Download - Monographic Purchasing Trends in Research Libraries: Did Electronic Journals Really Destroy the University Press?

Monograph Purchasing Trends in Research Libraries:Did Electronic Journals Really Destroy the

University Press?

Elisabeth A. Jones & Paul N. CourantUniversity of Michigan Libraries

Library U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N L I B R A R Y

Harlan Hatcher Graduate Library913 South University AvenueAnn Arbor, Michigan 48109-1190

Monday, March 31, 14



University Press Bedtime Stories (1)

“Once upon a time, before predatory commercial journal publishers began their assault on the purchasing budgets of academic libraries, libraries could be counted on for a certain level of sale of academic monographs. That virtual guarantee permitted university presses to support the research activities of scholars, especially in the humanities. But when the library budgets began to get gobbled up by the villainous commercial houses, monograph sales plummeted, taking the fortunes of university presses with them. Thus, the goal is to find a new business model, a ‘sustainable’ one, which would enable the presses to continue with their historical support of the research community.”

- Joe Esposito, 2010

2




University Press Bedtime Stories (2)

“Back in the ‘good old days,’ university presses used to be able to count on selling X (large) number of copies of every book to libraries, but now they can only sell Y (small) number of copies to libraries – and that’s just not sustainable. “But it’s not the Press’s fault! It’s those evil library serials subscriptions, eating up the libraries’ budgets and keeping them from buying our books!”

- Lightly paraphrased from several sources

3




4




These are nice stories…

4




These are nice stories…

…but are they true?

4


5

Would it surprise you to hear that the total number of U.S.

university press monograph titles purchased by U.S. university libraries actually more than

doubled between 1975 and 2000?




• Internal and/or anecdotal data; difficult to verify

• Problematic overgeneralization from ARL data

• Median materials expenditure for the 126 ARL institutions: $10.9 million

• Median materials expenditure for the 324 doctorate-granting ACRL institutions: $3.8 million

• ARL institutions are far from typical

• University press books ≠ first to cut in a budget squeeze

6

Some Grounds for Suspicion




7

More Grounds for Suspicion




• Claimed number of copies of each book sold to libraries in “the good old days” = 700-800 (e.g. Hitchcock 1999, Smallwood 2002, Thompson 2005, Wasserman 1998)

7






• ARL libraries may collect relatively comprehensively, but there are only 126 of them

7







• Smaller libraries have never had the resources to buy every book put out by every U. Press

7







• Smaller libraries have never had the resources to buy every book put out by every U. Press

So who was supposed to have been buying the rest of these books?

7





8

Fact-checking the Fairy Tale (Our Research Questions)




1. Has there actually been a downturn in library purchasing of university press books from 1975-2010? And if so, does this decline temporally coincide with the sharp increases in serials prices in the 1980s and 1990s, as is often claimed?

8






2. Are the purchasing trends for university press books consistent across

a. Different-sized academic libraries (by materials budget)?

b. Different-sized university presses (by title output)?

8







a. Different-sized academic libraries (by materials budget)?

b. Different-sized university presses (by title output)?

3. Does academic library purchasing of university press books from 1975-2010 exhibit the same trend as academic library purchasing of monographs in general over the same period?

8





Data Sources

9




Data Sources

• Ideal would be detailed university press sales data, broken out by customer types

9




Data Sources


…but that’s not available

9




Data Sources



• What is available:

9




Data Sources




• Press output figures from AAUP’s annual Directory

9




Data Sources





• Library materials budget figures from ACRL’s annual Academic Library Trends & Statistics

9




Data Sources





• Library materials budget figures from ACRL’s annual Academic Library Trends & Statistics

• Library holdings data from OCLC WorldCat (via FirstSearch)

9




Sampling: Presses

• Population: 53 AAUP members with complete publication records,1975-2010

• Divided into Top, Middle, and Bottom thirds by mean annual title output

• Randomly selected five presses from each third (n=15)

