spobooks5621225.0001.001 in


    1. Surveys involved national probability samples of scientists (1977, 1984), audiences of Science and the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and samples of scientists in organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, AT&T Bell Labs, Oak Ridge National Lab, The Johns Hopkins University, University of Tennessee, Drexel University, University of Pittsburgh and American Astronomical Society members. There may be some bias in organization surveys because the organizations are self-selected.

    2. Estimates of readership of articles by this survey method are in fact biased on the low side because they miss readings that take place after the survey responses, they do not include readings of separate copies of articles (over 100 million currently), and they miss other article distribution means.

    3. All uncited data come from Tenopir and King (2000) or are new, unpublished results.

    4. Of course, it may be that intelligent professionals read more and get more recognition for their work, but the latter for their intelligence, not necessarily because they read a lot. Regardless, it shows that this resource is important to them.

    5. For example: King, D.W., D.D. McDonald, N.K. Roderer, and B. Wood. 1976. Statistical Indicators of Scientific and Technical Communication. (1960-1980): Vol. 1 A Summary Report. GPO 083-000-00295-3 and King, D.W. and N.K. Roderer. 1978. Systems Analysis of Scientific and Technical Communications in the U.S.: The Electronic Alternative to Communication Through Paper-Based Journals. NTIS: PB281-847.

    6. The increase in total cost is largely attributable to an increase in estimated number of scientists who are active in research, teaching, and/or other endeavors that involve reading scholarly journals; i.e., 2.23 and 6.38 million scientists in 1975 and 1998 respectively. Estimates of number of scientists are inexact (see Science & Engineering Indicators-2000, p.3-3 to 3-5).

    7. (e.g., Halliday and Oppenheim this volume, Holmes 1997, Marks 1995, and Shaw and Price 1998)

    8. The cost model also included 20 fixed and variable cost parameters such as setup costs associated with each issue, cost per page of editing and proofing.

    9. We use 1995 data in Table 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 because we had better data on circulation in 1995. Also, introduction of licenses and negotiated packages of journals has diminished the meaning and count of circulation. In 2002 we estimate average circulation to be about 4,800 subscriptions.

    10. The tracking process took into account births, deaths, and splitting of journals into two or more journals.

    11. There is a small distortion in the 1975 average circulation in that calculation from the data gives 6,300 subscriptions per title, but the average calculated from the sampled journals was 6,100.

    12. See Tenopir and King (2000) for detailed evidence of this phenomenon.

    13. Detailed examples of economic break-even points are given for decisions with personal subscriptions vs. use of the library and library subscriptions vs. obtaining separate copies in Tenopir and King 2000.

    14. Of course, there are some attributes achievable through technology, such as links to back and forward citations, searchable databases, numeric data sets, moving graphics, and so on (Halliday and Oppenheim, this volume; Tenopir et al., 2003).

    15. Support costs vary greatly among publishers. Our average is 29% above direct article processing costs. Halliday and Oppenheim (this volume) present other amounts.

    16. We have observed allocated support costs of about 15% on direct reproduction and distribution costs.

    17. Of course, one must establish what constitutes a "reading" based on electronic use as pointed out in Odlyzko (this volume).

    18. The question of archiving journal articles is a contentious one between libraries and publishers, but it must ultimately be resolved. Some are proposing institutional archiving (see, for example, Harnad's September Forum).