9,000journals published in 97 countries, patents of 27 patentoffices, as well as books, reports, dissertations, and confer-ence proceedings (Donnell, 1994/1995). Databases thatcover the entire academic spectrum, such as ISI, use fewersources and, therefore, can record only a carefully chosensampling. Money may influence the choice, according toallegations by Latin American publishers that ISI demandedpurchase of a $10,000 subscription as a requirement forcoverage (Gibbs, 1995). Deitz and Osegueda (1989) indi-cate severe deficiencies in coverage: seven major life sci-ences databases produced only half the citations they even-tually uncovered with manual searches. In my own experi-ence, I have found databases often omit editorial materialsuch as letters, notes, reviews, syndicated materials, com-ments, and editorials. In short, databases serving academicaudiences falter due to resistance to prices appropriate tocomprehensive coverage. The curtailment of coverage inbibliographic databases is generally attributed to subscrip-tion cancellations (Kaser, 1995; Williams, 1995). I wouldblame policy behind library budgets.

Less recognized but equally powerful advances in tech-nology caused publishers to migrate to cold type (eventually“desktop publishing”) and photo-offset printing. Unher-alded cost savings passed on to customers caused a myste-rious dip in constant dollar prices analyzed in the BlackwellNorth America database of academic books 1972–1992(Wagner, 1993). Publishers’ investments in these and othertechnologies, including fax, e-mail, personal computers,spreadsheets, word processing, marketing databases, projectsoftware, audio-video, and back-office systems, havelargely enhanced their ability to advance the quality of


dissemination. Savings to libraries are more elusive. StevanHarnad (1990) described the market rationale forPsycholu-quy, a newly organized refereed electronic journal, andclaimed major savings. An electronic version ofAstrophys-ical Journal was unable to achieve such savings withoutdropping editorial standards (Boyce & Dalterio, 1996). Theauthors also note that the strong demand to continue it inpaper form will double many make-ready costs of produc-tion and distribution. Faced by plunging unit sales, expand-ing content, and a market demanding they invest in exper-imental technology, publishers have rarely had any choicebut to raise library prices sharply (Henderson, 1992a,1992b, 1995). The resistance of authors to requests forsubsidies also meant higher library prices (American Insti-tute of Physics, 1986).

Microform technologies were advocated by Rider (1944)as a means of dealing with libraries’ need to accommodategrowing collections. The Association of Research Libraries(1998) reports 424 million microform units held by 110university members. Undoubtedly, microforms have savedconsiderable capital investments in buildings and facilities.Microforms also solved other problems at an added cost. Amicroform copy provides archival permanence, space sav-ings, and file integrity. Starting in the 1980s, laser disksoffered these benefits as well as new advantages providedby digital storage and manipulation. The Adonis BV com-pany, for example, presents its product as a “documentdelivery service” because its subscriptions include copy-right licensing and secure control of copying of more than800 titles from 90 publishers, as well as searching capabil-ities in CD-ROMs (Ashton, 1997).

It has been acceptable to portray the flow of informationas a full circle, with researchers generating journal articlesthat pass via publishers and libraries back to the researchers.This has a certain truth to it, but fails to give insight into thedynamics of the economics or cost effectiveness of researchcommunications. It may even be misleading. The differencein growth shown by Figure 1 suggests that the circuit mayend at the publishers or even in the laboratory. Output maynot always become input. The average ARL institutioncontributes only about 0.25% of all research publishedworldwide. It also may purchase findings of any or allresearch far below production costs—provided it allocatesadequate purchasing power to its library.

Zahray and Sirbu (1989/1990) refer to an economictheory of clubs to model delivery of scholarly journals viaelectronic technologies. The club, which pools resources ofits members, must charge fees sufficient to cover its oper-ations. Zahray and Sirbu’s model indicates that fees for newservices must rise to balance falling income from traditionalsubscriptions. They conclude that the solution to the “pris-oners’ dilemma,” whereby universities hope to obtain costadvantages from the new technology only if they collabo-rate, will be precluded by publishers raising fees. As if tocorroborate the accuracy of the prediction, Lindsey (1993)reported sharp increases in copying fees.

