THE SERIALS CRISIS
A White Paper for the UNC-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation
January, 2005
by
Judith M. Panitch, Research and Special Projects Librarian
and
Sarah Michalak, University Librarian1
The term “serials crisis” has become common shorthand for the runaway cost increases of
many scholarly journals. The serials crisis has also come to be closely associated with the
pricing practices of certain commercial publishers, particularly in the areas of science,
technology, and medicine (STM). To an extent, this characterization is correct—prices for
journals in certain areas from certain publishers have skyrocketed far beyond the capacity of
most libraries or universities to keep up. But “serials crisis” is perhaps a bit misleading,
implying that if we just got the fever to break—convinced publishers to be more
reasonable—we could return to business as usual. That will not happen, and probably cannot,
since the serials crisis is, more accurately, only the symptom of a larger crisis in the system
of scholarly communications. It is upon this system that the proper functioning of the entire
academic enterprise depends. This paper will describe the nature of the problem, examine its
roots, and review some promising developments.
Serial Price Trends
Cost increases for academic journals have been well documented, thanks especially to the
annual statistics compiled over many years by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).
Among ARL member libraries in the period 1986-2003, the price per subscription of serials
rose by 215% (Table 1). Notably, the Consumer Price Index rose by only 68% during the
same period. Member libraries paid 260% more for their serial subscriptions in 2003 than in
1986 despite having increased the number of subscriptions by only 14%. Table 2 documents
the same trends as they have been experienced by the UNC-Chapel Hill libraries.
Cost increases have not been distributed equally across disciplines. STM journals show some
of the steepest prices and price increases. In 2004, according to Library Journal (Chart 3),
the average price to large university libraries for a chemistry journal was $2,695, up from
$1,995 in 2000; the average price for a physics journal was $2,543, up from $1,865.
Conversely, the average 2004 prices for music and art journals were $106 and $136,
respectively. At UNC-Chapel Hill, the ten most expensive subscriptions for 2004 were all in
scientific fields:
Publisher
Elsevier
Wiley
Wiley
Elsevier
1
Title
Brain Research (Set of 6 titles)
Journal of Comparative Neurology (weekly)
Journal of Applied Polymer Science
Mutation Research (Set of 4 titles)
Price
$23,396
$19,500
$16,300 *
$11,985
With thanks to Selden Durgom Lamoureux, Catherine Gerdes, Rita Moss, and Teresa West.
Serials Crisis, p. 2
Wiley
AMA
Elsevier
Elsevier
Wiley
Elsevier
Journal of Polymer Science
JAMA Journal of the American Medical Assn
European Journal of Pharmacology
Thin Solid Films
American Journal of Medical Genetics
Gene
$11,795 *
$10,924
$10,581
$10,265 *
$9,995
$9,552
*2005 subscription price
It is worth noting from the Library Journal study—echoing our own experience—that some
of the largest percentage increases in recent years have involved titles in the social sciences,
although absolute prices remain lower than in the sciences. The average cost of a political
science journal has increased 59% since 2000, from $226 to $360, followed by sociology
(54%), business and economics (49%), and education (49%).
The Scholarly Communications System 2
As journal prices began to climb, the “serials crisis” was viewed nearly everywhere as a
library problem. How, in the face of such massive price increases, can a library stretch its
limited budget? The attempted remedies have generally involved begging and scrambling for
money, seeking the economies of joint purchasing with other libraries, heavier reliance on
interlibrary loan, and, when all else has failed, engaging in large-scale cuts. These measures
only go so far since high prices are only the final manifestation of a much larger problem.
We recognize that publication is a cornerstone function and product of academia. Publication
in peer-reviewed journals serves not only as a way to certify the research at hand but, in some
measure, to certify the researcher, who generally must compile a strong publication record in
order to demonstrate merit for tenure and promotion. Scholarly journals also serve as an
authoritative medium for information exchange and as the permanent record of research
results. Faculty members depend upon the ready availability of key journals in order to
support their own research. It has traditionally been the role of the university library to
provide access to these journals, fulfilling the expectations of faculty, who expect equally
that the library and university budget will cover the cost of subscriptions. For the year just
completed, the UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries maintained 52,454 print and online serial
subscriptions, of which 28,475 were paid subscriptions totaling $6.8 million.
