This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 18:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Serials ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usrv20

Serials spoken here: Reports on conferences, institutesand seminarsSusan Davis Column Editora, Marifran Bustion, Jie Tian, Pamela Bluh & Kenneth Kirklanda Davis is Head, Periodicals, at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Lockwood LibraryBldg., Buffalao, NY 14260-2200 USAPublished online: 27 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Susan Davis Column Editor, Marifran Bustion, Jie Tian, Pamela Bluh & Kenneth Kirkland (1998) Serialsspoken here: Reports on conferences, institutes and seminars, Serials Review, 24:1, 111-129

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00987913.1998.10764435

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Susan Davis, Column Editor Serials Spoken Here

SERIALS

REPORTS 0~

INSTITUTES

SPOKEN HERE:

CONFERENCES,

AND SEMINARS

Susan Davis, Column Editor with contributions from

Marifran Bustion, Jie Tian, Pamela Bluh and Kenneth Kirkland

The subtitle of the theme of the first conference report, “Thrive or Survive” is certainly an apt phrase common to all the reports in this column. All parties in the serials information chain have to learn to cope with digital

information and its impact on traditional print services and products. Publishers are experimenting with various pricing and delivery models, libraries are trying to keep up with these experiments and incorporate electronic information into their selection, acquisitions and cata- loging routines, while researchers are concerned with quality, indexing and coverage of electronic resources. Ulrich’s, a long-time serials reference tool, is taking steps to position itself to best respond to the new needs of the marketplace. The report on the ever-popular Charleston Conference provides SR readers with many different perspectives on hot topics.

All in all, this column is very content-intense with reports on some very interesting and important meet- ings which should be of great interest to the SR reader- ship.

Davis is Head, Periodicals, at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Lockwood Library Bldg., Buffalao, NY 14260-2200, <unlsdb@acsu.buffalo.edu>.

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- VOL. 24, No. 1 ( SPRING 1998) 111

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE FUTURE Is Now: THRIVE OR SURVIVE

Marifran Bustion

The Potomac Technical Processing Librarians (PTPL) is the regional affiliate of the ALA/Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It sponsors an annual conference, rotating locations among the three areas. The 73rd Annual Meeting was held October 17, 1997 at the Library of Congress (LC) and was co-sponsored by the Catholic University of America School of Library and Information Science and the Association of Graduate Library and Informa- tion Science Students. As with past PTPL conferences, this one maintained a high level in quality of presenta- tions and interest for the audience. Taking advantage of expertise at LC, the conference began with a tour of the National Digital Library.

The keynote address, given by Walt Crawford, access services officer for the Research Libraries Group (RLG), was “Tomorrow’s Librarians: Thriving on Complexity.” The title prepared the audience for the day’s sessions as Crawford described some of the choices facing librarians today. Consider, for example, the many predictions of how new media would replace old. Crawford pointed out that the new media mainly changed focus and did not actually replace old media. He also commented that it has been said that electronic information could replace half of all books and still not affect what is traditionally (normally) considered a book, such as manuals, stock parts, pamphlets, and so forth. In response, Crawford stated that we would use more electronic information along with more print sources. However, he also suggested that most people will not read more than three screens online, and that if the information (article, chapter, and so forth) is printed out, the cost ends up exceeding the print alone cost. In other words, people do not want to pay to see online, just buy online.

In reporting on a study of searching RLIN, a data- base of more than thirty million records, 77 percent of the searches, excluding keywords, yielded one to twenty-five results. These results were not as numerous as similar searches in databases such as AltaVista because catalogers had applied controlled subjects in RLIN. Crawford pointed out another prediction that meaning extraction (computers interpreting the mean- ings of articles) is forthcoming. In response to this,

112 SERIALSREVIEW

Crawford pointed out that amateurs can index better than computers.

Additional comments were that (1) technical pro- cessing will be more important in the future than ever before; (2) “Inevitable” is an argument stopper. For example, the death of print is inevitable; (3) “Predomi- nantly” digital is meaningless. For example, saying that there are more bytes in digital form than words in print is similar to saying that there are more McDonalds meals sold than French restaurant meals.

During the question and answer period Crawford commented that the greatest problem libraries face today is internal morale (our image) and he added that complex thought is more difficult to portray online than in print, as people do not generally read online.

Erik Jul, associate director of the OCLC Institute, who spoke on “Knowledge Access Management: Overview of OCLC Activities,” addressed the ques- tion, “Where do libraries and the Internet intersect?” He suggested the following answers:

They both provide access to resources with elec- tronic objects and catalogs of objects, and the librarian is at the dead center of the intersection.

The benefits of access are expanding local and remote patron access to the library catalog and expanding the local collection by providing access to remote resources.

The challenges are how to discover remote resources, suggesting that libraries should provide descriptive access; how to determine authenticity, reliability, quality, and long-term accessibility; and how to provide efficient access and sufficient control.

Additional challenges are trying to integrate selec- tion with collection development processes within existing library processes; extending the useful life of current processes with standalone and system pro- cesses; and how best to understand where we are and where we need to go.

Jul reminded the audience of the importance of remembering that the library and the Internet are not the same thing, even though the Internet does provide access to information. The Internet will probably never have order, description, subject analysis, authority con- trol, and so forth. He stated the three main reasons cat- alogers have not. actively sought to catalog Internet resources and responded to each as follows:

1. “Nothing on the Internet is worth cataloging.” Since there are already more than 19,000 bibliographic

- SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

records in the InterCat Catalog, how many do we need to convince ourselves of the worthiness?

2. “Everything is here today, gone tomorrow.” Patrons are finding 97 percent of what they want.

3. “MARC and AACR2 do not apply.” There are more than 19,000 cataloging records that do work.

Jul concluded by saying there needs to be coopera- tion among content creators, systems developers, libraries, publishers, and museums.

Rick Weingarten, senior policy advisor, ALA Wash- ington Office, addressed “The Future Internet: Policy Challenges,” primarily considering policy at the fed- eral level, in relation to government documents, tele- communications, and Congress, for example. He began by describing how technological change is affecting institutional policy with the question, “Is technology the shaping force ?” Yes and no. Technology is a steam- roller; reality is more complex; and the vision of tech- nologists is limited, as it is both powerful and often wrong or incomplete.

In the beginning, information technology practice started with raw technology, institutions negotiated, and culture shaped policy. For example, for more than 100 years, government publications were based on print and were carefully constructed. Technology basi- cally undermined that policy for Title 44 (depository library system). Depositories do not have better or worse access electronically than anyone else.

Policy resolves conflicts, assigns institutional roles, and mediates social values and economic interests. Several active areas of policy are: creating technology (research and development examine how to change, for whom, who pays, and how will it be used); telecommu- nications, providing affordable and universal service, and addressing other barriers such as funding, exper- tise, and content; and information policy (intellectual property, freedom of speech, access to government information, security, and privacy).

Weingarten concluded with what he considers to be the deep issues: (1) defining the library of the future: vision versus the status quo, libraries need to drive the future; (2) tensions between the public and property (proprietary) information, which are seemingly in con- flict, but are in fact mutually supportive; and (3) pre- serving individual freedom.

Bustion is with the Acquisition Department, Gelman Library, George Washington University, 2 130 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20052 <marifran@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu>.

DIGITALDELNERYOFSCIENTIFW INFORMATIONTOLIBRARIES-

PERP~E~TIVE~~NTODA~ANDTOM~RR~W

Jie Tian

The Education Committee of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) held its 1997 seminar series on “Dig- ital Delivery of Scientific Information to Libraries” on November 14, 1997 at the University of California, Irv- ine (UCI). The seminar addressed issues in the transi- tion of publication and delivery of scientific information. Around seventy information professionals attended the seminar. It provided a lively and dynamic forum for the attendees to hear the unambiguous goals of a commercial publisher, the dreams and reality of a not-for-profit publisher, the innovation of a secondary provider, the emerging roles of an aggregator, the acute needs of users, and the wisdom of a university librarian, as well as thought-provoking discussions and ques- tions.

Who are the players in the digital information age? Where does the industry stand now? The morning ses- sion started with an introduction by Julia Gelfand (sci- ence librarian, UCI) and welcome addresses by Shirley Leung (interim university librarian, UCI) and John Tagler (director of corporate communications, Elsevier Science). Leung immediately brought the attendees to the reality of today’s information technology landscape: The use of the Web, issues of digital archiving, trouble- some signs of soaring serial subscription prices, increased restriction by publishers for use of digital information, and the web of multiple players: librarians, distributors, faculty, users, vendors, and aggregators. Tagler highlighted the goals of this seminar: Where are we now? Where is the community going in a year or so? Who are the various players? Are we headed in the right direction? He encouraged communication among users, librarians, publishers, and vendors.