The impact of envisioned technology has been damagingto the productivity of research and the effectiveness ofeducation. The aggressiveness of its proponents trappedpolicy makers deep in Plato’s cave, where shadows take onthe importance of reality. For 30 years they have declared anelectronicdeus ex machinawould solve the crisis in learneddissemination. The professed immediacy of their solutionconveniently forestalled the more reasonable approacheseloquently argued by the President’s Science AdvisoryCommittee (1963), Conyers Herring (1968), and even writ-ten into the National Science and Technology Policy, Or-ganization and Priorities Act of 1976. (42 U.S.C. §6601etseq.) It required the government “to promote prompt, effec-tive, reliable, and systematic transfer of science and tech-nology information.” After the Congressional Research Ser-vice (U.S. Congress, 1975) reported a “policy vacuum” inthe area of scientific and technical information, Congressintended the President’s Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy (OSTP) to provide executive branch leadership.More than a decade later, the Office of Technology Assess-ment (U.S. Congress, 1989) called the performance ofOSTP a failure. Congress also intended the President’sCommittee on Science and Technology to take an interest inand to recruit experts in information dissemination. Presi-dent Clinton and his predecessors replaced this organizationwith a less defined President’s Committeeof AdvisorsonScience and Technology (Most recently, Executive Order12882. Nov. 23, 1993). Its members include not one recog-nizable expert in information dissemination, although thecommittee has been chaired for many years by experts in(and powerful advocates for) information technology pro-vided by Hewlett-Packard. Perhaps the most curious side-tracking of the information crisis was to delegate responsi-bility for fostering the transfer and utilization of R&Dresults to the Office of Management and Budget (ExecutiveOrder 12039 Feb. 24, 1978).

The essential question with visionary technology is, asthe lady in the commercial asked, “where’s the beef?” Thepitchmen, many of whom appear to flourish in central NewJersey, have sold only “sizzle.” Thirty years ago, whenmainframe computers were primitive compared to the mod-ern laptop, members of the technical staff of Bell TelephoneLaboratories daringly promoted its “Mercury” system (usedfor selective distribution of internal technical reports) as apanacea for all disciplines (Brown, Pierce, & Traub, 1967).Some years later, aided by president of Bell LaboratoriesWilliam O. Baker, the National Enquiry into ScholarlyCommunication (1979 pp. 29–35) envisioned the Internetand recommended further study of the intelligent use oftechnology. Their phraseology, “let us imagine,” memori-alizes the elusiveness of technical solutions to the problemsof scholars. The continued failure of technovisions to ma-terialize was further demonstrated by the American PhysicalSociety. The APS task force on electronic information sys-tems (1991) came to conclusions similar to the NationalEnquiry—recommending continued study. Bell Labs scien-tist Andrew M.Odlyzko (1995) continued to pitch electronic


solutions, claiming that various pressures will force achange in dissemination of science literature from print toelectronic means. Most recently, the Red Sage experiment,supported by Bell Labs’ James Q. Arnold, tested electronicdelivery of the full text of key journals directly to scientists.(Arnold, Badger, Lucier, et al., 1997) This 3-year experi-ment, which included 19 publishers and 71 journals, endedin 1996 with a viable solution out of reach. Publishers’distribution problems aside, the University of Californiareported, “After 3 years of significant hardware and main-tenance costs, UCSF has concluded that storage at theirinstitution is not practical.” Elsevier’sTULIP Final Reportalso brought negative findings, although Elsevier continuesto offer electronic versions of its journals (Elsevier Science,1996). Like Brown (1996), Elsevier found users to be apa-thetic, and that the limited capacity of the marketplacehinders widespread application of electronic journals. Fiveyears of study at nine universities demonstrated that largedigital collections will be considerably more difficult andmore expensive than print for both libraries and publishers;publishers will be expected to provide labor-intensive sup-port services in addition to developing and keeping up witha rapidly obsolescing technology. Karen Hunter (1997),who oversaw TULIP, raised important new questions re-garding the unforeseen impact of electronic publishing onadministrative tasks and relationships. Seeking to determineif electronic journals has made any impact on scholarship,Harter (1996, 1998) applied citation analysis. He concludedthat the influence of ejournals has not been significant.

Summing up the disagreement over policy implicationsof new technology, we might look to one of the majoradvocates of envisioned technology, William G. Bowen,now president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, whichis the source of many information technology grants. Bo-wen’s views may represent many policy makers. From 1972to 1988, he was president of Princeton University, where heearlier served as provost and professor of economics. Heargues that libraries can “pay their way” based on thepremise that new technology will save money by makingbetter use of existing resources (Bowen, 1996). He ex-presses a compelling sentiment when he urges us “to seekgenuine reductions in costsfor the system” (emphasisquoted). However, his presentation focuses on cutting li-brary spending rather than improving the productivity ofresearch and education. Figure 1 suggests that spendingreductions, 1970–1995, were taken prematurely in antici-pation of savings yet to come.

Tenopir and King (1996, 1997) offer a more authoritativeview of the economics of research and research journals.The major cost associated with journals is the cost ofscientists’ time acquiring information—not library expen-ditures. Changes in library resources over the last 20 yearsmean that scientists use libraries more but suffer greaterinconveniences, institutions suffer greater costs, and pub-lishers suffer reduced profits. Although cost per reading hasnot changed, it has shifted from subscription to interlibraryloan or document delivery. Anyone who seeks to replace the

publisher or library will not save costs associated withpublication or library services.