While the publication of research results was once the purview of scholarly societies, the
increased pace of research and concurrent proliferation of specializations that characterized
the last thirty years invited the participation of commercial publishers in the review and
dissemination of scholarly output. Yet the workings of the system have remained essentially
the same: Faculty, supported by the University, produce research results which they then sign
over freely to publishers in order to advance knowledge in their field and because most
career paths require a distinguished publication record. Faculty members additionally
volunteer their time to serve as editors and editorial board members. Commercial publishers
For an early but still excellent summary, see: “To Publish and Perish,” Policy Perspectives (v. 7, no. 4, March
1998). http://www.thelearningalliance.info/Docs/Jun2003/DOC-2003Jun13.1055537929.pdf and
http://www.arl.org/scomm/pew/pewrept.html
2
Serials Crisis, p. 3
find themselves in the enviable position of selling research which they neither produced nor
paid for to a high-demand market. They maintain an additional advantage because each
journal title is a unique commodity, characterized by its specific focus and also by its
prestige. Competition is not a meaningful concept in this situation, as neither authors nor
researchers are likely to find one title a direct substitute for another. It is hard to imagine an
academic context in which research could advance or career decisions could be made without
scholarly journals; they have acquired the status of a public good, a common currency of the
university.
The publishers, on the other hand, are a commercial enterprise with the mandate to maximize
profit. In 2003, the STM market alone topped $US 8.5 billion3 and is recognized as
extremely profitable. A 2002 British study notes that “the overall profitability of commercial
STM publishing is high, not only by comparison to ‘non-profit’ journals (which is not
surprising), but also by comparison to other commercial journal publishing.”4 A 1998 study
had earlier confirmed the unusually high profits and lack of competition in the industry.5
Industry trends and practices that increase profits tend to put the squeeze on libraries.
Consolidation in the industry, for example, has had a real effect on prices: As smaller
publishers, including the publishing operations of many scholarly societies, are acquired by
or enter into partnerships with Elsevier and the other giants, subscription prices increase.
Publisher bundling of many titles together into inseparable “Big Deal” packages lock
libraries into purchasing subscriptions that may be marginal or inappropriate for the
collection. Large publishers have also been experimenting with new pricing practices that are
hardly advantageous to libraries.6
Repercussions of the serials crisis cascade across the library budget. The imbalance in serials
pricing by discipline means that subscriptions to less expensive journals, frequently in the
humanities, may be at risk as libraries seek ways to support the costly core journals upon
which scientific research depends. Disciplines dependent on monographs are also at a
disadvantage. As Tables 1 and 2 indicate, monograph inflation has been much less than for
serials; yet, with limited budgets going to subsidize key serial subscriptions, the number of
monographs purchased by libraries has not grown. This statistic is particularly troublesome
since worldwide publishing output has risen steadily, meaning that libraries are acquiring an
ever smaller percentage of available titles.7 At the same time, declining sales to academic
Electronic Publishing Services, Ltd. “Latest EPS Research Suggests Continued Growth in the STM Market
through 2007” (Oct. 28, 2004). http://www.epsltd.com/press/pr.28.10.2004.asp .
4
Office of Fair Trading, “The Market for Scientific, Technical, and Medical Journals: A Statement by the
OFT,” Sept. 2002. (http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A56C7602-C0BD-428D-BED236784363243B/0/oft396.pdf).
5
Brendan J. Wyly. “Competition in Scholarly Publishing? What Publisher Profits Reveal.” ARL Bimonthly
Newsletter, Oct. 1998. (http://www.arl.org/newsltr/200/wyly.html).
6
Among these are so-called “flip pricing” where, instead of adding electronic access as a small surcharge
(usually 10%) to a print subscription, the base price is instead applied to the electronic edition, with print added
for a larger surcharge (usually 25%). Some publishers are considering a pricing model for electronic
publications based upon use, which could have a disastrous effect for libraries in terms of the most heavily-used
online resources.
7
The number of books offered in one major library approval plan has increased 27% over the last decade, from
43,061 in 1994/95 to 54,835 in 2003/04. These are books published or distributed in the United States that are
appropriate for an academic library collection. (Yankee Book Peddler, “Annual Book Price Update”
3
Serials Crisis, p. 4
libraries contribute to financial pressures on scholarly and university presses. In 2004,
presses in Idaho, Georgia, and Iowa all faced major cuts, the Northeastern University Press
eliminated all nine of its positions and joined the University Press of New England
Consortium, and the Smithsonian Institute Press announced plans to seek a commercial
partner. Other presses are turning from their traditional base of scholarly monographs to titles
with broader popular appeal in an attempt to increase revenues. Scholars in monograph-based
disciplines face not only decreased library acquisitions in their fields, but also greater
difficulty in securing publishers for their own books.
Exacerbating the crisis are conditions imposed by many publishers that restrict access.