THEUNAMBIGUOUSGOALSOFA COMMERCIALPUBLISHER

Chrysanne Lowe (marketing director, Academic Press) spoke on the topic, “A Commercial Publisher’s Note- book.” She opened her talk by clearly defining the goals of a commercial publisher: To maintain revenue stream, expand readership of journals, maintain viabil- ity of the journal model, add value to journals, and

- SERIALS SPOKEN HERE - VOL. 24, No. 1 (SPRING 1998) 113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

develop new services for subscribers. It is also the pub- lisher’s goal to move from print to electronic journal delivery. Electronic delivery offers the benefits of loca- tion-independent access, access around the clock, expanded resources for users, currency of information, search and browse capabilities, and savings in binding.

According to Lowe, the electronic journal commu- nity faces a range of unresolved issues including elec- tronic journal models, licensing, archiving, and pricing. The basic model consists of searchable SGML data- bases with abstracts and articles in PDF, while a luxury model would be complete with video, audio, images, and graphics. Technology is rapidly changing; it is costly to invest in the luxury model. Electronic journal licensing models today exist as unbundled distribution or bundled distribution. In the former, individual jour- nal or journal articles are sold to individuals or institu- tions; in the latter, users purchase a license to a group of journals, such as Academic Press’ IDEAL. Aside from licensing issues, archival responsibility is unsolved. She asked whether archiving should be decentralized among publishers, libraries, consortia, and networks, or whether they should be a centralized super-archiving organization. Pricing represents another complex issue. She summarized pricing models adopted by commer- cial publishers: No add-on fee for online journals; online license with add-on fee for print; online free only to print subscribers, or usage-based license fee. In Lowe’s opinion, publishers and libraries are divided over cost issues. Libraries want to cut journal costs by taking advantage of electronic storage and savings in binding while publishers need to maintain revenue.

Lowe also introduced Academic Press’ two elec- tronic journal models: IDEAL (International Digital Electronic Access Library) and APPEAL (Academic Press Print and Electronic Access License). IDEAL bundles 175 journals, offering full-text access on the Web twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year. It is equipped with search engines and mirror sites in San Jose and Bath, UK. Currently, IDEAL serves nineteen consortia and five million users. Lowe acclaimed APPEAL as a “win-win” for all parties. Users will ben- efit from ease of use, quality, and one-stop shopping. Libraries will gain greater value for budget. Authors will get wider dissemination of their work. Publishers will help authors grow readership demand, reverse sub- scription erosion, and develop program by adding value. Consortia will reduce security risk. APPEAL sets a new pricing model. It separates the electronic journal price from the print price; licensee has the option of continuing print subscriptions at a deep dis-

count price (DDP), or subscribes to the electronic bun- dle while print journals stay separate. For consortia purchase, pricing will be based on total historical print holdings of the consortium members; with a small pre- mium, all consortia members gain access to all the jour- nals held by the members, with unlimited viewing, searching, copying, and downloading. She character- ized APPEAL as just-in-case management, maximiz- ing the body of content of all members and becoming an alternative to ILL where everyone can email, down- load, copy and print.

Lowe stated that Academic Press is experimenting with different models for different types of publishing. Its “images directory,” in development and free at this time, is an online resource of art images from museums and collections around the world and is created specif- ically as an Internet resource. She concluded her pre- sentation with intriguing questions: How do we accurately interpret access data on AP’s server? Do hits have anything to do with the value of information? Users want the bells and whistles and all the electronic enhancements in the luxury model, but who is going to pay for them? Is the consortium model sustainable and for how long? She affirmed that publishers would listen to librarians and experiment with the changing models. IDEAL and APPEAL are but case studies in the elec- tronic world. For more information on IDEAL, APPEAL, and the Image Directory, visit AP’s web sites: http://www.idealibrary.com; http://www.image- dir.com; and http://www.academicpress.com.

THEDREAMANDREALITYOFA NOT-FOR-PROFITPUBLISHER

The second speaker of the seminar was Dr. Thomas McIlrath (treasurer and publisher of the American Physical Society), representing a “Not for Profit Pub- lisher.” Dr. McIlrath asserts that the difference between the American Physical Society (APS) and a commer- cial publisher is that APS is committed to scholarship first and publishing second. It is based on committees of colleagues. APS publishes Physical Review A-E, Physical Review Letters, and Reviews of Modern Phys- ics. The purpose of the APS is to establish, promote, and disseminate scientific knowledge.

APS’s long range vision is to produce all electronic journals with multiple delivery options, develop tem- plates for authors while the Society provides review- ing, clustering, tagging, and accessibility. Dr. McIlrath outlined APS’s strategy for electronic publication: Subscribers to online journals will get an archival copy

114 SERIALSREVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

for print; APS will put the print version of journals near-line, and off-line storage) as part of the digital online, work towards paperless subscription/referenc- ing, begin decoupling electronic and print production, arrange world-wide distributions, enhance the capabil- ities of the electronic versions, and link to peer review and other journals. Dr. McIlrath announced the ambi- tious plan of the APS to offer Physical Review Online Archives, with the goal to offer articles back to 1985 accessible online in 1998, then back to 1973 within a year and ultimately to 1889. APS is working on strate- gies to deliver online journals to its international soci- eties and global readership based in the US, Canada, Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa, Indian sub- continent, Pacific Rim, China, Japan, and Australia.

Where does the money come from, and where does it go? Dr. McIlrath took conference attendees on a detailed tour of the revenue and expenses of the APS. APS’s revenue comes from the sale of research publi- cations, scientific meetings, membership operations, public affairs and programs, and from other income; expenses are incurred with research publications, meet- ings, journal publications including editorial, composi- tion and production, pricing and distribution costs. APS faces a tough user market. He stated that institu- tional journal subscriptions are dropping 3 percent per year, institutional subscription prices are rising 5 per- cent per year, page/abstract charges have dropped 40 percent over three years, and member journal subscrip- tions are evolving.

As a continuation of the dialogue, Dr. McIlrath left seminar attendees with more food for thought: Are electronic journals going to be free to all members and supported by organization fees? Is the APS going to adopt differential prices for large and small users? Who should pay for journal services? He closely tied the publishing and user community together in his terse phrase: “we are you; you are we.” He encouraged con- tinuing dialogue among societies, researchers, librari- ans, and users.

VIEWSFROMPUBLISHERS'SERVICEBUREAU

Alec Kamacki (product marketing manager, Digital PrePress Services for Cadmus Journal Services) took us behind the scenes with his topic, “Digital’s Work- flow.” He focused on technical issues in delivering con- tent digitally, or the “digital workflow.” The digital workflow involves printers that would reduce the cost of creating the printed page and facilitate the conver- sion of content and vast amount of storage (online,

infrastructure to complement the digital workflow. Kamacki illuminated attendees on printers, desktop

publishing, coding, conversion, and the quality of data. Currently, there are multiple solutions for content: SGML and PDF for searchable text; PDF and Post- script for page images; TIFF and EPEGS for high-res- olution graphics; GIF and JPEG for low-resolution graphics; and text and HTML for web pages. Karnacki believed that the difficulty lies in the fact that there is no single agreed upon standard for delivering content digitally. Converting multiple platforms and software can be costly and require significant investment in soft- ware, training, and development. SGML is difficult and complicated; HTML is not extensible. He saw Exten- sive Mark-up Language (XML) to be the best of both worlds. It can create a searchable text file, define com- position codes, and make pages from the same text file without going through converters. However, XML may not come out for three years. Meanwhile, the cost of conversion is causing problems for publishers. Publish- ers face tough demands in archival strategy and will have to rely on service providers, consultants, and peers to help them decide what the strategy should be.

What are the needs of end users? Kamacki captured end-users’ need for instant gratification of information: They would love to have access to free electronic con- tent and to have fast access; they want the content as soon as, if not before, the journal is printed; if the con- tent is online, they do not want to wait for the long download time; they also want sophisticated search capabilities. Other features that users would like include reference linking, abstract or full-text search, cross-linking of sites within the end-user’s fields of expertise, search online and print offline. What is the reality? Subscription rates continue to go up; available bandwidth is not conducive to the average user; it is more costly to provide deep levels of search capability and cross-linking.

Are we meeting their needs? According to Kamacki, some providers are doing better than others. He believes that large repositories of content are more valuable to the end-users, because more content pro- vides the ability to create the cross-linking that end- users desire. Studies show that the value of content increases with the number of users. Providers need to reach a “critical mass” of content. Cross-linking of content in large volume will be the key to meeting user needs. He cited a quote from Wired and predicted that future librarians may become “information managers.” Most end-users will want to access data. Librarians

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- VOL. 24, No. l( SPRING 1998) 115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

may serve more business and government related needs than public needs.