Misinformation and myths may impair the efficacy ofpolicy. Tenopir and King (1996) suggest that the presentcrisis sprung from management decisions that were basedon poor understanding of how information resources sup-port research and instruction. Noble (1968) accuses admin-istrators of inappropriate “commoditization” of educationalfunctions on a massive scale. Baumol and Blackman (1983)pin the “cost disease” directly on such assumptions. Com-puterization of library operations and the falling prices ofcomputer systems were expected to reduce the cost oflibraries. Instead, the decline of prices increased the share ofcostly labor-intensive activities. According to a study issuedby the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Princeton cut itslibrary’s share of expenditures 30% between 1979 and 1990(1993, p. 33). Former Princeton provost and president Bo-wen later confessed, “One surprising finding was that, start-ing in about the mid-1970s, the share of total universityexpenditures going to their libraries began to decline rathersharply” (1996).

Poor libraries do not stop researchers as long as someoneis willing to sponsor them without calling for task-forceevaluations of the scientific evidence to support their work.Given few options, they will toil with mediocre resources.Grants are awarded competitively. For example Fein (1998,May 9) reports that universities in New York once com-manded a preeminent 15% of NIH grants, considered abarometer of research vitality. New York recently fell tothird behind California and Massachusetts. Researchers in-dicated the attitude of “retrenchment” in New York institu-tions affected critical choices. Some corroboration is sug-gested by the annual rankings of libraries offered by theChronicle of Higher Education(1993, 1998). Four of fiveuniversities with medical schools in New York lost rank,while Emory and other out-of-state schools indicated in thearticle gained or held their place. Analyses of productivitymeasures by Graham and Diamond (1997) indicate thatmany universities’ reputations reflect past realities and areno longer deserved.

Can retrenchment be destructive? The essence of librar-ies is that their benefits are potentially worth far more thantheir cost. The potential of libraries’ productivity is reducedwhen they are impoverished, “cost-contained,” and infor-mation is subjected to the red tape of “access, not owner-ship.” The policy paradigm here appears to prefer high riskof duplication and error by researchers rather than excel-lence of relatively inexpensive resources. It emphasizesinformation technology rather than dissemination, refine-ment, and use of knowledge. This approach reduces costeffectiveness of research on two fronts. It clogs the literaturewith reports of poorly prepared work, and it wastes re-sources on ineffective primary studies (Bailar, 1995;Goudsmit, 1966; Hamilton, 1990; Herring, 1968; Hirsch,Milwitt, & Oakes, 1958; Lederberg, 1995; Martyn, 1964;Spitzer et al., 1995; Thomson, 1984).


Finally, the literature and tools of information science,including the history reflected by constant dollar trends,help to dispel the various myths and canards mentioned atthe beginning of this article. Clearly, the rise of researchactivity reflected by constant dollar spending, rather thanany unilateral action by publishers, by authors, or by tenurecommittees, accounts for the rise in numbers of publica-tions. Lotka’s law of productivity, which indicates a con-stancy between the numbers of papers and of authors, de-scribes the growth of both with uncanny precision (Price,1961, p. 175). Moreover, Price’s law indicates that morethan half of all journal articles are produced by 20% of allauthors (Price, 1963, pp. 223–225). The rising average ageof scientists (pointed out by Stephen & Levin, 1992) sug-gests that authors are more likely tenured scientists thanassistants. The notion that lean collections are desirable haslittle respect for researchers confronted by an acceleratingflood of potentially useful information. The author of theoft-cited maxim that 80% of a library’s requirements can beserved by 20% of its collection specifically addressed “sat-ellite” collections (Trueswell, 1969). Trueswell (1976) alsoasserted that the question of size becomes irrelevant if theprimary function of a library is to support esoteric research.The claim of paradigm, or consensus, that comprehensivecollections are unnecessary, carrying the implication thatlibrary funding can be reduced, has not gone unchallengedby librarians and particularly by library patrons (Crawford& Gorman, 1995; Exon & Punch, 1997; Henderson, 1997).Shapiro (1997) describes conditions at Columbia Universitythat force its scholars to travel.

Not everyone realizes that Price reopened the question ofthe growth curve of science, quietly abandoning his (1961)faulty suggestion that electrical engineering threatens toovertake the entire working population by 1990 (p. 177).His prologue to a science of science noted that it was tooearly to indicate when and how saturation would begin, andhe called for new ground rules (Price, 1963, pp. 1–6) Thehistory of science traced by constant dollars suggests thatthe surge of the 1960s and the slump of the 1970s were briefvariations in output.

