ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


780/C&RL News

Le tte r
A  d iscu ssio n  on docum ent d e liv e ry
T o the Editor:

I read with great interest the article “Impli­
cations o f Commercial Document Delivery; 
Criteria for Substituting Electronic Journals for
Paper Ones” by Bill Coons and Peter McDonald 
(October 1995). Overall, their succinct review
o f the issues concerning commercial document 
delivery (CDD) and the factors that ought to be 
weighed should prove to be very helpful to 
those making these often unpleasant decisions.

However, among their secondary factors, i.e., 
the issue o f publisher type, there might be some 
useful elaboration. While I can understand how 
their characterization o f publisher types tends 
to fit the sciences nicely and the social sciences 
probably as well, I would argue that journals 
in the arts and humanities produced by related 
societies and organizations more often fall in 
the least expensive category; this generaliza­
tion is not supported by any studies on my 
part, just some anecdotal information (and a 
fervent personal belief). These journals are of­
ten precariously underwritten by a combina­
tion o f dues collected from readers, grants from 
nonprofit arts organizations, and various aca­
demic and governmental subventions than of­
ten may be the case with scientific journals.

T w o titles supporting my observation are 
A rt Docum entation (published by the Art Li­
braries Society o f North America) and Gesta 
(published by the International Center o f Me­
dieval A rt). These two cost well under $100 for 
an annual subscription. Indeed, if w e ignore 
the cost o f some indexes supported by the gen­
eral reference budget here at Fullerton, there 
are only three or four active art serial titles that 
exceed $100 annually in my library. The loss 
o f two or three dozen institutional subscribers 
for either o f the above publications, for what­
ever reason, might seriously jeopardize their 
existence. Also, forcing the remaining subscrib­
ers to divy up the increased per-item charges 
might not fly in the humanities arena where 
budgets have been notoriously lean for years.

I view  those in the sciences, both publish­
ers and those w ho fill the pages o f scientific 
journals, as being complicit in soaking up an 
inordinate amount o f our institutional acquisi­
tions budgets with their price increases. Add to 
this the unceasing kind o f bibliographic par­

 

 

thenogenesis that sees three science serial titles 
spawn themselves into a half dozen or more 
new manifestations that cost many times more 
than the original three. For these reasons, I 
would claim that journals in the humanities, 
and perhaps in the social sciences, need to be 
view ed in a less jaundiced, if not different, way.

And if w e agree that serials in the arts and 
humanities command a kind o f “fiscally respon­
sible higher ground,” I believe they should be 
less subject to the knife o f CDD. In fact, the 
great representation o f science journals among 
the CDD services now available suggests that 
the profit-making sector knows well where the 
bundles o f cash are tied up in institutional 
materials budgets. Therefore, it would be nice 
for me to think that the authors might be will­
ing to codify an additional secondary criterion 
that would recommend more fiscal compassion 
in dealing with serial subscriptions in the arts 
and humanities.— Floyd Zula, California State 
University, Fullerton; fzula@fullerton.edu

The Authors Respond:
Mr. Zula is essentially correct in his assess­

ment. Science journals have been increasing in 
subscription cost at a rate o f about 70–15% per 
year over the last decade, and are generally 
more expensive to begin with than humanities 
periodicals. Therefore, CDD in the sciences 
makes far more sense than in the humanities, 
especially in these times o f increased subscrip­
tion costs and leaner acquisition budgets.

Furthermore, many humanities journals, 
notably in the fields o f art, art history, architec­
ture, anthopology, and the like, contain exten­
sive visual materials which do not translate well 
in the monochromatic copies provided by CDD. 
By comparison, graphical components o f sci­
ence journals suffer far less from photocopy 
representation.

The authors therefore concur that the use o f 
CDD in the humanities deserves deeper scru­
tiny and more judicious consideration than in 
the sciences, where the preponderance o f titles 
are from commercial publishers. Cancelling 
science journal subscriptions in favor o f CDD 
also serves as a w ay for academic libraries to 
send a message to commercial publishers that 
their exorbitant price increases are not accept­
able.— B ill Coons and  Peter M cD onald

mailto:fzula@fullerton.edu