THEINNOVATION OFA SECONDARYPUBLISHER

Isabel Czech (director of publisher relations, Institute for Scientific Information, ISI) examined the evolving roles of secondary publishers. She cast a retrospective look at the beginning of the secondary publishing industry, tracing it to the advent of Index Medicus in the late eighteenth century. Around the 1880s index notes were used to pull information together in an organized way. Another secondary source, BZOSZS, started in 1924. In 1963, Shepard Citation in law developed cita- tion analysis. Czech attributed cross-linking to Dr. Eugene Garfield, founder of ISI, and his colleagues. Dr. Garfield saw commonality and inter-relatedness of fields between subjects that do not have similarity on the surface and introduced multi-disciplinary links. With the Web, hypertext linking makes it so much eas- ier to do research with the capability to jump back and forth following hypertext links.

Czech shared the latest development at IS1 with attendees. She acknowledged that going digital has become a matter of survival for secondary publishers. IS1 indexes twenty million references a year and has started producing and delivering index information electronically. ISI’s Electronic Library Project delivers access to full-text articles covered in Current Contents. When the project started, the Web did not exist; IS1 used TI lines. Then the Web emerged and is now used to deliver information to a user’s desktop. ISI’s Web ofSci- ence is a Web-based interface that offers access over the Internet or Intranet to the various IS1 citation databases. Its customers are large academic institutions, corpora- tions, and OhioLink, its first consortium. IS1 can deliver and load databases on site, with tape, CD-ROM, and electronically. Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index track how many times an author or article has been cited since publication. There are a few subscription options for libraries and consortia. Czech reported that IS1 has formed an alliance with Nature magazine to provide full-text access to cited references in Nature.

In Czech’s view, all the secondary publishers shared paper as the same medium and a common theme: Orga- nization of a large amount of information and develop ways to help librarians and users to find the information they need. Chemical Abstracts, Science Direct, EI Vil- lage, Compendex, and INSPEC are a few examples of secondary publishers working closely with primary

publishers to organize information and provide links to journals, content, and indexes/abstracts. She asked for feedback: How should we deliver the information to you? What are our strengths and weaknesses? She emphasized the importance of talking among librarians, aggregators, primary publishers, and secondary pub- lishers. She invited attendees to visit ISI’s web site at http://www.isinet.com for a demo of the Web of Sci- ence.

THEEMERGINGROLESOFANAGGREGATOR

Sharon Cline McKay (electronic sales manager, Black- well’s Information Services) brought the seminar attendees closer to the “alien” term of aggregator by defining it as intermediary. She emphasized that aggre- gators will work with a broad partnership base includ- ing subscription agents, secondary publishers, other publishers, library membership organizations, library consortia, individual libraries, and automated library systems.

McKay succinctly characterized aggregator services for different types of partners. “Aggregator services for library” include placing orders to multiple publishers, license assistance, registering IP addresses/domain names, technical support, setting up and maintaining URL links, ensuring secure links to publishers and cre- ating collection development reports. “Aggregator ser- vices for users” embrace the creation of a single access point and one user interface for multiple publishers’ titles, searching, browsing, alerting services, electronic and/or print documents, viewer store that will give users access to Acrobat and give instructions as to access and download print and electronic journals, online claiming, subscription validation, and single point of support. Blackwell’s Electronic Journal Navi- gator is a typical aggregator product. It serves both institutions and end users. It provides table of contents, accessible regardless of the existence of a subscription to the journal, offers electronic journal validation for content delivery, hosts content, and has links to docu- ment delivery providers.

McKay reached the heart of the matter in electronic journal purchase methods and subscription models when she systematically described the chaos in pricing patterns. She observed that there are seventeen current electronic journal subscription pricing models, and mentioned some of the more common models: Free, free with print subscription, lo-30 percent additional with print, 90-100 percent plus print, and electronic only. Subscription models range from Academic Press’

116 SERIALS REVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

bundled subscription, to a pick-and-choose model, dis- and the fact that he could not find good textbooks. Tra- ciplinary selection, and articles by transaction, and related articles package (citation index). She concluded that electronic information is attractive, yet many ques- tions remain. How are we going to reach license agree- ments for all publishers? What is the best archiving strategy? Links will grow and expand; publishers will offer more access choices; therefore, partnerships are key. She urged that all parties remain partners and dream dreams of the future of technology.

ACUTEVOICESFROMTHEUSER'SFRONT

The afternoon session consisted of a distinguished fac- ulty panel from UC1 and the director of libraries at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), setting up an interesting stage for the flow of input from users’ perspectives. Our users are dreamers of great dreams, instigators for the design of more intuitive information systems, and the ultimate people the information mar- ket is serving and impacting. Dr. Nadar Bagherzadeh, professor of electrical and computer engineering, called himself one of the first users of the library’s elec- tronic systems. He expressed strong interest in hyper- linking, data storage, and data transmission. He would like to see the library of the future as one that connects, via high-speed technology, offices with information sources. Rather than a single, separate site like IDEAL or IEEE, he would like to see a gateway that links dif- ferent publishers and electronic journals together.

Dr. James Nowick, professor of chemistry, addressed electronic journals from four perspectives: Information access, primary literature, that of a teacher, and an author/researcher who produces articles and manuscripts. He contributed insightful observations on the evolution of the electronic information and posed poignant questions for the audience. He complimented the availability of online access to databases like CASSI, Current Contents, and MEDLINE. Yet he noted the high cost of literature searching, inadequacy in key- word or subject access, and issues of student training on these databases. As a researcher, he is concerned about accessibility, durability, and viability of elec- tronic information. A vast quantity of primary literature is not accessible in electronic databases. For example, CASSZ online does not cover literature before the 1970s while Current Contents does not cover literature before 1989.

As a teacher/educator, he emphasized that the con- tent and quality of electronic information is critical, observing the low quality of information in chemistry

ditionally, scientists had to be very selective in cita- tions. Now with the explosion of information, who and what would one cite? Information producers need to be more selective and ensure quality of information. As a scientist who publishes, he was glad to see the good quality of society journals and excited to be invited to publish electronically by the American Chemical Soci- ety. He is excited by the American Chemical Society’s plan to turn all their journals online. He envisions an environment to do research, publish, access, and deliver information electronically, without leaving the desk and without going to the library.

Dr. Stephen White, professor of biophysics, was a strong advocate of quality information. He advised publishers to be very selective in what they publish: “We do not need literature of secondary quality. Read secondary, you will think secondary.” He also voiced his need as a working scientist, teacher, and professor running a lab. In those multiple roles, how can he live his life in the information context? How should he cope with the information explosion, deal with pressures, and what expectations should he have?

Dr. White’s talk depicted the dramatic and dynamic information-seeking behavior of a researcher and posed a great challenge to information professionals. He needs certain journals in hand, in print, every week so that he can scan tables of contents and abstracts. As a busy individual in many roles, he does not have time to go to the library or read there, because he would lose weeks of research. Nor does he have time to scout on the Web. Instead, he would like an e-mail message from the publisher alerting him to new titles and table of contents, with URLs built-in to allow direct access of articles on the Web. He reiterated that he does want the electronic library, resembling ISI’s Web ofScience, from which he can directly go through tables of con- tents, mark the ones he needs, and request articles online. The problems, as noted by Dr. White, are that there are diverse products such as IDEAL, MUSE, and Current Biology, but there is a lack of a uniform access point. Cost constitutes another significant issue. How to price electronic information and access? Currently pricing for electronic journals is problematic and users will not buy into that pricing structure. As a result of pricing constraints, the majority of Dr. White’s stu- dents have not used Science Citation Index.

Gerald Lowell, university librarian at UCSD, enlightened seminar attendees with a profound analysis of the electronic publication environment from a sea- soned library administrator’s perspective. He cau-

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- VOL. 24, No. 1 (SPRING 1998) 117

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

tioned us to be aware of the contrasts between needs and wishes, cause and effect, and advised us to avoid a simplistic, broad overview. He urged the community to focus on issues that need to be addressed so users have quality access. He characterized the major issues as current acquisitions, serials pricing increases and dis- seminating scholarly information in electronic form.

According to Lowell, the problem increases in the price of current serials is caused by two different meth- ods of access: print and electronic. He questioned: “How much monetary value would users place on pub- lisher’s value-added services?” Libraries cannot man- age to pay more for a publishers’ increases. Research libraries face challenges as they serve faculty and stu- dents because less and less is available. User needs can not be met through one consortium but many. The cam- pus network is inadequate for the community; there is no adequate funding. The role of the library is to be the center of the university, yet budget has always been number two. He pointed out that the large environment poses challenges as well. Current crisis is not only a library problem, but also a world problem, a publisher problem. He remarked that we make hard choices as we proceed. We pay for something and have to cut some- thing else.

Authentication and authorization characterize the key of the issue. When there is an explosion of infor- mation, how do users find quality information? How do we guarantee that the database is used by authorized users only? How do we know who is the authorized user? To facilitate access, there are technical issues that must be resolved: Hardware, software, bandwidth, as well as funding model for equipment replacement and regeneration. Is the electronic information efficient and easy to access? Who is going to archive? What will be archived, at what cost? Who will pay for archiving? It poses a problem if we are going to archive all that is published electronically.