The problems of research universities are endemic to allpostsecondary education. In terms of allocations for allinstitutions of higher education, we note libraries and in-struction lost (13 and 15%, respectively) of their 1945 shareby 1993, while administration gave itself a substantial(42%) increase (U.S. Dept. of Education, 1995, Table 333).The long-term abatement of library growth, interruptedbriefly by international politics, probably reflects the long-term debasement of higher education observed by writersthat include Nisbet (1971), Shils (1975), Gilbert and Green(1995), and Noble (1998), rather than a change in users’needs.

Conclusion

Massive evidence suggests that information science andpolicy, which once complemented and nourished each

other, parted company about 30 years ago. Since then,knowledge conservation grew half as much as knowledgeoutput. It appears that policy is preoccupied with technol-ogy to the exclusion of knowledge, reason, and duty. Orga-nizations dedicated to research and education have compro-mised their missions. In the race for resources, technologyhas become the nemesis of knowledge.

As a rival of knowledge, technology has spawned falseprophets. They deny the value of knowledge and preachunsubstantiated benefits of technology. They are wrong, ofcourse. Even the best conduits fail without sources of con-tent. Essential principles of information science rank knowl-edge resources and the systematic evaluation of resultsahead of technology. Returns on public investments in re-search cannot be realized unless findings are used. Produc-tivity is enhanced by information that saves other resources.Research begins with knowledge, including education andtraining. It requires broad current awareness and synthesisof discovery. Expanding research activity produces moredemand for information as well as more information. Re-search, theory, and commentary provide important clues toassessing the effectiveness and prudence of policy. With orwithout technology, the substantial sums spent on researchwould justify qualitative standards for performance. Onewonders why such assessment is so rare.

Libraries must be adequate to their task. Libraries pro-vide information. New knowledge often reaches its poten-tial only when it is distilled into coherence and blended withother knowledge. It may be useful only after crossing dis-ciplinary boundaries or after a period of latency. Librariessupply guidance. Productive browsing requires that infor-mation be presented systematically. Use of the library andbibliographic reference tools may require training. Librari-ans often provide bibliographic research.

Libraries provide encouragement. Libraries must havesufficient purchasing power to support private investmentsin dissemination. As a market, they provide incentives ordiscouragement to publishers. Investments of publishersresult in useful, reliable handbooks, encyclopedias, reviews,niche publications, references, and other useful works. Theyresult in improvements and innovations in technology.

Supported by adequate financing, libraries promote pro-ductivity in the library, the laboratory, the classroom, andthe field. There are no technological substitutes for massivecollections, reiterative synthesis, professional guidance, andprivate investment in knowledge.

Policy reforms based in information science might wellpursue a financial equation where supply/demand balancesdemand/supply at optimal cost effectiveness. Informationscience offers useful apparatus for relating research andlibraries, perhaps for regulating them in a symbiotic equi-librium intended to maximize the investment of scarceresources. Where library missions extend beyond short-termobjectives and local interests, and the comprehensive con-servation of research information is sought, indicators suchas constant dollars and Price’s constant may be more pro-


ductive management tools than the annual political scram-ble of the budget process.

How can we reach the mythic promise of the informationage? The question goes beyond science and technology. Arelative handful of higher education institutions monopolizeresearch and research resources. Their library collections,represented by Table 1, are the conservators of world sci-ence and culture. As central reservoirs, they should have aspecial duty to the future. They serve a national clientelewith no clear distinction between Federally sponsored pa-trons and others. They often assist far beyond campusperimeters. Relating the growth of such libraries to thegrowth of research would appear to be common sense andfor the common good. To let their resources continue todecay is tragic.

References

Advisory Panel for Scientific Publications. (1992, Fall). The cost effec-tiveness of science journals. Publishing Research Quarterly, 8(3), 72–91.

American Institute of Physics. (1986, July). 1985: A year of expandedactivities for AIP. Physics Today, 39(7), 51–58.

American Library Association. (1989). Resources and Technical ServicesDivision. (1987, June 29). Impact of Dollar Devaluation. Resolution.Reprinted in Report of the ARL serials prices project. Washington, DC:Association of Research Libraries.

American Physical Society. (1971). Editors’ reports. Bulletin of the Amer-ican Physical Society, II, 16, 700–707.

American Physical Society. (1990). Editors’ reports. Bulletin of the Amer-ican Physical Society, Ser. II, 35, 1301–1306.

American Physical Society. (1991). Report of the APS task force onelectronic information systems. Bulletin of the American Physical So-ciety, 36, 1119–1151.

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. (1993). University libraries and scholarlycommunication. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.

Anonymous. (1961). Increased support for libraries. Bowker annual, p.156.

Arnold, J.Q., Badger, R.C., Lucier, R.E., et al. (1997). Red Sage finalreport. [Online] http://www.springer-ny.com/press/redsage/.

Ashton, P. (1997). Adonis electronic journal subscriptions (EJS) service.Against the Grain, 9(3), 26–28.

ASIDIC. (1996). Survey of document delivery services 1996. Report.Athens, GA: Association of Information and Dissemination Centers.

