Editorial - Journal of Librarianship and Information Science - June 1991.

Who benefits from more academic journals?

In June 1990, the Standing Conference of National and University Libraries (SCONUL), together with the British Library, sponsored a conference at Chester, on Scholarly Communication and Serial Prices. It was attended by a representative group of scholars, publishers, and librarians, who heard several excellent papers on a range of issues related to this theme.¹ One recurring point came across strongly however, particularly in the discussions following each of the papers. This was the growing pressures upon their serials budgets experienced by many libraries.

Several academic librarians, complained of the proliferation of highly specialised serial titles, coupled with the rapidly rising costs of subscriptions. As a result they were being forced to make difficult and at times invidious decisions on the provision of competing titles. There were also pressures for the allocation of additional funds to periodicals at the expense of other aspects of their services. Inevitably there was also some discussion as to which of the three groups represented at the conference was most to blame for this problem.

There have been occasions in the past when a few unscrupulous publishers have attempted deliberately to exploit the academic library market, with over-priced and inferior productions. This tended to happen at times of rapid expansion of universities and their libraries. In any event the publishers and the journal titles concerned soon became well known. These days the decision whether or not to subscribe to a new title is a far more considered one. Librarians are only too well aware that subscribing to a journal usually involves taking on a long-term financial commitment. New subscriptions may only be possible at the expense of the cancellation of an existing one, or else from economies made in some other aspect of the library service.

At first sight therefore, the solution to the problem discussed at Chester seems to lie in the hands of the community of academic librarians. Publishers will only establish a new title, or continue to publish an existing one, if there is a sufficient demand. Subscription rates are determined by a range of factors, relating to editorial, production and distribution costs. Another important influence on prices will be "what the market will bear". Since the majority of subscriptions to academic periodicals are held by libraries, librarians must therefore have the potential to influence publishing trends. Librarians may easily refuse to subscribe, or else cancel existing subscriptions when the price goes up beyond the rate of inflation.

Of course I have offered an over-simplified analysis of a complex problem. Academic librarians are not free agents in the selection or rejection of published materials. They have a duty to support the research and teaching needs of their institutions, and are not able to dictate to users what materials they may or may not require. If the university, polytechnic, or other institution is prepared to allow its academics the freedom to follow a particular line of research, or to establish new courses, then the library must seek to support that work. This may be in the provision of periodicals or any other library materials necessary to sustain such research or teaching. Yet the decision to cancel an existing subscription, because researchers have moved on or courses ceased to operate can never be an easy one. It may also have far-reaching implications on the work of the institution for years to come.

No researcher worth his or her salt will embark upon a project, or publish findings, without first being aware of associated research that has preceded their own, or is in progress elsewhere. In all probability the periodical will continue to be the mainstay of scholarly communication for many decades to come. Thus researchers will demand all relevant periodical titles, even if only as a 'negative check' to ensure that others have not already undertaken the work.

Perhaps the root of the problem lies rather with the scholars, who tend to publish far too much, and thereby create an artificially inflated demand for periodical literature? In the long term too much publishing will not assist the process of scholarly communication. It will rather tend to force other academics in the field to read through reams of unwanted accounts of research, merely to ensure that it does not conflict with their own.

Many librarians know that there is a tendency for some academics to publish too frequently. Indeed some scholars will also admit as much (at least so far as their colleagues are concerned). On occasions researchers publish preliminary findings too early, or else rather trivial observations are dressed up and surrounded by masses of background information already available elsewhere. Sometimes material is re-cycled, with one piece of research being used to sustain a number of mediocre communications, rather than one definitive article. Some scholars even seem to be able to publish virtually the same article in more than one place under different titles.

Yet the blame for the artificial inflation in the demand for periodicals cannot entirely be left at the feet of the scholars who both rely upon, and contribute to them. Those government, and other agencies which provide funds for research projects in universities and other academic institutions, want to ensure their monies are used in the most efficient and effective possible way. As a result they will require concrete evidence of productivity from the workers they fund. The same pressures also apply at an institutional level, with research selectivity exercises now being used to determine the level of resources to be allocated.