We also face issues in dissemination of scholarly information. Lowell spoke in a firm and nearly anguished tone when he stated that the current model of $15,000 for one product per year is not acceptable; libraries will not pay for them. The largest publishers are society publishers; they are now going commercial, making profits for shareholders. They take all our learning and set the price. He asserted that there needs to be trust between publishers and libraries. However, that is hard to find when publishers advertise a “25 per- cent increase for additional supplemental issues.” He reiterated the need to foster a competitive market, develop policy for intellectual property, enrich scholar-

ship, sustain quality, and archive researches in digital format. Lowell concluded his talk urging all parties to collaborate and negotiate access and pricing on this bumpy information road.

When seminar attendees walked into the post-mod- ern sunset of southern California and back in their roles as publishers, librarians, users, aggregators, negotia- tors, and policy-makers, they left with enhanced knowledge of the electronic publishing industry, a more wholesome perspective of digital information delivery, and a more acute awareness of the challenges facing users, libraries, and the publishers. The seminar was a great success by bringing together the best of all parties and creating an invigorating forum of commu- nication among them all. I wish that this engaging dia- logue would generate actions to address issues in publication model, end-user needs, pricing models, delivery models, archiving and content creation.

T.ian is Periodicals Librarian for User Services, University Library, California State University, Fullerton, P 0 Box 4150, Fullerton, CA 92834-4150 <jtian@fullerton.edu>.

ULRICH'S Focus GROUP MEETING, OCTOBER 27,1997

Pamela Bluh

Ulrich’s. Hear or read the name and instantly there is recognition! The first edition, simply entitled Guide to

Periodicals, appeared sixty-five years ago and over the decades, the venerable directory has gone through many changes in anticipation of, and in response to, changing needs and circumstances in the world of seri- als. It seems quite natural, therefore, that change is once again on the horizon for Ulrich 3.

In the summer of 1997, a program sponsored by the ALCTS Serials Section entitled, “At Issue: Dimensions of Seriality in an Electronic World,” served as the cat- alyst for the publishers and editors of Ulrich’s by bringing to the forefront fundamental questions about the future of Ulrich ‘s in an increasingly electronic world. In an attempt to find answers to these questions, Judy Salk, the editorial director and publisher of Ulrich’s planned a one-day focus group session specif- ically designed to identify possible future directions for Ulrich’s. The purpose of the focus group session was three-fold: to describe the serials world as it exists

118 SERIALSREVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

today; to identify general trends in the serials industry and speculate on the future of serials at a time when electronic serials seem to be dominating the scene; and to relate those general trends and future ideas specifi- cally to Ulrich’s for both the near and far term.

On Monday, October 27, 1997, a group of approxi- mately thirty information services professionals gath- ered at the Hamilton Park Conference Center in Florham Park, New Jersey, for an all-day session to talk about serials. Although librarians were outnum- bered nearly two to one by Bowker/Reed staffers, that did not seem to hinder the steady flow of comments and ideas. After all, how often do we have an opportunity to spend an entire day talking about serials?

After brief introductions, Regina Reynolds, head of the National Serials Data Program at the Library of Congress, opened the session with an excellent presen- tation entitled “Whither Serials” which provided pre- cisely the right content and tone to establish a framework for the day’s discussion. Reynolds described the current environment for serials, one based on the AACR2 definition of a serial-“a publica- tion in any medium issued in successive parts bearing numeric or chronological designations and intended to be continued indefinitely”-and demonstrated how restrictive this definition has become, particularly as we struggle to describe material in “non-traditional” formats based on the traditional definition,

If we thought we could relax after listening to Rey- nold’s thought-provoking and lucid presentation, facil- itator Howell Thomas immediately disabused us of that notion. He observed, quite rightly, that most of us had, initially, selected our seat next to or near someone we knew, with the result that the librarians formed a cluster and the Bowker staff members formed a second, albeit larger, cluster. In order to stimulate discussion and effective communication and ultimately to achieve a variety of ideas, Thomas told us all to find new seats next to someone we did not know. After some good- natured grumbling, this was accomplished. And what a clever move (no pun intended) this was. Not only were we forced to meet new people but more importantly, the resulting discussions were more diverse and wide ranging than they might have been had we remained within our original, homogenous groups. Having set- tled into our new seats we set about the task of identi- fying the general trends influencing serials. This was an interesting but more difficult exercise than we expected. The discussion was far-ranging and included, for example, topics such as standards (or quasi-stan- dards) such as SICI, URN, DOI, ISSN; fiscal consider-

ations; bibliographic control and access; archiving of material; and organizational change. We were amazed at how much commonality there was in our thinking despite the diversity of our backgrounds and profes- sional affiliations. From this broad-based view, the focus narrowed as we attempted to place Vlrich ‘s into that setting. We discovered that Ulrich ‘s is used both as an acquisitions and as a reference tool, a duality that tends to give rise to some confusion. Ulrich’s appears to be suffering from an “identity crisis” and needs, first and foremost, to come to grips with what it wants to be. The general consensus was that in order to maintain its viability in the future, Ulrich’s should build on its strengths: reliability, authoritativeness of information, and the systematic presentation of information. Can Ulrich’s continue to be relevant in a rapidly changing universe and with a shrinking market? Can a business plan be developed that will allow it to evolve, be affordable for users and at the same time be profitable for the publisher? Is there value in maintaining Ulrich ‘s

in print, or are there better, more efficient, ways to deliver functionality at an affordable price? These were just a few of the questions that were raised and for which answers must be sought.

After lunch, we reconvened for the afternoon ses- sion, happy to be allowed to return to our morning groups, for we already felt comfortable with each other. Our specific assignment: to examine Ulrich ‘s from the perspectives of content, delivery, functionality and identification on the Web and make recommendations with regard to the future of Ulrich’s in these four areas. In some ways this assignment was easier than the morning’s task, because now we were free to explore some of the futuristic concepts we had identified but had avoided discussing earlier. The result was a description of a Web-based product/service, compre- hensive in its breadth of coverage, dynamic in nature, flexible in terms of its manipulative capabilities, serv- ing a variety of user needs, capable of being integrated with other products, and all for an affordable price. While somewhat “blue sky” in nature, these ideas could form the basis for a new, focused direction for Ulrich’s in the immediate future.

It was exciting and stimulating and quite a luxury to spend an entire day steeped in discussions about major market forces and trends affecting serials and speculat- ing on future directions the serials industry might take in the near term. We attempted to position Ulrich’s

within that scene. Now we await, with great anticipa- tion, how our comments and suggestions will be used to revamp Ulrich’s in such a way that it retains its pre-

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- Vat,. 24, No. 1 (SPRING 1998) 119

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

eminent position in the rapidly emerging electronic serials marketplace.

Bluh is Associate Driector for Technical Services and Administration, Marshall Law Library, University of Maryland School of Law, 20 North Paca St., Baltimore, MD 21201 <pbluh@umaryland.edu>.

1997 CHARLESTON CONFERENCE: ISSUES IN BOOK AND SERIALS ACQUISITION

Kenneth L. Kirkland

The theme of this, the 17th annual conference, was “Learning from our Mistakes.” Extras were three pre- conferences, “Lively Lunches” grouped around twelve topics, the traditional Rump Session at the end, and an Oyster Roast. The next conference is planned for November 5-7, 1998.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS I. THE TRADE PUBLISHING CRISIS:

REAL OR MANUFACTURED BY JOURNALISTS

Nora Rawlinson (Publisher’.s Weekly) opened the con- ference with a talk that made librarians feel they were getting inside information from the publishing world of New York. Many have joined in asserting that trade publishing in the United States is in crisis, ever since Ken Auletta wrote his piece in the New Yorker. What effect will this crisis have on what librarians can buy for their collections?

Rawlinson advised the audience not to believe everything printed in the New York Times about pub- lishing. Optimistic sales reports may not take into account that the super stores (booming since 1995) return many copies of books that do not sell quickly. Publishers are often now part of a bigger corporation. Fewer books are offered by each publisher, and the smaller imprints are being sold off. The expectation is to make more money from fewer books.

There is a growing focus on niche or specialist pub- lication. Crate and Barrel figures into this kind of mar- ket now. Ballantine has being buying up regional self- published books.

Other observations from Rawlinson are that greater use of the Internet leads to more sales. Amazon.com is a significant force in the marketplace. Thanks to a

larger audience, the pace of going out of print may well slow down. A book with descriptive information out- sells a book without it, two to one.