Association of American Universities. Research Libraries Project. (1994).Reports of the AAU task forces on acquisition and distribution of foreignlanguage and area studies materials; A national strategy for managingscientific and technological information; Intellectual property rights inan electronic environment. Washington, DC: Association of ResearchLibraries.

Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). (1989, Sept.).Standards for university libraries: Evaluation of performance. Collegeand Research Library News, 50, 679–691. Prior revision (1979, April).College and Research Library News, 40, 158–167.

Association of Research Libraries. (1989). Report of the ARL serials pricesproject. Washington, DC: Association.

Association of Research Libraries. (1990). Research library statistics1907–08 through 1987–88 (data disks). Washington, DC: Associationof Research Libraries. Supplemented annually.

Association of Research Libraries. (1996). ARL statistics 1994/95. Wash-ington, DC: Association.

Association of Research Libraries. (1998). ARL statistics 1996/97. Wash-ington, DC: Association.

Axford, H.W. (1962). Rider revisited. College and Research Libraries, 23,345–347.

Bailar, J.C., III. (1995, April 21). The real threats to the integrity ofscience. Chronicle of Higher Education, 41(32), B1–B2.

Baker, N. (1994, April 4). The annals of scholarship. Discards. NewYorker, 70(7), 64–86.

Baker, N. (1996, Oct. 14). The author vs. the library. New Yorker, 72(39),50–62.

Baumol, W.J., & Blackman, S.A.B. (1983). Electronics, the cost disease,and the operation of libraries. JASIS: Journal of the American Societyfor Information Science, 34, 181–191.

Bishop, A., & Fellows, M. O’Neill. (1989). Descriptive analysis of majorFederal scientific and technical information policy studies. In C. R.McClure & P. Hernon (Eds.), U.S. scientific and technical information(STI) policies: Views and perspectives (pp. 3–55). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Bowen, W.G. (1996). How libraries can help to pay their way in the future.Logos, 7, 237–241.

Boyce, P.B., & Dalterio, H. (1996, Jan.). Electronic publishing of scientificjournals. Physics Today, 49(1), 42–47.

Broderick, D.M. (1997, July). Turning library into a dirty word: A rant.Library Journal, 122(12), 42–43.

Brown, D.J. (1996). Electronic publishing and libraries. Planning for theimpact and growth to 2003. London: Bowker-Saur.

Brown, W.S., Pierce, J.R., & Traub, J.F. (1967). The future of scientificjournals. Science, 158, 1153–1159.

Buckland, M.K. (1975). Book availability and the library user. Oxford:Pergamon Press Inc.

Buckland, M.K. (1992). Redesigning library services. A manifesto. Chi-cago: American Library Association.

Bush, V. (1945). Science—The endless frontier. A report to the presidenton a program for postwar scientific research. Washington, DC: NationalScience Foundation. Reprinted 1990. NSF 90-8.

Bustos, R. (1993). Interlibrary loan in college libraries. Chicago: AmericanLibrary Assn. Clip Note #16.

Butkovich, N.J. (1996). Use studies: A selective review. Library Resources& Technical Services, 40, 359–368.

Carrigan, D.P. (1991). Publish or perish: The troubled state of scholarlycommunication. Scholarly Publishing, 23(2), 131–142.

Chronicle of Higher Education. (1993, August 25). Holdings of universityresearch libraries in U.S. and Canada 1991–92. XL(1), 43.

Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998, May 15). Holdings of universityresearch libraries in U.S. and Canada 1996–97. XLIV(36), A22.

Chrzastowski, T.E., & Schmidt, K.A. (1993). Surveying the damage:Academic library serial cancellations 1987–88 through 1989–90. Col-lege and Research Libraries, 54, 93–102.

Chrzastowski, T.E., & Schmidt, K.A. (1996). Collections at risk: Revisit-ing serial cancellations in academic libraries. College and ResearchLibraries, 57, 351–364.

Copyright Act of 1976 (Pub. L. no. 94-553).Crawford, W., & Gorman, M. (1995). Future libraries: Madness, dreams,

and reality. Chicago: American Library Association.Deitz, L.L., & Osegueda, L.M. (1989). Effectiveness of bibliographic

databases for retrieving entomological literature: A lesson based on theMembracoidea (Homoptera). Bulletin of the Entomological Society ofAmerica, 35, 33–39.

Donnell, E.P. (1994/1995). Growth and change of the world’s chemicalliterature as reflected in Chemical Abstracts. Publishing Research Quar-terly, 10(4), 38–46.

Elsevier Science. (1996). TULIP final report. New York: Elsevier Science.England, J.M. (1982). A patron for pure science. The national science

foundation’s formative years, 1945–57. Washington, DC: National Sci-ence Foundation.