Thus the pressures upon academics and researchers to publish have been increasing steadily for more than a decade. They and cannot be ignored by anyone wishing to further their career in this field. Access to promotion, to specialised resources, to funds for research, travel, or attendance at conferences, increasingly depend upon a proven research record. In most disciplines this means publication in appropriate refereed journals.

The instruments used for measuring academic productivity are still fairly crude, in spite of a deal of research (and associated journal publication) into performance indicators among academics. Such measures also tend to be quantitative rather than qualitative. There have been attempts to use citation analysis for this purpose, but it may be months or even years before the academic community at large recognizes the true worth of a paper, or a piece of research. If some measure of productivity is required at regular intervals, it will inevitably be based largely upon a count of the number of publications without any reference to their intrinsic value. No wonder that even the most conscientious academic will be tempted to publish more rather than better communications.

Thus the striving after performance indicators and value for money in academe, which has been so much a feature of the 1980s, has tended to have an unfortunate side-effect. It has resulted in the creation and fuelling of an artificially inflated demand for periodical literature. This inflation benefits nobody for the overall funds available for periodical expenditure have not kept pace with the rise of prices.

The establishment of new periodical titles frequently serves to undermine the circulations of competing journals, and thereby leads to increased prices throughout the market. Yet individual publishers cannot be blamed for attempting to respond to a demand, and hold on to their share of the market. Academic librarians are also clearly suffering from the results of the inflation, because they can no longer provide such effective services. Likewise the scholars themselves can hardly be assisted by being expected to contribute to, and also keep up with, a steady stream of mediocre research work. Thus the proliferation of new journals and increase of subscriptions is tending to undermine the cause of scholarship and scholarly communication.

The problem for librarians and publishers alike is to seek to break out of the inflationary spiral without being seen to restrict the legitimate needs of all academics to communicate the results of their researches.

One concrete outcome of the Chester conference has been the establishment by SCONUL of a Serials Task Force, under the chairmanship of Mr Bernard Naylor, Librarian of the University of Southampton. This group has already met and decided upon a number of courses of action. Meetings have been arranged with periodical publishers to obtain a better understanding of pricing strategies. The Task Force is seeking to obtain more detailed information about actual levels and patterns of use of journal titles, and of the individual communications within them. There is a widespread feeling that many articles, published at considerable expense, will perhaps only be of direct interest to a handful of readers.

Thirdly, SCONUL has approached the Universities Funding Council in an attempt to influence the nature of the next research selectivity exercise. They hope that the UFC will in future take more account of the quality rather than the quantity of academic publication by universities. This would tend to ease the pressure on academics to publish at all costs, and thereby reduce the number of "redundant" communications. A similar re-evaluation of the criteria for measuring research also appears to have been taking place in the USA. One speaker at the Chester Conference reported that the Harvard Medical School now requires applicants for senior academic posts to identify only their five "best" published works rather than a complete list of publications.

Finally, the task force will set about investigating various alternative forms of scholarly communication, to the traditional journal. Inevitably they will be looking at electronic alternatives. However in spite of the interesting experiments that have taken place, it is likely to be some years before this emerging technology will make an impact in many disciplines. The traditional journal will be with us for some years to come.

Ultimately the answer to the proliferation in the volume of periodical literature may depend upon a cultural change within the academic community and the funding agencies. This will involve the recognition by all concerned that alternative, and less expensive forms of communication need be no less valid than the traditional periodical. A scholarly communication of direct relevance to only a handful of specialists, is no less worthy of publication, recognition, and support, than one which has a much wider potential readership. Yet that recognition need not be dependant upon the form of publication.

The Serials Task Force therefore have a difficult and complex job in front of them, if they are to reduce the proliferation of new and ever more expensive journals. However, if they are successful, there work will be of benefit to all those who publish, make available, and make use of, periodical literature.

David Stoker

1. The papers and associated discussions are being edited by Karen Brookfield, for publication later this year by the British Library Research and Development Department.