During the question and answer period, Rawlinson was asked why doesn’t Publishers Weekly review more small press books? She replied that they try to.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS II. CHANGES IN LIBRARY BOOKSELLING

Fred Phillip (Blackwell’s) said that change is equiv- alent to pendulum swings. Librarians do not change radically as a rule, and we all continue to push the enve- lope of information supply. “Library suppliers will change the same way libraries change.” In change there is opportunity. For booksellers, returns are the major issue. Industry wide, title output continues to soar. If one publisher cuts back output, four new publishers spring up. Electronic ordering is on the upswing-Web pages proliferate. He noted that outsourcing is not so new. School libraries started doing it in the 1960s when they received lots of federal money. He hopes for reduction in costs, especially from ED1 (electronic data interchange). The question and answer period brought responses that technology is having a great effect, reducing costs, but paradoxically, booksellers provide free access to databases, while libraries are charged heavily for modules needed for system access. Are consortia using buying power to get concessions, espe- cially on electronic material? Is the Baker & Taylor lawsuit affecting other suppliers? Dan Tonkery (Faxon) asked if tables-of-contents services help sell books, and if libraries are adding tables of contents notes to their catalogs.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS III. A LOOK AT PLAGIARISM

Bill Hannay, an attorney with Schiff, Hardin, & Waite, took note of the alarming trend towards canned essays for submission with college admission applications, essays perhaps taken from Web sites. There are term paper mills on the Internet-some sites offer as many as 8,000 choices. Some papers are free, but they are not as good as the ones you pay for. This kind of corruption can make a mockery of the integrity of the academic process.

It is a legal issue to determine if a free Web site on the Internet is a part of commerce. Often, the free sites are supported by advertising. If there is a charge for the

120 SERIALSREVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

paper, yes, it is commerce. Boston University brought a

suit after setting up a sting operation, asking for custom

work. They were asked, “Do you want your name and

the professor’s name on the cover sheet?” The legal

grounds for the suit were that this defrauds the univer-

sity. The question is, is this fraud? Has the university

been cheated of money? Seventeen states have laws

against plagiarism, a misdemeanor, but there are few

prosecutions.

Where is all this going? What can be done?

Cheatcorn (actual name) gets 13,000 hits a day, and

Schoolsucks.com has received a million hits. The objec-

tive seems to be to put the library online, so kids do not

have to look in encyclopedias and books or do actual

research. Some say teachers are at fault because they are

not specific enough with assignments and do not help

with drafts of papers. The teacher now needs to do the detective work of searching the Web to see if the paper

is there. Preventive steps could be to give assignments for opposing views, require photocopies of the refer-

ences, not just footnotes, and talk to students about the

existence of the mills and about honesty and integrity.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS IV. THE EGG Is BROKEN,

WHO WILL MAKE THE OMELET?

Ward Shaw (CARL) offered that the trick is how to

make an edible omelet. Newspaper subscriptions and

readership are down, but use of the electronic formats

of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are

up. (By the way, there is a real Dot Corn, a retired

teacher!)

Shaw observed that there have been shifts away

from institutional control of information. The academic

elite have lost control of the Internet. They once con-

trolled distribution. Users believe they can navigate

through many electronic resources on their own, with-

out a librarian’s help (though maybe not as well). Indi-

viduals can publish on the Web without help.

The initial response to the situation is Luddite or

prime denial. The second stage is preservation. In the

third stage new forms emerge. Shaw believes we are

just getting started and he noted several important

points to consider: (1) follow the money. The new way has to be economically viable, or it will not last; (2) look for consumer convenience. Content is not king- maybe only a prince; (3) remember there are different

forms of publication. Newspapers are different from STM journals. The carpenter is the least likely person

to think of a new use for the hammer. Only a bumbler

will do that, according to Heidegger.

A questioner from the audience asked, “Will tech-

nology be able to take care of itself, and sweep us (librarians) away?’ Shaw responded affirmatively. People are doing their information searching without

us. To be in a guiding or controlling role has already passed us by. “Distance education is the beginning of

the end of the academic institution as we know it.”

KEYNOTE ADDRESS V. THE ACADEMIC LIBRARY IN THE INFORMATION AGE: CHANGING ROLES FOR ACQUISITIONS AND

COLI,ECTION DEVELOPMENT LIBRARIANS

Barbara von Wahlde (State University of New York at Buffalo) discussed the issues raised in the new publica-

tion whose title is the same as this topic, produced by

the California State University and SUNY systems. Librarians are striving to work collaboratively with academic faculty on new approaches to learning and teaching. We must continue to rethink what we cur-

rently do.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS VI. MARY ANN LIEBERT P~~BLISHERS

The well-known publisher described her company’s operations, history, and outlook. You may feel the last

thing we need is a new journal, yet her firm was the first to bring out an AIDS journal. “I like to be there two

years too early,” she observed. The Hebrew Home for the Aged was one of the first subscribers in order to be

prepared; they do not have any AIDS patients yet. All Liebert journals started from scratch. Liebert is a very competitive person and her brain is constantly going.

She truly enjoys creating a new journal and is a vora- cious reader.

We may say there is a problem of too many journals,

but publishers jump in to be competitive in new fields as new topics such as alternative medicine arise. Lie- bert started publishing in this field when statistics showed that one third of the population is interested in

alternative medicine, diet, and exercising.

On serials pricing she believes the market is sending publishers mixed messages. A Texas library indicated they would pay anything. “I’ve learned to speak a little Dutch,” Liebert said, but I cannot keep track of who owns whom. It is odd that the United States leads in medical research, but Europe dominates in medical pub-

- SERIALS SPOKEN HERE - VOL. 24, No. 1 (SPRING 1998) 121

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

lishing. Tony Ferguson wrote in Against the Grain on holding price increases to a steady 8 percent to maintain long-term viability. Liebert hopes that the big publishers who eat up 30 percent of the library budget would be interested in exploring Ferguson’s suggestion.

Regarding electronic formats, she believes security is the greatest concern. Hardware varies greatly over the world. Libraries are signing away lending and bor- rowing rights. At present Liebert is not going to full text, but does do new electronic-only journals (Cyberpsychology is the newest.) She is addicted to the Web but prints out articles to read. She considers the virtual library as just e-mail, not a place to visit. The library is a place where you get ideas.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS VII. THE FUTURE Is Us

Clifford Lynch (Coalition for Networked Information) closed the official conference, leading to the traditional Rump Session. He proposed that “us” might be defined as networking.

Under discussion are the URN (Uniform Resource Name), the SIC1 (Serial Item and Contribution Identi- fier), the BICI (Book Item and Contribution Identifier), and the DO1 (Digital Object Identifier). These identifi- ers are the latest progression along the line of ISSNs, ISBNs, OCLC numbers and so forth; identifiers that take on a new significance in the networked online environment.

The URN has developed as a parallel system to the URL. URLs have been very effective, but they really are not names. They do not specify logical content, but are simply instructions on how to access an object. The URN accommodates a number of naming policies for the assignment of identifiers. A URN consists of a naming authority identifier assigned through a central registry and an object identifier assigned by that nam- ing authority to the object in question. Unlike a URL, the URN syntax does not specify an access path for the object. Today’s standard browsers do not yet accom- modate URNS so resolvers convert them to URLs, but this support should develop in the near future. The URN framework is meant to be flexible enough to sub- sume virtually all existing bibliographic identifiers.

The SIC1 code is a NISO standard. It relies on the ISSN to identify the serial and can be used to identify a specific issue or a specific article or table of contents. The SIC1 can link articles and bibliographic citations as well.

NISO is now developing the BICI, which can be used to identify specific volumes within a multivolume set, or chapters or other components within a book. ARL and CNI are heavily involved in SICXBICI work.

The DO1 was demonstrated at the October 1997 Frankfurt Book Fair. The DO1 system is now being used by a number of US and European publishers in a pilot program. The system has three parts: the identi- fier, the directory, and the database. The directory is used to keep track of the current copyright owner or location or server. The database contains the content or information on how to reach the content and may notify the owner of a hit. There are privacy and control issues to be resolved as this system develops. The extremes range from the idea that using DOIs will make the Internet “safe” for proprietary intellectual property in a way that it is not today, to the idea that using DOIs will convert the entire Web into a pay-per-view system.

Lynch observed that the biggest stumbling block is authentication. The best method currently is IP filter- ing, but it does not work when people come into a site through alternate paths.

Graphic images are expected to be the next major wave in library acquisitions, but URNS and DOIs are not ready to handle this explosion.

Should ISBN’s be assigned retroactively? A diffi- culty with such a project is defining clearly what an edition is.

During the question and answer period Lynch was asked to explain what CNI (his new employer) is? It is an organization in Washington, DC with some 200 members, mostly academic libraries and publishers. Its goal is to enhance scholarly publishing.

PANEL DISCUSSION: THE BOOKS Am SHELF READY. ARE You?

Rick Lugg (Yankee Book Peddler) answered the ques- tion, “outsourcing-why do they do it?’ It is a matter of cost management and staffing, a question of budgets. The ground of competition for book sales has shifted, and outsourcing is a way of expanding business.