Exon, F.C.A., & Punch, K.F. (1997). The self-sufficient library collection:A test of assumptions. Journal of the American Society for InformationScience, 48, 11–16.

Fein, E.B. (1998, May 9). New York struggles for biomedical grant share.The New York Times. Metropolitan section.

Fry, B.M., & White, H.S. (1975). Economics and interaction of the pub-lisher–library relationship in the production and use of scholarly andresearch journals. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.


Garvey, W.D. (1979). Communication: The essence of science. Oxford:Pergamon Press.

Gibbs, W.W. (1995, August). Lost science in the third world. ScientificAmerican, 273(2), 92–99.

Gilbert, S.W., & Green, K.C. (1995). Information technology: A road tothe future? Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Goodstein, D.L. (1995). The era of exponential expansion: Implications ofits end for student support. In A.H. Teich, S.D. Nelson, & C. McEnaney(Eds.), AAAS science and technology policy yearbook 1995 (pp. 221–216). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement ofScience.

Goossens, P. (1995). Networking and libraries. In S. Kenna & S. Ross(Eds.), Networking in the humanities. London: Bowker-Saur.

Gorman, M. (1994, Feb. 15). The treason of the learned. The real agendaof those who would destroy libraries and books. Library Journal, 119(3),130–131.

Gorman, M. (1995, Sept. 15). The corruption of cataloging. Library Jour-nal, 120(15), 32–34.

Goudsmit, S.A. (1966, Sept.). Is the literature worth retrieving? PhysicsToday, 19(9), 52–55.

Graham, H.D., & Diamond, N. (1997). The rise of American researchuniversities. Elites and challengers in the postware era. Baltimore: TheJohns Hopkins University Press.

Hamilton, D.P. (1990, December 7). Publishing by—and for?—the num-bers. Science, 250, 1331–1332.

Harnad, S. (1990). Scholarly skywriting and the prepublication continuumof scientific inquiry. Psychological Science, 1, 342–344. See also vari-ous papers at http://www.princeton.edu/;harnad/.

Harter, S.P. (1996). The impact of electronic journals on scholarly com-munication: A citation analysis. Public Access Systems Review, 7[online] http://info.lib.uh.edu/pr/v7/hart7n5.html.

Harter, S.P. (1998). Scholarly communication and electronic journals.JASIS: Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49,507–516.

Hellemans, A. (1986, August 15). Monographs in decline. PublishersWeekly, 230(7), 21–23.

Henderson, A. (1992a). Forecasting prices of foreign science journals.Serials Librarian, 23(1/2), 129–134.

Henderson, A. (1992b). Forecasting changes in periodicals prices. SerialsLibrarian, 1(4), 33–43.

Henderson, A. (1994/1995, Winter). The bottleneck in research commu-nications. Publishing Research Quarterly, 10(4), 5–21.

Henderson, A. (1995, April). Solving the paradoxes of journal prices. CBEViews, 18(2), 31–35.

Henderson, A. (1997). Testing assumptions (letter). Journal of the Amer-ican Society for Information Science, 48, 770.

Henderson, A. (1998a, Jan. 19). Lawful misconduct. The Scientist, 12(2),7–8.

Henderson, A. (1998b, Sept./Oct.). The $78 billion question: Will the newscience policy give us coherence? Society, 35(6), 38–43.

Herring, C. (1968, Sept.). Distill or drown: The need for reviews. PhysicsToday, 21(9), 27–33.

Hirsch, I., Milwitt, W., & Oakes, W.J. (1958, Mar.-Apr.). Increasing theproductivity of scientists. Harvard Business Review, 36(2), 66–76.

Hoke, F. (1994, Feb. 21). Scientists press for boost in federal libraryfunding. The Scientist, 8(4), 5.

Holton, G., Chang, H., & Jurkowitz, E. (1996). How a scientific discoveryis made: A case history. American Scientist, 84, 364–375.

Hunter, K. (1997, Feb.). Things that keep me awake at night. Against theGrain, 9(1), 40–42, 74.

Huth, E.J. (1989). The information explosion. Bulletin of the New YorkAcademy of Medicine, 65, 647–661.

Jacobson, G., & Hillkirk, J. (1986). Xerox. American samurai. New York:Collier Books, Macmillan.

Kaser, R.T. (1995, Fall). Secondary information services. Mirrors of schol-arly communication. Publishing Research Quarterly, 11(3), 10–24.

Kerr, C. (1994). Troubled times for American higher education: The 1990sand beyond. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

King, D.W. (1987). Testimony. Report of the Register of Copyrights on theEffects of 17 U.S.C.108.

King, D.W., McDonald, D.D., & Roderer, N.K. (1981). Scientific Journalsin the United States. Their Production, Use, and Economics. Strouds-burg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company.

