Well, it appears we (academic librarians collectively) have now successfully garnered the empathies of our most treasured constituency. According to the October 15, 2007 edition of Library Journal, three out of four faculty at the University of California now believe that journal prices represent a burden to their institution. Remember what we've been told. Information wants to be free.

There is no debate about inflation and its incursion upon scholarly publications. (See table below) But like those who lament three dollar per gallon gas so they can load up on sixteen dollar per gallon Evian, there is a specious quality to this harangue. But the kerfuffle continues notwithstanding the inflation rate of college tuition keeping pace. Perhaps these malcontents would be better served taking issue with their provosts rather than publishers?

"Yes, it really is a fleecing", I say dishonestly, nodding between cantaloupe squares and grapes at library shindigs.( I confess that being a contrarian isn't easy when hobnobbing in these circles) But had I the temerity, better guts, to ask these same librarians how many had taken the trouble to; 1) track the usage of their print serials or 2) check for duplication of coverage with their full-text databases, I suspect I'd be having my fruit bowl and orange juice with the hotel valet.

*Percent Increase in Domestic Serials Publication in 2007 - 6.97%

**Percent Increase in College Tuition in 2006 - 6.71%

*Royal Swets & Zeitlinger, Swets Information Services; January 2007.
**Bureau of Labor Statistics.

So how have these exorbitant prices put forth by publishers impacted our patrons? Wonderfully, I say.

Fifteen years ago I recall watching a sales rep slip a CD into one of our reference workstations. It changed our world. We sat googly-eyed (portentous pun) as Academic Abstracts pushed entire articles to the screen via keyword searching. So long Readers' Guide I thought to myself. And of course it wasn't long before H.W. Wilson's inveterate green volumes were routinely passed over for our solitary workstation (no network in those days) capable of displaying full-text articles. Soon after, as we all know, the stampede to full-text began. God bless Ebsco.

For the neophytes reading this, procuring periodical literature was a very different, labor intensive, and often frustrating process for many of us before digital full-text. Only the very big boys/girls with deep acquisitions pockets could afford serials collections worthy of providing near comprehensive coverage of the periodicals indexed in H.W. Wilson's Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature or Essay and General Literature Index. "You'll need to fill out this interlibrary form to get that article. It should be here in a few weeks...give or take". And of course we waited for the good folks at State U. to fetch the criticism on Willa Cather, photocopy it, and mail it. Too bad research isn't like catsup.

"Anticipation, it's making me wait".

But the tables have turned thanks to entrepreneurial vendors like Ebsco that found a market in the rest of us. The gap to information access between large academics and everyone else has been dramatically closed. Size, physical space that is, doesn't matter much anymore. Where once a $30,000 periodical budget may afford a collection of 600 or 700 periodical titles, those same funds could now easily buy access to tens of thousands of full-text journals. And therein lies the issue that some still struggle with.

Access.

If you listen closely, you can detect a subtle hint of smarminess among those who preside over big budgets and loaded stacks in our profession. Access isn't good enough. Like a tuxedo or swanky beach house, it is imperative that they own the material as well. (Then subsequently whine about lack of shelf space, binding costs,...) Their Weltanschauung is antiquated and arguably fiducially irresponsible.

Today the philosophy of collection building is about access, not ownership.

And if we look at access for any given academic library, what our patrons can retrieve today stands in stark contrast to just a decade ago. Not to mention speed. The reality is access to full-text scholarly periodicals has increased exponentially from just a decade ago, thanks in large part to market forces. We now provide access to much more for less in many cases. And for those of you, your author here included, that have dropped thousands of dollars in duplicate print subscriptions for reallocation to full-text databases and other accessible resources, I needn't explain the results. Now if our stolid colleagues would cull out redundancy they may find they have enough money to continue those print subscriptions they must own or that do not have an electronic equivalent.

So it really is a matter of perspective when discussing this issue of subscription costs and journals. I say things are getting better all the time. At least in our library.