Albert Joy (University of Vermont) observed that at his institution a certain amount of checking is required, just as approval books are checked. As for in-house or “outhouse” cataloging, the question is, when does an error become a problem? The answer from his perspec- tive is when it causes a problem of access for the patron.

Questions were raised about the political aspects of outsourcing, “I haven’t lost a person yet” said a librar-

122 SERIALS REVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

ian who had reorganized her staff, observing that the books are getting out to the patrons faster. One of the vendors remarked, “We want to be challenged for bet- ter quality. Don’t expect the customer to adjust to lower quality.” Why is it cheaper for a vendor to catalog? Because vendors’ catalogers do a lot of other things besides cataloging.

PANEL DISCUSSION:

FROM THE FIELD OF DREAMS TO THE GODFATHER:

COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT ‘I~DAY

Panel: Robin Lent (University of New Hampshire), Maureen Pastine (Temple University), Genevieve Owens (Williamsburg Regional Library), Curt Holle- man (Southern Methodist University).

For years, collection development relied on the con- cept “build it, and they will come.” Librarians endeav- ored to assemble the finest collections imaginable given the resources available, and assumed there would be a public to reap the benefits. Currently, there is a reaction to that historical method, accentuating access over ownership, just-in-time rather than just-in-case. Nowadays, we are engaged in deals to acquire almost overwhelming amounts of information, sometimes in “deals we cannot refuse.” Collection development must juggle many ways of delivering information.

PANEL DISCUSSION:

CHAOS ELECTRONIC STYLE

Panel: Chuck Hamaker (LSU) Jan Peterson (Academic Press), Andrea Keyhani (OCLC), Suzanne Wilson- Higgins (Blackwell’s).

LSU’s physics Web page has or links to fifteen sites with their own separate passwords. It can take several minutes to get to one article, Hamaker told the audi- ence. He then made the following observations: (1) there is a fundamental change in the way researchers, teachers, and students use information; (2) there is a fundamental change in the way business will be con- ducted in the future; (3) there will be even more con- vergence of media, such as World Wide Web and television; (4) there will be a broader spectrum of sizes of physical organizations, from Elsevier to cottage industries.

Wilson-Higgins explained why Blackwell’s devel- oped the Electronic Journal Navigator. It was to defend their market position, to retain and attract customers, to take the innovative lead, to make Blackwell’s a proac-

tive partner rather than a reactive one. Their goal is to sell and deliver all formats via multiple routes. The public does not want a publisher-centric economy, but publishers want to preserve their revenue stream.

Wilson-Higgins discussed some of the issues that aggregators face: (1) user identification and authoriza- tion. The need for standards. Is the user a society mem- ber, a university, consortia, library, or academic department who is paying? How to handle skipping to linked articles to other publications. How to bill; (2) archiving. Jan Peterson appeals to librarians to cham- pion the cause. Some publishers host their content, some do not, or spread it out or duplicate it at multiple sites; (3) usage statistics should be provided to libraries and publishers, as well as content.

Keyhani identified a number of OCLC concerns: (1) work with the online equivalent or counterpart of print products, establishing a critical mass of information. Many types of libraries need social sciences and humanities material, not just STM. There is a need for perpetual access and archiving; (2) reduce the cost of content access storage through centralization and stan- dardization; (3) electronic collection management; (4) integration of electronic journals with the rest of the OCLC system.

In the discussion period it was noted that the Austra- lian National Library is charged with archiving. Archiving is a librarian’s issue, as one delegate noted, “librarians own the issue of preservation.” The Coali- tion for Networked Information (CNI) has a plan for standards.

PANEL DISCUSSION:

BUYING THE REFERENCE PRODUCT

Moderator: Audrey Melkin (Henry Holt) Panel: Ath- ena Michael (John Wiley & Sons), Joe Raker (Boston Public Library), Suzy Seller (University of Miami), Kathryn Suarez (Congressional Quarterly Books).

The program sparked conversation and debate through an audience participation model. The panel recommended the September 1997 issue of Against the Grain on this topic. Abstracts and indexes, serials and journals were excluded from this discussion.

All the panelists gave comments on what the ratio- nale is for different formats (print, Web, or CD-ROM.) No matter what, most want Web format these days. Sometimes print can be superior to CD-ROM for speed of access when the patron is standing there and you have to say, “Let me log out of this and log into that.”

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- VOL. 24, No. 1 ( SPRING 1998) 123

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

Alex Bloss (University of Illinois-Chicago) sug- gested that publishers should think about offering mul- tiple formats. Blackwell’s hasn’t had high demand for CD-ROM products. Chadwyck-Healey asked who would go back to CD-ROM after the Web version was out. At least one library has done so.

How do publishers set prices for electronic prod- ucts? The process is different from print versions, messy but not illogical. Suarez listed three factors that drive the prices up: (1) technology costs (migration of legacy data, especially from microfilm, licensing and software development, added value considerations); (2) editorial costs; (3) staffing costs. Three factors that pull costs down according to Suarez are: (1) customer buying power; (2) the competition; (3) mission. Grunger’s Index to Poetry is now going to CD-ROM and will be on the Web. The electronic version will cost more because of the added full text of 10,000 poems, i.e. twenty volumes of anthologies.

Kevin Guthrie noted that JSTOR purposefully did not do consortia1 negotiations, figuring on long-term, evenly distributed costs.

Do librarians prefer to buy electronic products from a vendor or publisher? The publisher won unanimously in this session. There were comments that vendors were not so helpful with licensing, and one foreign attendee reported paying a third less to the publisher than the vendor’s offer.

PANEL DISCUSSION: CHANGING SERVICES, NEW ROLES

Moderator: Judy Luther (Consultant, Ardmore, PA). Panel: Lynn Cline (Southwest Missouri State Univer- sity), Michele Crump (University of Florida), Jim Baldwin (Indiana University, Purdue).

This panel complemented the article in the Confer- ence issue of Against the Grain on “Second Generation Online Systems from Book Vendors” which presented the development and key features of approval plan sys- tems from three vendors. Each of the panel members spoke from their experiences in working with a partic- ular vendor, addressing what they valued and com- menting on the organizational changes resulting from implementing a new system.

Jim Baldwin, resource development team leader at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI), described their use of Academic Book Cen- ter’s Book Bag which they chose due to a rapid expan- sion of their budget and their need to use an approval plan which fit their workflow.

Michele Crump, associate chair of the Acquisitions Section of the Resource Services Department at the University of Florida, commented on Yankee Book Peddler’s GOB1 system, and the software development intended to save at the University of Florida re-keying and processing time.

Lynn Cline, head of acquisitions and collection development at Southwest Missouri State University, noted their use of Blackwell’s Collection Manager to respond to downsizing pressure and to support internal collaboration in the selection process as it shifts from micro to macro selection.

PANEL DISCUSSION: OUTSOURCING: INTO THE NEXT DIMENSION

Moderator: Heather Miller (SUNY-Albany) Outsourcing has been around for a long time in the

form of approval plans, commercial binding, the use of book vendors and subscription agents. Today, the term often means the purchase of shelf-ready books.

Doug Duchin (Baruch College) described the 1995 CUNY decision to centralize all technical services oper- ations of nineteen libraries in one place, over the period of two years. Forty-two librarians and seventy-two cler- ical staff were involved. The object was to reduce per- sonnel costs. Serials, periodicals, and binding would remain local. There would be one technical services per- son at each campus. Nobody lost a job, but there was some attrition. The cost of $7.50 per book for copy cat- aloging was reduced to $4.50 per book. Coutts Library Services became the vendor.

Keith Schmiedl (Coutts Library Services) declared that the reason for outsourcing is to save money. It is better to communicate, to listen to staff issues and deal with them. Otherwise the vendor walks into a hostile situation. Know your costs, know what will be saved. Examine the issues from top to bottom. The library must monitor the process to assure continuing quality. Do not be under the illusion that a vendor can do every- thing. The vendor is usually best for the routine mate- rial, not Icelandic language material, for example.

Sharon McKay (Blackwell’s) provided an aggrega- tor’s point of view. She advocated that librarians be interactive, get user feedback all along the way. The “dynamic journal” is a new term, for a publication with no pages, that can be interactive.

Kevin Guthrie (JSTOR) described how his operation has tried to practice economies of scale in refreshing and migrating the data centrally. Archiving is a collab-

124 SERIALSREVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

orative effort. There are two aspects of archiving: ret- objective and not personalize/internalize. Build a cli-

respective and prospective. mate where there is trust and respect.

PANEL DISCUSSION:

MANAGING CONFLICT IN THE WORKPLACE

Moderator: Jack Montgomery (University of Missouri Law Library). Panel: Terri-Leigh Hinkle (University of New Hampshire), Hunter Kevil (University of Mis- souri-Columbia), Mary Hudson (Case Western Univer- sity Law Library).

