Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:09:55 -0400

Over the short run the general cost of providing
service from electronic resources is about the same as paper.
What is saved on check-in, binding, and so so on, is spent on
contract administration, computer services, and so on. In the long run,
it is correct that there is a savings to be expected in the net size of
science library buildings. Already I have observed several academic
departments reclaim library space for other needs,
This is one of the reasons I am aware
of the possibility academic administrators might do likewise with
acquisition funds. (my personal view, as always)

On Sat, 26
Jul 2003, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:

> On Tue Jul 22, David Goodman wrote:
> > For administrators in gleeful expectation of the "library windfall,"
> > I note that the percent of the total US research university
> > library budget devoted to serials costs in 2002 was only 26%.
> >
> > This covers print journals, electronic journals, databases,
> > newspapers, etc. ; it includes all fields of study. If 3/4 of it
> > were science journals, that comes to less than 20% of the total
> > library expenditure.
> But the 26% figure for serials costs is just for external purchases.
> To that has to be added the cost of checking the journals in, shelving
> them, binding, etc., as well as the space, cleaning, and related costs.
> If you get away from paper, you eliminate that as well. (Although some
> of it will be a displacement, since printing on scholars' desktop printers
> will increase.)
> Andrew Odlyzko

Dr. David Goodman

Princeton University
Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU
Received on Sun Jul 27 2003 - 01:09:55 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:01 GMT