King, D.W., Griffiths, J.-M., Roderer, N.K., & Wiederkehr, R.R.V. (1982).Value of the energy data base. Oak Ridge, TN: Technical InformationCenter, U.S. Dept. Of Energy. DOE/OR/11212-1 (DE82014250).

King, D.W., Castro, J., & Jones, H. (1994). Communication by engineers:A literature review of engineers’ information needs, seeking processes,and use. Washington, DC: Council on Library Resources, Inc.

King Research, Inc. (1976–1977). Statistical indicators of scientific andtechnical communication (1960–1980). 1976 edition: Washington, DC:Superintendent of Documents. Stock no. 038-000-00295-3. 1977 Edi-tion: NTIS PB 278-279.

Kingma, B.R. (1996) .The economics of access versus ownership: Thecosts and benefits of access to scholarly articles via interlibrary loan andjournal subscriptions. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Koch, H.W. (1968). Publication charges and financial solvency. PhysicsToday, 21(12), 126–127.

Koenig, M.E.D. (1982, Nov. 1). The information controllability explosion.Library Journal, 107(19), 2052–2054.

Krettek, G., & Hubbard, H. (1964). Legislation of library interest. Bowkerannual, 1964, 111–115.

Krettek, G., & Cooke, E.D. (1965). Legislation of library interest. Bowkerannual, 1965, 164–160.

Lederberg, J. (1995, Feb. 20) Sloppy research extracts a greater toll thanmisconduct. The Scientist 9(4), 13.

Lederman, L.M. (1991, Jan.). Science: The end of the frontier? Supplementto Science.

Levy, S. (1998). Remarks on math journals and libraries. Newsletter onSerials Pricing Issues, 202.1.

Lindsey, T.K. (1993, November 23). Copyright fees escalating. Newsletter onserials prices issues. 101.5. Also, response by Martha Wittaker. 101.6.

Machlup, F. 1962. The production and distribution of knowledge in theUnited States. Princeton: University Press.

Martyn, J. (1964). Unintentional duplication of research. New Scientist,377, 388.

McClure, C.R., & Hernon, P. (Eds.). (1989). U.S. scientific and technicalinformation (STI) policies: Views and perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Merton, R.K. (1968, January 5). The Matthew effect in science. Science,159, 56–63. “For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shallhave abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away eventhat which he hath.” Matthew 13:12 and 25:29.

Mitchell, E., & Walters, S.A. (1995). Document delivery services: Issuesand answers. Medford, NJ: Learned Information Inc.

Molyneux, R. (1986). Patterns, processes of growth, and the projection oflibrary size: A critical review of the literature on academic librarygrowth. Library and Information Service Research, 8, 5–28.

Munn, R.F. (1968, Jan.). The bottomless pit, or the academic library asviewed from the administration building. College and Research Librar-ies, 51–54. Reprinted 1989, Nov., 635–637.

National Academy of Sciences. Committee on Scientific and TechnicalCommunications (SATCOM). (1969). Scientific and technical commu-nication. A pressing national problem and recommendations for itssolution. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication. (1979). Scholarly com-munication. The report. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Priorities Actof 1976. (Publ. L. No. 94-282).

National Science Board. (1989). Science & engineering indicators 1989.Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. NSB 89-1.



Naylor, Maiken. (1994). Comparative results of two current periodical usestudies. Library Resources & Technical Services, 38, 373–388.


Nichols, R.W. (1971, April 2). Mission-oriented R&D. Science, 172,29–37.

Nicklin, J.B. (1993, July 7). Colleges rethink the effectiveness of interli-brary loans in cutting expenses. Chronicle of Higher Education. A37.

Nisbet, R.A. (1971). Degradation of the academic dogma. New York:Basic Books. Reprinted 1997. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Noble, D.F. (1998). Selling academe to the technology industry. Thoughtand Action. NEA Higher Education Journal, 14(1), 29–40.

OCLC. (1989, July/August). Interlibrary loan turns 10. OCLC Newsletter,180, 13–26.

Oder, N. (1997, March 15). Outsourcing model—Or mistake. LibraryJournal, 122(5), 28–31.

Odlyzko, A.M. (1995). Tragic loss or good riddance? The impendingdemise of traditional scholarly journals. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 42, 71–122.

Paustian, P.R. (1981). Collection size and interlibrary loan in large aca-demic libraries. Library Research, 3, 393–400.

Perrault, A.H. (1994). The shrinking national collection. A study of theeffects of the diversion of funds from monographs to serials on themonograph collections of research libraries. Library Acquisitions: Prac-tice and Theory, 18, 3–22.

Pierce, C.S. (1896). Collected papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press1931.

President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC). (1963). Science, gov-ernment, and information. The responsibilities of the technical commu-nity and the government in the transfer of information. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.

Price, D.J. de Solla. (1961). Science since Babylon. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press, Enl. ed. 1975.