Jack Montgomery set the stage for this panel by stat- ing, “The specter of conflict in the workplace environ- ment is one that often haunts the supervisor and/or

director throughout his/her career. “ The application of family systems therapy to relationships in the workplace is an attempt to uncover some of the invisible dynamics behind the phenomena. By understanding these often hidden interpersonal dynamics, perhaps the manager can respond to conflict in an effective, objective manner.

Workplace conflict is costly and prevalent. Litiga-

tion is up by 40 percent in ten years, at $600,000 per case for wrongful dismissal. One thousand people a year are killed on the job, and the number of assaults is much greater.

Your Boss is Not Your Mother by Brian Des Roches is highly recommended by Montgomery. Family sys-

tems therapy is relevant because family patterns can be seen in the workplace. The workplace is a center for stress, and interpersonal stress is the major factor, not deadlines. The book mentions roles developed during childhood that carry over into work situations (rebel, tyrant, martyr, victim, overachiever, and others.) You

can map out your internal chart of relationships, (but don’t tell anybody else which character you are in this scheme.)

The better management model is to move toward partnership and away from autocratic management with domination and punishment. If you are a manager and you hide in your office, management nevertheless develops without you.

There is a dangerous trend of too much e-mail to man- age which may indicate fear or apathy with employees. “Be “I’‘-centered, not “You’re too slow.” Communicate

your own needs, not accusing the employee.

Mary Hudson noted that there are 225,000 acts of violence annually in the workplace, and this is related to conflict and stress in times of change. Direct, honest information from the manager can counteract the grapevine. Try to turn conflict into a practical, con- structive force. Keep your sense of humor. Try to be

Ten-i-Leigh Hinkle emphasized the need for a col-

laborative approach using these techniques: (1) address problems head on; (2) let each side speak without inter- ruption (if two-part); (3) have two parties mirror back what they have said; (4) brainstorm for options; (5) agree on a course of action and follow through.

Hunter Kevil observed that when things go wrong 90 percent of it is because of the process, not the peo- ple. There is a need for largely self-directional teams. Deming recommended breaking down barriers

between departments, forming teams.

A common barrier is autocratic micro-management of each level below, which stamps out creativity and results in paralyzing the system. This kind of manager seeks to control input, not output, and has a demeaning and unproductive view of people.

PUBLISHING PANEI,:

MISTAKES MADE AND LESSONS LEARNED

Barbara Meyers (Meyers Consulting Services), Judith Turner (Consultant), Jill O’Neill (ISI), Royalynn O’Connor (Oxford University Press).

Barbara Meyers opened the session with a list of key

points: You can assume nothing; Murphy’s Law exists; customers have a lot to learn, but so do publishers; elec- tronics are not perfect; electronics are ever changing- get used to it; standards are needed; there is much to learn about electronic processes, as well as a need to

teach; with new challenges there is more opportunity.

Jill O’Neill described some of the experiences at ISI. “Learning experience” is a euphemism for “mistake.” The Science Citation Index was founded in 1964, but it took five years to catch on and become profitable. The first CD-ROM version included all four sections together (Citations, Sources, Permuterms, and Journal Citation Reports) but it took kindly librarians to bring to their attention that they’d missed the integrated approach, since there was no retrieval engine to search across all four sections. The lessons gained were to har- ness the technology for the good of the product, and always do a usability study first.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has always experimented with editions and formats and was the first on CD-ROM according to O’Connor. However, they did not permit printing. There was also a time when they simply could not imagine who would ever want the OED online. Now a completely new edition is to be done by 2010, with eighty lexicographers, and

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- VOL. 24, No. 1 ( SPRING 1998) 125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

they are looking at how to do spin-offs as they go along.

Judith Turner recalled her days early in this decade bringing up The Chronicle of Higher Education online, experimentally, at the University of Southern Califor- nia. The Chronicle thought it should sell site licenses, and that librarians knew all about information delivery. (Well, they do learn fast.) The greatest challenge was straight-line thinking: getting from here to there com- petently, managing expectations, and understanding what we were selling (we didn’t). We learned to make Boolean searching available, but not to tell anybody but librarians that it was there. The public uses one- word searches and just wants an answer, not the

answer. We were surprised to learn that: (1) staff were the biggest users, (2) the user categories: fifty power users, daily, of 150 to 250 paying subscribers and none canceled the paper format subscription, (3) advertisers came fast, (4) copying was not the issue we thought it was, and (5) we had to do mode management and add source material.

(Note: this panel was the most literal in addressing the theme of the conference.)

SELECTION

Gita Gunatilleke (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand) had the distinction of being the presenter who traveled the greatest distance.

Selection at the Victoria University is organized by Library of Congress classification number, not by aca- demic department. There are subject targets, not alloca- tions, so funds can be moved around easily. Sixty percent of the monographs come from the United States, 10 percent from New Zealand, and 10 percent from Australia, India, China, and Japan. The holdings include 1,157 CD-ROMs, 2,437 videocassettes, and 4,000 LPs (records). The budget is NZ$834,000 for monographs, and NZ$1,600,000 for serials. The elec- tronic resources budget is separate.

THE LEGAL DEPOSIT OF

ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS

Jim Vickery (British National Library) gave his paper, which will be published in Against the Grain. While the principle of legal deposit is well-established for printed works, national libraries have only recently begun to collect electronic publications in this manner. His paper covers the background of legal deposit, con-

126 SERIALSREVIEW

siders the issues involved in its extension to electronic material, and reviews developments worldwide. Vick- ery’s perspective is that the main talking point arising from his presentation is the question, “Who is respon- sible for the long-term archiving of American e-jour- nals?” It seems that organizations such as OCLC and JSTOR, rather than the Library of Congress, are taking the lead, whereas in most other countries it is seen as clearly the national library’s job to preserve such mate- rials and provide indefinite access.

LOOKING BACK ON CHANGES IN PUBLISHING

Brian Cox (Elsevier Science) reviewed the history of Elsevier. The Elsevier Book Company began in 1880, stemming from a printing family stretching back to 1583. Robert Maxwell bought Butterworth-Springer in 1951 and changed the name to Pergamon Press. Max- well would sort the mail himself, write telex memos, then write the replies three days later when he was in New York where the telex memos were received. Most of the best stories about Maxwell are apocryphal, but it is true that he ran things on a shoestring. A carpenter made all the furniture for Mrs. Maxwell as well as for the office, including desks with collapsible typewriter wells. Maxwell would demonstrate this wonder to vis- itors. Once he told an employee, “Make your typewriter disappear.” The man ran from the room carrying the typewriter, since he didn’t have one of the desks with the well. Cox is certain that his Army experience helped him to understand Robert Maxwell’s autocratic management style.

During the 1960s circulation increased 5-10 per- cent. Maxwell made a windfall profit when the 1967 pound devaluation occurred after the 1968 renewal invoices had already been sent out. In the 1970s micro- films were expected to play a significant role in pub- lishing. Microfiche subscriptions did not take off, but microfilm did prosper for a while.

Titles change because editors believe the subject has changed. Scientists are keenly interested in the journals they edit or write for, sort of like racehorse owners. Thanks to Chuck Hamaker and Marcia Tuttle, most international publishers set standard prices in the 1980s. From 1987-1989 Pergamon titles were cheaper for US subscribers than elsewhere, a fact which librar- ians fail to acknowledge or mention.

In 1991 Elsevier acquired Pergamon, in 1993 it became Reed-Elsevier. In 1998 Elsevier attempted to acquire Kluwer.

- SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

In sum, Cox believes Robert Maxwell was a fasci- nating character who had a profound effect on publish- ing, not all of it bad.

CREATING AN APPROVAL PLAN FROM SCRATCH: How CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

DESIGNED AN APPROVAL PLAN

Denise Novak (Carnegie Mellon) described an arrange- ment with the Strand Bookstore in New York City, prior to January 1997, to receive monthly shipments of review copies. The profile was very basic, but the qual- ity of the books received seemed relatively marginal for the collection. By 1995 they were returning 60 percent of the books they received under this arrangement. A library task force in a year-long process developed a true approval plan on a small budget of less than $250,000.

LIBRARY APPROVAL VENDOR SELECTION: WHAT’S BEST PRACTICE?

Linda Brown (Bowling Green State University) sent a questionnaire to 291 librarians to survey their vendor selection criteria and methods, with the intent of exam- ining the mix of vendors’ traditional services versus new services that now enter into the selection choice. Perhaps discount or other traditional factors no longer play a predominant role in determining an academic library’s vendor selection, given the wide variety of vendor services available. Surprisingly, results of the survey indicated that the cost of material was not uppermost in selecting a vendor, but that service ranked as most crucial.

CONCURRENT SESSION-IMPLEMENTING ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Sharon Cline McKay (Blackwell’s) outlined the role of intermediaries/aggregators and their roles and impact on library processes. Aggregators involve subscription agents, secondary publishers/I&A providers, other publishers, library membership organizations, library consortia, individual libraries, and automated library systems.