Because most electronic resources are leased, rather than purchased outright, libraries
experience consequences beyond rising subscription costs. License terms that limit the
number of users for electronic resources, disallow off-campus use by university affiliates, or
restrict the sharing of resources by interlibrary loan are common and mean that the
University does not always get the full value of what it pays for. Moreover, universities find
themselves in the position of paying more than once for the same scholarly output—first, as
the research is underwritten in the form of salaries, labs, and the other apparatus of a research
institution; and again when the research must be purchased back from the publisher for the
library collection. In some cases, the content is purchased multiple times in the form of print
and electronic subscriptions, electronic reserves permissions, and even course pack
permissions. Nor do these expenditures always guarantee the long-term archiving and
accessibility of electronic journals should a publisher choose no longer to offer some or all of
its content.
Finally, of particular concern on our own campus is a growing reliance on one-time funding
to maintain purchasing levels. To help overcome what would otherwise have been deficits in
our budget, one-time money from several sources has been directed toward library materials.
The Library has always used funds such as end-of-year lapsed salaries to purchase materials;
in recent years, the Provost’s Office has also made generous allocations. Nearly all of these
funds are used to pre-pay serial subscriptions for the coming year. As Chart 4 indicates,
substantial sums—more than $2.5 million in the current fiscal year and nearly that amount
last year—now shore up our subscription base. Instead of permitting us to grow the
collection with additional monograph purchases or new databases, or to implement
innovative services, these funds simply maintain the status quo. Should they ever be
withdrawn, the only viable response will be massive across-the-board serials cancellations.
Some approaches
Those of us in libraries have recognized for some time that this situation is untenable, but
also that there is little that we can do alone to bring about the radical systemic change that is
so desperately needed. That is why this colloquium is such a welcome event, as are similar
discussions that have begun taking place on other campuses and with both non-profit and
some commercial publishers, who bear real risks in adopting new models.
http://www.ybp.com/ybp/DomIndex.html?book_price_update.html&1) . Statistics maintained by the
International Publishers Association also document a worldwide trend toward increased book production
(http://www.ipa-uie.org/statistics/annual_book_prod.html ).
Serials Crisis, p. 5
Open Access
One of the most promising developments has been the upsurge of interest in “open access,”
which seeks to make scientific and scholarly information freely available to all users via the
Internet. Open access archives are repositories of information maintained by a researcher,
institution, or organization. Open access journals perform the same peer review functions as
traditional journals, but shift production charges away from the subscriber to other sources.8
In practice, the most common model has been to charge publication fees, which are
frequently covered by research grants, back to the author. UNC-Chapel Hill recently
established a fund to support publication in open-access forums by faculty without other
means to pay publication fees. Many open-access initiatives are also, for the time being,
heavily subsidized.
The rapid popularity of open access is encouraging. As of January, 2005, the Directory of
Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) contained more than 1,400 titles. Recent studies have
demonstrated the higher visibility and citation rates in a variety of disciplines for articles
published in open-access forums.9 The Public Library of Science (www.plos.org) made an
extremely favorable debut with its first two journals, PloS Biology, launched in October,
2003, and PLOS Medicine, which came online a year later. Open access recently gained a
boost when the 2005 federal budget supported a National Institutes of Health plan to provide
free access to NIH-funded research results six months after publication.10 Serious questions
have been raised about the long-term viability of open access. The business model is still
relatively unproven; there are concerns that some researchers, especially those in developing
countries, will not be able to afford publication fees; and the long-term effect on university
budgets and scholarly societies remains to be seen.11 Nevertheless, the movement is
undeniably gaining momentum and is emerging as the most likely alternative or complement
to the for-profit publishing model.
Creating alternatives
Working within the traditional framework of the subscription journal, scholars, librarians,
and publishers have sought to create new dissemination models and alternative journals.
SPARC (www.arl.org/sparc/) The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition is
an alliance of universities, research libraries, and organizations working together to identify
and support alternatives to the traditional pathways of scholarly communications. One of its
most successful ventures has been the incubation of new journals in partnership with
8
See the Budapest Open Access Initiative which in 2001 helped to articulate the principles of open access
(http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ ).
9
http://www.createchange.org/resources/OpenAccess.pdf . Also: Kristin Antelman. “Do Open Access Articles
Have a Greater Research Impact?” College & Research Libraries (Sept. 204): pp. 372-382.
http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00002309/
10
Peter Suber, “NIH Public-Access Policy: Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm .
