Scholarly Publications: Increasing Price, Decreasing Access

“The current system of science publishing threatens the long-term ability of doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals to provide quality medical treatment. The high and rapidly rising prices of journals in science, technology, and medicine, copyright laws and licenses ... are all contributing to an environment ... where we will have less and less access to up-to-date information, stated Mary M. Case of the Association of Research Libraries during an address delivered at InfoFair 2003 this March.

When full-text electronic access became a reality in the mid 1990s, we embraced the advent of the Internet and digitally published materials. Finally, we had both print and electronic full text or e-journals. From our office workstations, we could access articles in the library’s journals. One of the earliest scientific e-journals was the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s The Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials in 1992. The New England Journal of Medicine followed in 1993.

With the advent of the 21st century, science publishers are holding scientific research hostage. The current scientific publishing trends are to increase prices to unmanageable levels, particularly for e-journals, while strictly limiting access. This trend particularly impacts the cost and availability of full-text electronic access to journals at the article level. Elsevier, one of the larger scientific publishers, shows that their eight most expensive journals cost $100,000 with access limited to “.edu” addresses. If these trends continue, only a few well-endowed libraries will be able to offer access – and then only to a select audience, narrowly defined by the publishers. The Carnegie model of free and open library access, one of the greatest gifts to the world, will disappear.

The average number of journal titles in academic health sciences libraries has been steadily decreasing. In 1996, the average number of print titles was 1,953 with 73 being available electronically; in 2001–2002, the average number of print titles fell to 1,725 and e-journals rose to 1,727, states the 20th and 25th editions of the “Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors Annual Statistics.”

The annual journal inflation rates, typically 10 to 15 percent, far exceed library budget increases that typically are 4 to 5 percent. Since 1965, the average subscription has increased 2,251 percent, reports an article in the April 2001 edition of the “Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.”

E-journals are more in demand and have faster rising prices than print journals. Now, state deficits affecting library budgets are creating additional pressures. Last year the HAM-TMC Library had a $200,000 reduction in the journal budget; this year the reduction is possibly another $200,000.

Of course there are many reasons for journal price increases, including conglomerate ownership, the need to show profits, and declining subscriptions by individuals to journals (a major revenue source). The comments that the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science magazine editors sent with a recent fiscal year 2002–2003 bill said “... we and other scholarly journals are facing some ‘softness’ in our efforts to recruit new members ... we’re still committed to providing site-wide access because the literature is important to the whole scientific community ... we need to take steps to ensure that future. This is good for EVERYONE, including libraries.”

Why is raising one magazine’s online journal price 350 percent good for libraries? Libraries pay $425 per year for the print version of Science and a separate price for e-journal access. This year, our online subscription costs $7,600, up from last year’s bill of $2,180. By contrast, individual association membership is $125 per year and includes both print and e-journal access.

Choices must be made. One choice is to pay $7,600 for e-journal access. Science’s institution price is based on full-time research, faculty and student usage. To pay $7,600 means cancellation of other titles to balance the budget. The situation is complex – because each user has distinct resource needs, consortia arrangements establish fixed prices and commitments, some publishers raise prices more than others, and others “bundle” print and electronic access prices.

There are alternative choices for authors and publishers such as PUBMed Central, and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition. PUBMed Central, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov, is the National Library of Medicine’s digital archive of life sciences journal literature. Access is free and unrestricted. The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, http://www.arl.org/sparc, enhances broad and cost-effective access to peer-reviewed scholarship. These are growing in popularity and may be the ultimate solution to guaranteed free and unrestricted access.

NOTE – At this mid-year point, $7,600 for e-journal access to Science will unbalance the library budget. To date, the bill has not been paid and service has been cut off. Will users be burdened if Science is not electronically available at the library but from memberships only? Contact the HAM-TMC librarians at http://hhw.library.tmc.edu/forms/library_science.html with feedback. We want to hear from you!

---

©2006 Texas Medical Center

---

E-Mail: tmcinfo@texmedctr.tmc.edu
URL: http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/06_01_03/page_04.html