[670] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
AAP consequences and alternatives
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cindy Goldstein)
Mon Jul 6 09:53:07 1992
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1992 08:42:58 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Cindy Goldstein <LB04ILF@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
After re-reading the AAP Statement several more times, I'd
like to make a couple of comments.
In the background information, reasons for the reversal of the
case brought against the National Library of Medicine included "a
concern that medical science might be hampered by a prohibition on
copying due in part to the fact that alternative document delivery
systems did not, at that time, exist."
In spite of the "alternative delivery systems" that exist
today, the same concerns regarding medical science persist. There
has been a lot of talk lately about the cost and quality of health
care in this country. Availability of current information on
patient care and biomedical research is critical to the provision
of good health care. It is quite simply a matter of life and
death, and the publishers have priced themselves practically out of
business. The need for the information is real, but the cost is
prohibitive. If the publishers want to put an end to the
cooperative resource sharing that libraries have resorted to to
provide that necessary information, they should be prepared for
several consequences: (1) lots more paper subscriptions will be
cancelled because libraries won't be able to continue to spend
their acquisitions budgets on existing subscriptions and also pay
per use royalties on every thing they have to get from somewhere
else; (2) libraries will put a substantial part of their
acquisitions budgets into commercial document delivery systems
and/or full text CD systems like ADONIS that include a mechanism
for royalty payment; (3) health care costs and quality could be
adversely affected.
Someone recently mentioned an article in the June 17 Chronicle
of Higher Education by Richard Dougherty. I apologize - I don't
remember who mentioned it or the title of the article, but it was
an excellent discussion of the need for universities to take back
their research publication role. Dougherty said this would
accomplish several things: it would provide university researchers
with a ready avenue for publication of their findings; the new
publications would be available to one another at reasonable and
affordable prices thus allowing universities to get out from under
the onerous pricing stranglehold of the publishers and thereby
regain some control of their finances; and they would maintain
copyright ownership of their research findings. That's a pretty
loose summary of a really excellent article.
It would be ironic if Dougherty's scenario came to pass
because we would have come full circle. More than a hundred years
ago, the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal was a very
respected scholarly publication which depended heavily on local
talent for content. More than fifty years ago, the Bulletin of the
Tulane Medical Faculty also provided a local outlet for research
findings. Around 1970, both of these publications changed their
names and their focus and abandoned their scholarly content to
become the Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society and
Tulane Medicine (for alums) respectively.
I can't remember whether or not Dougherty carried his scenario
out to the eventual appearance of these publications in electronic
format available on the Internet, but I think he did. It certainly
makes sense in the long run since most universities are on the
Internet and that would facilitate distribution of such
publications.
Soaring journal costs have been one of the biggest headaches
libraries have had in the past 15 or so years, but another related
one is the geometric proliferation of journal titles. The
universities must take part of the blame for this migraine because
of the publish or perish directive that has been an integral part
of promotion and tenure criteria. Now we have more journals than
we can handle at prices we can't afford and there is strong feeling
in the medical library community that much of what is being
published is duplicative and/or worthless.
There are obviously going to have to be changes and
compromises made on both sides. I just received a letter from
Williams & Wilkins announcing their own document delivery service
which provides for articles being faxed to libraries within one
day. They have a toll free number. You call them with the
citation, and they deliver the article by fax, U.S. mail, or
Federal Express. Initially they are making available "articles
published from 1987 to the present in six of our most frequently
cited and sought-after journals..." Costs for this service range
from $10.00 for a 1-5 page article up to $25.00 for articles of 26
or more pages. You can even pay with your MasterCard or VISA.
ADONIS is also a publisher produced document delivery service of
sorts.
I expect we will see lots more of these publisher produced
services, and perhaps this is the compromise we will all have to
live with. I don't know if librarians really care whether we check
in and circulate physical issues of journals or check in CD's or
simply get whatever is needed when it is needed. I'm not the least
bit sure that our patrons are going to be happy with the virtual
demise of the browseable, paper product journal. It will take a
lot of user education to reconcile preferences with reality, but
it's a cinch that things are going to change, and we'd better be
ready to change, too.
Cindy Goldstein
Tulane University Medical Center Library
1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112-2699
(504) 587-7317
(504) 587-7417
LB04iLf@music.tcs.tulane.edu
My opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
Tulane, NLM, or any other institution.