Aggregator services for the library include acquisi- tions, access, management/technical support, and reports. For acquisitions, the aggregator combines elec- tronic resources with print orders and renewals, regis- ters IP addresses/domain names, and assists with

licensing. The aggregator will store the license, explain “legalese” and assist in negotiations. For access, the aggregator brings together multiple publishers from a single access point; provides for searching, browsing, alerting; citations/abstracts, even when there is no sub- scription/electronic and/or print document; multiple formats; and a viewer store. For management/technical support, the aggregator validates subscriptions; sets up and maintains URL links; ensures secure links to pub- lishers; gives networking advice; and handles publicity materials. For management reports, the aggregator pro- vides data on usage, such as title, type of user, disci- pline, and whether the use is for a subscription or non- subscription title. The reports are relevant for collec- tion development and budgeting decisions.

The subscription agency aspects of the aggregator are combined invoices for print and electronic journals, online claiming, dispatch information, easier subscrip- tion validation, and a single point of support, i.e., one- stop service.

The highlights on the topic of access links were URL in the 856 field of the catalog record provides direct access to a list of issues; index & abstract databases provide article-specific access; 239.50 standards are important.

McKay concluded that electronic information is attractive, but requires different management tech- niques. Cooperation will help everyone. Librarians should budget for experimentation in this time of rapid, tremendous change.

Pamela Pavliscak (Rice University) used that insti- tution’s Fondren Library Web page to illustrate ways of making access to electronic journals as painless as pos- sible, with holdings information, easy links, facile nav- igation, and clear licensing conditions. The URL is: http://riceinfo.rice.edu/Fondren/

The electronic journals section of the Rice Web page (Library/Collections/Electronic Journals) begins with the note that access to some journals may be restricted to Rice faculty, students, and staff. Many of the jour- nals listed can be accessed through Webcat, the Rice catalog on the Web. Users searching text-only LIBRIS will see an Internet location for journals available in electronic form.

The first item on the page is Journal Collections, list- ing groups linked for direct access: American Institute of Physics (AIP) Online Journal Service , The Institute of Physics (IOP) Electronic Journals, IDEAL Aca- demic Press Journals, JSTOR, Project Muse, Society for Applied and Industrial Mathematics (SIAM) Jour- nals Online.

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- Vol.. 24, No. 1 ( SPRING 1998) 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

At first, Project Muse and JSTOR were cataloged only on two separate (collective) records, but are now integrated title by title. Call numbers have been added for each title to allow browsing in the Web catalog. Full bibliographic and holdings information is also avail- able from the electronic journals Web page.

The Individual Journals by Title area gives the patron access to the Full List of Titles by clicking on the appropriate letter of the alphabet. There is also a link to Individual Journals by Subject. The final section on this brilliant Web page is Other Electronic Journals Sites, with the note, “These sites include many other electronic journals, newsletters and newspapers freely available over the Internet.” Eleven links are given: CARL, CMU, SUNY Buffalo, WWW Virtual Library, the University of Pennsylvania, Electronic Newsstand, North Carolina State University, NewJour: New Elec- tronic Journals, and Scholarly Societies Online News- letters.

CONCURRENTSESSION-THECHANGING ECONOMICMODELOFSCHOLARLYPLJBLISHING

John Cox (Carfax) illustrated his paper effectively with three drawings representing the traditional model of scholarly publishing, the 1980s model, and the new model. The traditional model indicates straightforward interaction among four camps: Libraries, academic/ researchers, primary publishers, and subscription agents. The 1980s model becomes more complex with the addition of four groups and more complicated rela- tionships: (a) abstracting & indexing services, (b) doc- ument delivery services, (c) secondary publishers (print, CD-ROM and online), and (d) online informa- tion services. The new model contains seventeen boxes with still more lines connecting in even more intricate cross-relationships. Now the library box has been split into five separate boxes involved with the same groups as before, but also with new groups (purchasing con- sortia, library utilities/aggregators, and reproductive rights organizations), while publishers’ online services are a further subdivision that deal almost exclusively with non-library entities other than library purchasing consortia.

The number of papers published has doubled over the last twenty years, but library expenditure has increased by less than half that rate. There are now 200 consortia in the US and a demand for system-wide or even state-wide licensing. The underlying costs of pro- ducing a journal have risen while the number of sub- scriptions has declined. Publishers have compensated

for this by trying to sell more copies to individual soci- ety members, increasing advertising revenues, selling supplements and special issues separately, licensing fees, putting more words on the page (bigger pages, smaller type), using double columns and narrower mar- gins. Most of all, technology has transformed the pro- duction system. Nevertheless, journal prices are thirty times more expensive in 1997 than they were in 1970, representing an average annual increase of more than 13 percent.

Electronic format is demanded by librarians but is not as popular with faculty and researchers. Publishers have to renew their computer equipment every eigh- teen months to two years to keep pace with software development, while universities replace their equip- ment only every three years at best. This creates further problems of matching product delivery with the recipi- ent’s capability.

The features that working scholars value in elec- tronic publishing are (1) full reference retrieval, (2) linked footnotes, (3) complex figures converted into moving pictures, (4) embedded links that are continu- ally updated both forwards as well as backwards, (5) direct access to the data on which the paper is based, and (6) concept, or thesaurus-like searches, which will require major developments in artificial intelligence.

Both publishers and librarians are locked in to a mul- tiple medium environment for the future. Paper format journals will survive, but electronic products will become more important, especially when delivered on the Internet. In 1994 the AAU/ARL concluded that 50 percent of scientific literature would still be in print by 2015.

Publishers play a most significant role in certifying quality through the peer review process. Without a cer- tification process, the value of formally published papers would be reduced from authentic scholarly work to just another piece of noise on the Net.

New business models are needed, and are emerging, to let libraries obtain information in multiple formats when their budgets are not expanding. Resource shar- ing, and licensing schemes such as Academic Press’ APPEAL/IDEAL, are just two examples. This kind of pricing can be tailored to the needs of the academic community and stabilize revenue for the publishers.

There is an important role for intermediaries or aggregators in the new scenario. Libraries do not want to provide access to electronic data using more than one common system or front-end. While there is a con- stant demand for standardization, the rate of change and development is too rapid to permit it. Standardiza-

128 SERIALSREVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

tion on technology now in place would stifle advance- ment. Aggregators may be in the best position to supply a standard interface and stand between the library and the many information providers and publishers and their multiple systems.

Cox concluded his presentation by stating, “The future is likely to involve more collegial methods of working together. How we do this will be a matter of controversy as well as innovation for many years to come.”

The discussion period elicited the following com- ments. The Astronomical Society strongly disagrees that technology does not exist to meet those listed demands. The point is to prepare the electronic format first and let that drive the paper, rather than to compose the paper print edition first. Columbia University Press got very positives response to their unique electronic political science journal.

CONCURRENT SESSION-LICENSING THE ELECTRONIC PRODUCT

Facilitators: Sara Sully (JSTOR), Tony Ferguson (Columbia), Chuck Hamaker (LSU).

The group recommended “Reading the Fine Print: Preparing to Negotiate Pricing for Electronic Products” by Trisha L. Davis, Ohio State University Libraries. This three-page list of questions (included in the pro- gram book) is for librarians to use as a starting point to analyze and evaluate the content of the agreement and to prepare for pricing negotiations. Answers to the questions should be found in the license agreement for

electronic products. The questions cover the following eight areas: Product Definition, Ownership Rights, Lease Rights, Authorized Users Definition, Access Options, Use Capabilities, Search Results, and Hidden Costs and Penalties.

Ask lots of questions when negotiating. Find out if you are buying content or temporary access to content, i.e., ownership versus access. The author of a book does not own the book but has rights subject to copy- right, JSTOR access is “in perpetuity.” Determine acceptable performance guarantees. It is 2:00 pm and the electronic resource has disappeared from the Web. Is there advance notice of migration to new software? A confidentiality of terms clause is not so necessary for JSTOR, but can be useful in some areas. It is better to be specific rather than general. Few librarians have access to lawyers when negotiating for electronic prod- uct licenses, and this is scary.

One of the unfortunate things about this conference (and others) is the inability of one reporter to attend all sessions, concurrent or otherwise. Some of the events/ presentations reluctantly missed were: “End Users and Electronic Publishing” Peter Boyce (American Astro- nomical Society) and “Death of the Periodical Sales- man” Liz Chapman (Oxford University). The closing quote of the conference was, “Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusi- asm.” Delegates to this meeting learned well that it was no mistake to attend.

Kirkland is Collection Development Coordinator, DePaul University Library, 2350 N. Kenmore Ave., Chicago, IL 60614 &kirklan@wppost.depaul.edu>.

-SERIALSSPOKENHERE- VOL. 24, No. 1 ( SPRING 1998) 129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

18:

16 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014