10

Sample Presses Mean Books/YrPrinceton University Press 205.1

MIT Press 182.6

Johns Hopkins University Press 161.8

University of Michigan Press 97.8

University of Washington Press 91.2

University of North Carolina Press 78.3

Duke University Press 71.1

University of Minnesota Press 65.2

University of Wisconsin Press 53.6

Pennsylvania State University Press 53.2

University Press of Mississippi 46.2

Ohio University Press 43.7

University of Missouri Press 41.9

Wayne State University Press 35

Northern Illinois University Press 15.2




Sampling: Libraries• Population: 324 libraries included in ACRL’s 2010 statistics

for doctorate-granting institutions

• Divided into quartiles by total 2010 materials expenditures

• Data from initial 8-library sample presented at ASIS&T 2013

• UM & UW, plus 2 libraries each from the other three quartiles (randomly selected w/in similar in-quartile ranges)

• Expanded sample using same semi-random selection process to choose 6 more libraries roughly evenly distributed throughout each quartile (n=32)

11




Sampling: Libraries

12

Sample Library ARL? 2010 Mat. Exp.

U of Michigan Yes $23,002,928

U of North Carolina Yes $16,970,946

U of Washington Yes $14,841,396

Indiana U Yes $13,490,434

Ohio State U Yes $11,954,846

George Washington U Yes $11,509,525

Rutgers U Yes $10,510,456

U of Missouri - Columbia Yes $9,751,527

Wayne State U Yes $8,601,311

U of California - Davis Yes $7,462,149

U of Utah Yes $6,728,095

Clemson U No $6,171,729

U of Central Florida No $5,933,541

U of New Hampshire No $5,631,810

SUNY at Albany Yes $5,193,274

Nova Southeastern U No $4,587,719

Sample Library ARL? 2010 Mat. Exp.

U of North Dakota No $3,679,894

U of Toledo No $3,273,810

Eastern Michigan U No $2,997,353

U of Colorado - Denver No $2,594,027

Middle Tennessee State U No $2,368,158

U of San Francisco No $2,212,411

U of Alaska No $1,975,558

Worcester Polytechnic U No $1,704,634

Texas Woman's U No $1,160,169

Southern New Hampshire U No $982,113

Barry U No $723,143

Teachers Coll. at Columbia U No $616,796

Alabama State University No $507,296

University of Dallas No $438,834

S. Dak. Sch of Mines & Tech No $218,304

Alliant International U No $160,307

Q1

Q2

Q1

Q3

Q4




Data Collection• Iterated manual WorldCat search

• Number of books held by each library published by each press in each year (1975-2010)

• Example:

• Publisher: “Duke University Press”

• Limit type to: Books

• Limit availability to: EYE

• Post-search: Limit > Limit Your Results By Year

13




Data Collection

15 presses

x 32 libraries

x 36 years

= 17,280 data points

14




Database Limitations• Data errors: duplication, inconsistent entries,

retrieval bugs

• Change over time: WorldCat reflects library holdings now(ish)

• Could have purchased long after publication

• Could have gotten rid of books in years since purchasing

• Cataloging backlogs: may cause errors in counts of recent works

15




Beyond the Limitations

• Sources of error in WorldCat tend to affect the raw numbers, but not necessarily the overall trends

• Numbers for press output should be solid: straight from AAUP’s own Directory

So, what do these data show?

16




17

Findings 1 Trends in Library Purchasing: Volume Count

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100

500

1000

1500

2000

Titl

e C

ount

Mean Sample Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesTotal Sample Press Output




Findings 1Trends in Library Purchasing: Volume Count

18

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Titl

e C

ount

Total Sample Press OutputMean Sample Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesU of MichiganU of North CarolinaU of WashingtonIndiana UOhio State UGeorge Washington URutgers UU of MissouriWayne State UUC-DavisU of UtahSUNY at AlbanyClemson UU of Central FloridaU of New HampshireNova Southeastern UU of North DakotaU of ToledoEastern Michigan UU of Colorado - DenverMiddle Tennessee State UU of San FranciscoU of AlaskaWorcester Polytechnic InstituteTexas Woman's UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityBarry UniversityTeachers College at Columbia UniversityAlabama State UniversityUniversity of DallasSouth Dakota School of Mines & TechnologyAlliant International University




Findings 1Trends in Library Purchasing:

Library Holdings as a % of Press Output by Year

19

0

25

50

75

10019

75

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2010

% o

f Pre

ss O

utpu

t

Mean Holdings (%)




Returning to the first question...