11
See: “The Promise and Peril of ‘Open Access.” Chronicle of Higher Education. January, 30, 2004, p. 10. A
just-released task force report from Cornell University suggests that a full and immediate conversion to openaccess might result in increased serials expenditures if current subscription funds are instead directed toward
author’s fees. The report acknowledges, however, a need for additional analysis and recognizes the potential of
open access in certain cases. (Report of the CUL Task Force on Open Access Publishing Presented to the
Cornell University Library Management Team August 9, 2004. http://hdl.handle.net/1813/193 )
Serials Crisis, p. 6
publishers who are committed to “fair pricing, the ethical use of scholarly resources, and
intellectual property management policies that emphasize broad and easy distribution and
reuse of material.” Increasingly, these journals are open access; others are supported by a
purchase commitment from SPARC members, thereby ensuring a viable subscription base
from the first issue. UNC-Chapel Hill is a SPARC member.
Collaborative ventures have had success in bringing together many titles and publishers to
create low-cost online journals with reasonable subscription terms and, in some cases, free
access to titles. The Stanford University Library’s High Wire Press (highwire.stanford.edu)
produces the online versions of “high-impact, peer-reviewed journals and other scholarly
content” in the sciences, technology, and medicine. As of December, 2004, High Wire was
had nearly 800 online sites, including those for Science, the New England Journal of
Medicine, and JAMA. Project MUSE (muse.jhu.edu), a project of the Johns Hopkins
University Press and the JHU Libraries, works with not-for-profit publishers to offer nearly
250 key periodicals in the humanities, arts, and social sciences.
Saying no
Saying no to the large commercial publishers can take many forms. Libraries say no every
time we cancel a journal title that is not heavily consulted or that has been eclipsed by other
titles in the field. UNC-Chapel Hill librarians, in consultation with faculty, constantly
monitor subscription lists; the savings from cancelled journals are applied to new
subscriptions in the same field. Libraries are also saying no to the restrictive “Big Deal”
licenses promoted by publishers. In January, 2004, the Provosts of UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke
University, and North Carolina State University elected to terminate the Triangle Research
Libraries Network joint license to Elsevier Science12 at about the same time that other major
universities, including Cornell, Harvard, and MIT also rejected renewal terms from ReedElsevier. Reed-Elsevier has since reached agreements with the University of California
system and other institutions that had threatened cancellation, suggesting that the publisher
may be reconsidering its pricing system in certain cases.13
Faculty members, especially those who have already attained tenure, can also exercise the
opportunity to say no by refusing to publish in, edit, or serve on the editorial boards of
journals with predatory pricing practices, and by exerting influence with their scholarly
societies. Publishing in open access forums is another powerful statement. And some authors
working with commercial publishers have had success modifying standard publication
agreements in order to retain more rights in their own works.14
12
http://www.lib.unc.edu/spotlight/provost.html .
Perhaps more persuasive have been public perceptions and market repercussions generated by ReedElsevier’s pricing. See, for example: Charles Goldsmith. “Reed Elsevier Feels Resistance to Web Pricing.” Wall
Street Journal, Jan. 19, 2004, p. B1. At about the same time, Reed Elsevier stock was downgraded by at least
two major financial analysts, BNP Paribas and Citigroup Smith Barney (SPARC Open Access Newsletter, #67,
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-03.htm#paribas). In October 2004, Citigroup Smith
Barney again downgraded their rating of Reed Elsevier based on trends in the STM market (Smith Barney
Citigroup, Reed Elsevier PLC, Oct. 8, 2004).
14
The Create Change Web site (http://www.createchange.org/) contains more information, examples, and
model language for faculty seeking to take individual action, as well as more background about the scholarly
communications crisis.
13
Serials Crisis, p. 7
Conclusion
This paper has discussed the journal and scholarly communications crisis primarily as an
issue of pragmatism: The system as we know it is broken to the point that we can no longer
carry out the daily business of the university. But there is also an ethical dimension to the
discussion, for what we are talking about most fundamentally is access to information. This
information, more often than not, is created through use of public funds—the taxes that, in
part, pay our salaries, build our labs, fund our grants, or funded the previous grants upon
which today’s research is based, and build our library collections. It is true that commercial
publishers do add value to that information, and most of us do not begrudge them a
reasonable profit for doing so. But when the conditions they impose become as burdensome
as they are now, when prices are breaking university budgets and license restrictions add
additional obstacles to access, then the knowledge created as a public good and at public
expense is essentially being held hostage to interests that our not our own. By continuing to
do business as usual, we are participating in a system that works against our own interests,
and we are failing to engage in responsible stewardship of the financial and intellectual
resources at our disposal.