Price, D.J. de Solla. (1963). Little science, big science—And beyond. NewYork: Columbia University Press. Enl. ed. 1986.

Rider, F. (1944). The scholar and the future of the research library. NewYork: Hadham Press.

Roche, M.M. (1993). ARL/RLG interlibrary loan cost study. Washington,DC: Association of Research Libraries.

Schwartz, C.A. (1994a). Modeling scholarly literature. Publishing Re-search Quarterly, 10(27), 29–35.

Schwartz, C.A. (1994b). Empirical analysis of literature loss. LibraryResources and Technical Services. 38, 133–138.

Shapiro, J. (1997, Dec. 12). University libraries: The 7-per-cent solution.Chronicle of Higher Education, XLIV(16), B4–B5.

Shils, E. (1975). The academic ethos under strain. Minerva, 13, 1–37.Spitzer, W.O., Skovron, M.L., Rachid Salmi, L.R., Cassidy, J.D., Du-

ranceau, J., Suissa, S., & Zeiss, E. (1995, April 15). Scientificmonograph of the Quebec task force on whiplash-associated disor-ders: Redefining “whiplash” and its management. Supplement toSpine. 20(8S).

Stephan, P.E., & Sharon G. Levin. (1992). Striking the mother lode inscience. The importance of age, place and time. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Stevens, F.A. (1971). Summary of Title II-A grants for academic libraryresources under the Higher Education Act of 1965. Bowker annual,1971, 138–140.

Talbot, R. (1984). Lean years and fat years: lessons to be learned. Collegeand research libraries. Bowker annual, 1984, 74–82.

Tenopir, C., & King, D.W. (1996, March 15). Setting the record straight onjournal publishing: Myth versus reality. Library Journal, 121(5), 32–35.

Tenopir, C., & King, D.W. (1997). Trends in scientific scholarly journalpublishing in the United States. Journal of Scholarly Publishing. 28,135–170.

Thatcher, S.G. (1995, March 3). The crisis in scholarly communication.Chronicle of Higher Education, 41, B1-2. See also, Henderson, A. (1995,April 28). The concerns of scholarly publishing (letter). Chronicle ofHigher Education, 41, B5.

Thomson, K.S. (1984). The literature of science. American Scientist, 72,185–187.

Trueswell, R.L. (1969, January). Some behavioral patterns of library users:The 80/20 rule. Wilson Library Bulletin, 458–461.

Trueswell, R.L. (1976). Growing libraries: Who needs them? A statisticalbasis for the no-growth collection. In Gore, D. (Ed.), Farewell toAlexandria. Solutions to space, growth, and performance problems oflibraries (pp. 72–104). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1989). Federalscientific and technical information (STI) in an electronic age: Oppor-tunities and challenges. Staff paper. 1989.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Special Subcommittee on the National ScienceFoundation of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. (1975).Federal management of scientific and technical information (STINFO)activities: The role of the National Science Foundation. Washington,DC: Government Printing Office. 94th Congress, 1st session. Committeeprint July.

U.S. Dept. of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1995).Digest of Education Statistics 1995. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office. NCES 95-029.

U.S. Dept. of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997).Status of academic libraries in the United States. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office. NCES 97-413.

U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget.(1995). Principles for determining costs applicable to grants, contracts,and other agreements with educational institutions. Circular A-21. Rev.June 20, 1995. Section F8 (Identification and assignment of indirectcosts. Library expenses).

U.S. Library of Congress. Register of Copyrights. (1988) Library repro-duction of copyrighted works (17 U.S.C. 108) second report. Washing-ton, DC: National Technical Information Service. PB88-212014.

Van House, N.A. (1990). Library resources and research productivity inscience and engineering: report of a pilot study. In Communications insupport of science and engineering. A report to the National ScienceFoundation. Washington, DC: Council on Library Resources.

Voigt, M.J. (1979, May). Circulation studies cannot reflect research use.Journal of Academic Librarianship, 5, 66.

Wagner, C.S. (1993, June). STM monographs—A twenty year retrospec-tive. Against the Grain, 5(3), 20–21.

Webster, J. (1997, March 1). Journal costs climb on (letter). LibraryJournal, 122(4), 8.

White, H.S. (1998, June 15). Library outsourcing and contracting: Cost-effectiveness or shell game? Library Journal, 123(11), 56–57.

Williams, M. (1995). Database publishing statistics. Publishing ResearchQuarterly, 11(3), 3–9.

Winkler, K.J. (1997, Sept. 26). Scholars assess the health and value ofspecialized monographs. Chronicle of Higher Education. XLIV(5), A18.

Zahray, W.P., & Sirbu, M. (1989/1990). The provision of scholarly jour-nals by libraries via electronic technologies: an economic analysis.Information Economics and Policy, 4, 127–154.