20


FINDING: Yes - but only since ~2000.

The claim that these purchases have been in free fall since the 1980s or 1990s does not hold up.

However: from the press perspective, one could see how it might seem that way.




Findings 2Larger Libraries ≠ Smaller Libraries

Title Count

21

0

300

600

900

1200

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Libr

ary

Hol

ding

s: T

itle

Cou

nt

Large Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesMedium-Large Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesMedium-Small Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesSmall Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles




Findings 2Larger Libraries ≠ Smaller Libraries

% Change Since 1975

22

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

% C

hang

e si

nce

1975

Total Sample Press OutputLarge Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesMedium-Large Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesMedium-Small Library Holdings of Sample Press TitlesSmall Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles




23

0

20

40

60

80

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Libr

ary

Hol

ding

s: T

itle

Cou

nt

Large Presses Medium Presses Small Presses

Findings 2Different Press Sizes, Similar Library

Purchasing TrendsTitle Count




24

Findings 2Different Press Sizes, Similar Library

Purchasing TrendsLibrary Holdings as a % of Press Output by Year

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Libr

ary

Hol

ding

s as

% o

f Sam

ple

Pres

s O

utpu

t

Large Presses Medium Presses Small Presses




Returning to the second question...

25


a. Different-sized academic libraries (in terms of materials budgets)?

b. Different-sized university presses (in terms of title output)?

FINDING: There is a difference in trend between big and small libraries, but not between big and small presses.

Libraries above the median kept pace with increases in U. Press output until the late 1990s, and their purchasing only began to

decline after 2000.

Only the smallest libraries in the sample showed a steady decline in purchasing from these presses over the full 36-year period.




Findings 3University Press Books Are Different

26

-25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

125%

150%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Purchasing by Sample Libraries

% C

hang

e si

nce

1975

Sample Press Monographs Overall Monographs




Findings 3University Press Books Are Especially

Different at ARL Institutions

27

-67%

-33%

0%

33%

67%

100%

133%

167%

200%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Purchasing by Sample Libraries

% C

hang

e si

nce

1975

ARL Institutions - Sample Presses ARL Institutions - Overall MonographsNon-ARL Institutions - Sample Presses Non-ARL Institutions - Overall Monographs




Returning to the third question...

28

3. Does academic library purchasing of university press books from 1975-2010 exhibit the same trend as academic library purchasing of monographs in general over the same period?

FINDING: No - and especially not at ARL institutions.

ARL purchasing of university press books far outpaced purchasing of other monographs at those same libraries, at

least since the late 1980s.

Monographic purchasing overall may be suffering due to increases in electronic serials prices, but that overall trend does not uniformly extend to university press monographs.




Conclusions (1)

29

• U Press output increased sharply from 1975 to 2004 - by nearly 200%

• Output declined after 2004; back down to 1999 levels by 2010

• U Library purchasing also increased from 1975 to 2000, but at a slower rate than press output - by “only” 140%

• Purchasing declined after 2000, much faster than decline in press output; back down to 1989 levels by 2010

• No temporal correlation between decline in U Library purchasing of U Press books and the “serials crisis” of the 1990s




Conclusions (2)• Purchasing of U Press monographs has been

much more robust at large libraries than at small ones

• No apparent difference in purchasing trend by size of press

• U Library purchasing of U Press books has been far more robust than U Library monograph purchasing in general, especially at ARL institutions

30


Overall:Something is happening here, but it doesn’t fit the fairy tale

31 Library U N I V E R S I T Y O F M I C H I G A N L I B R A R Y





Going Forward...

32

• How did the conventional wisdom diverge so far from what these data show? Is there something that this approach overlooks?

• What other explanations might there be for the decline in the fortunes of university presses?

• A few thoughts: “Big Deals” post-1997 or so; generalized university budget/econ woes; increase in DDA/PDA; application of usage data to hone approval plans

• Whatever happened, it happened later

• If U Press internal data show markedly different trends than those depicted here, why is that so?

• We hope they (you?) might share!


Thanks!Elisabeth A. Jones & Paul N. Courant

Contact: [email protected]

33




Download - Monographic Purchasing Trends in Research Libraries: Did Electronic Journals Really Destroy the University Press?

Top Related