Serials Crisis, p. 8
Chart 1: Monograph and Serial Costs in ARL Libraries,
1986-2003
300%
Serial Expenditures, 260%
250%
Serial Unit Cost, 215%
200%
150%
100%
Monograph Unit Cost, 82%
CPI, 68%
Monograph Expenditures,
66%
50%
Serials Purchased, 14%
-50%
Monographs Purchased,
0%
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
0%
Source: ARL Statistics 2002-03 , Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C.
http://w w w .arl.org/stats/pubpdf/arlstat03.pdf
Chart 2: Monograph and Serial Costs at
UNC-Chapel Hill,1986-2003*
250%
Serial Expenditures, 231.88%
200%
Serials Cost per Unit, 171.22%
150%
100%
50%
-50%
-100%
* The number of serial subscriptions was not tracked, 1988-1993.
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
Serials Purchased, 22.36%
Monograph Expenditures, 8%
1986
0%
Monograph Cost per Unit, 39%
Monographs Purchased, -22%
Serials Crisis, p. 9
Chart 3: Journal Costs by Discipline*
Subje ct
Agriculture
Ave rage
No. of
Ave rage Ave rage
Title s
Cost Pe r Cost Pe r
2000–200
Title
Title
4
2000
2001
156
$519
$546
% of
Change
'00–'01
5
Ave rage
Cost Pe r
Title
2002
$583
% of
Change
'01–'0
7
Ave rage
Cost Pe r
Title
2003
$638
% of
Change
'02–'03
9
Ave rage
Cost Pe r
Title
2004
$714
% of
Change
'03–'04
12
% of
Change
2000–2004
38
Anthropology
42
$244
$237
-3
$259
9
$291
12
$319
10
31
Art & Architecture
62
$108
$113
5
$116
3
$125
8
$136
8
26
Astronomy
10
$1,153
$1,213
5
$1,396
15
$1,451
4
$1,602
10
39
Biology
222
$998
$1,062
6
$1,137
7
$1,253
10
$1,377
10
38
Botany
62
$785
$826
5
$875
6
$947
8
$1,048
11
34
Business & Economics
295
$412
$457
11
$501
10
$555
11
$614
11
49
Chemistry
183
$1,995
$2,137
7
$2,317
8
$2,501
8
$2,695
8
35
Education
102
$248
$275
10
$301
10
$330
10
$371
12
49
Engineering
234
$1,076
$1,170
9
$1,274
9
$1,377
8
$1,491
8
39
Food Science
17
$787
$855
9
$898
5
$969
8
$1,080
12
37
General Science
63
$678
$732
8
$803
10
$887
10
$962
9
42
General Works
68
$82
$84
2
$88
5
$99
12
$116
18
41
Geography
57
$592
$633
7
$711
12
$774
9
$859
11
45
Geology
79
$789
$846
7
$906
7
$982
8
$1,071
9
36
1,342
$702
$758
8
$812
7
$889
9
$975
10
39
History
214
$116
$124
7
$131
6
$148
12
$166
13
44
Language & Literature
295
$107
$115
7
$124
8
$138
11
$153
12
43
Law
67
$157
$169
7
$187
11
$203
9
$222
9
41
Library & Info. Sci.
54
$254
$271
7
$290
7
$319
10
$354
11
39
Math & Computer Sci.
182
$881
$946
7
$1,010
7
$1,080
7
$1,171
8
33
Military & Naval Sci.
9
$289
$315
9
$310
-2
$337
9
$365
8
26
Music
41
$80
$83
3
$92
11
$100
9
$106
6
33
Philosophy & Religion
125
$143
$150
5
$164
9
$182
11
$200
10
39
Physics
202
$1,865
$1,996
7
$2,180
9
$2,351
8
$2,543
8
36
Political Science
58
$226
$257
13
$279
9
$312
12
$360
15
59
Psychology
145
$306
$336
10
$368
10
$399
8
$446
12
46
Recreation
18
$113
$126
12
$144
14
$154
7
$167
9
48
Sociology
286
$274
$306
12
$336
10
$371
10
$422
14
54
T echnology
187
$958
$1,044
9
$1,140
9
$1,241
9
$1,350
9
41
Zoology
100
$701
$743
6
$803
8
$870
8
$918
6
31
Health Sciences
*Source: Lee Van Orsdel and Kathleen Born. "Periodicals Price Survey 2004: Closing in on Open Access." Library Journal (April 15, 2004): pp. 45-50.
http://w w w .libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=articleArchive&articleid=CA408358
Serials Crisis, p. 10
Chart 4: One-Time Funding for Library Materials, UNC-Chapel Hill*
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
Serials
$1,000,000
Total
$500,000
$0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
*Includes special funding aw ardedby the Office of the Provost and one-time funds from the University Library's
budget. Does NOT include one-time funds allocated by the Health Sciences or Law libraries. Excludes special
funding from the Office of the Provost for purchase of new online library system.