The document summarizes research into trends in library purchasing of university press books from 1975-2010. The researchers collected data on book holdings from 15 university presses and 32 academic libraries over time. They found that while claims of a downturn in library purchasing since the 1980s are not accurate, purchases have declined since around 2000. Additionally, trends differed between larger and smaller libraries and presses - larger libraries and presses saw smaller declines or continued growth compared to smaller ones. The researchers aimed to fact-check common narratives around declines in support for university presses.

1. Monograph Purchasing
Trends in Research Libraries:
Did Electronic Journals Really Destroy the
University Press?
Elisabeth A. Jones & Paul N. Courant
University of Michigan Libraries
Library U N I
Monday, March 31, 14

2. Library
University Press
Bedtime Stories (1)
“Once upon a time, before predatory commercial journal
publishers began their assault on the purchasing budgets of
academic libraries, libraries could be counted on for a certain level
of sale of academic monographs.That virtual guarantee permitted
university presses to support the research activities of scholars,
especially in the humanities. But when the library budgets began to
get gobbled up by the villainous commercial houses, monograph
sales plummeted, taking the fortunes of university presses with
them.Thus, the goal is to find a new business model, a ‘sustainable’
one, which would enable the presses to continue with their
historical support of the research community.”
- Joe Esposito, 2010
2
Monday, March 31, 14

3. Library
University Press
Bedtime Stories (2)
“Back in the ‘good old days,’ university presses used
to be able to count on selling X (large) number of
copies of every book to libraries, but now they can
only sellY (small) number of copies to libraries –
and that’s just not sustainable.
“But it’s not the Press’s fault! It’s those evil library
serials subscriptions, eating up the libraries’
budgets and keeping them from buying our books!”
- Lightly paraphrased from several sources
3
Monday, March 31, 14

4. Library4
Monday, March 31, 14

5. Library
These are nice stories…
4
Monday, March 31, 14

6. Library
These are nice stories…
…but are they true?
4
Monday, March 31, 14

7. 5
Would it surprise you to hear
that the total number of U.S.
university press monograph titles
purchased by U.S. university
libraries actually more than
doubled between 1975 and 2000?
Monday, March 31, 14

8. Library
• Internal and/or anecdotal data; difficult to verify
• Problematic overgeneralization from ARL data
• Median materials expenditure for the 126 ARL
institutions: $10.9 million
• Median materials expenditure for the 324 doctorate-
granting ACRL institutions: $3.8 million
• ARL institutions are far from typical
• University press books ≠ first to cut in a budget
squeeze
6
Some Grounds for
Suspicion
Monday, March 31, 14

9. Library7
More Grounds for
Suspicion
Monday, March 31, 14

10. Library
• Claimed number of copies of each book sold to
libraries in “the good old days” = 700-800
(e.g. Hitchcock 1999, Smallwood 2002,Thompson 2005,Wasserman 1998)
7
More Grounds for
Suspicion
Monday, March 31, 14

11. Library
• Claimed number of copies of each book sold to
libraries in “the good old days” = 700-800
(e.g. Hitchcock 1999, Smallwood 2002,Thompson 2005,Wasserman 1998)
• ARL libraries may collect relatively comprehensively,
but there are only 126 of them
7
More Grounds for
Suspicion
Monday, March 31, 14

12. Library
• Claimed number of copies of each book sold to
libraries in “the good old days” = 700-800
(e.g. Hitchcock 1999, Smallwood 2002,Thompson 2005,Wasserman 1998)
• ARL libraries may collect relatively comprehensively,
but there are only 126 of them
• Smaller libraries have never had the resources to
buy every book put out by every U. Press
7
More Grounds for
Suspicion
Monday, March 31, 14

13. Library
• Claimed number of copies of each book sold to
libraries in “the good old days” = 700-800
(e.g. Hitchcock 1999, Smallwood 2002,Thompson 2005,Wasserman 1998)
• ARL libraries may collect relatively comprehensively,
but there are only 126 of them
• Smaller libraries have never had the resources to
buy every book put out by every U. Press
So who was supposed to have been buying the
rest of these books?
7
More Grounds for
Suspicion
Monday, March 31, 14

14. Library8
Fact-checking the Fairy Tale
(Our Research Questions)
Monday, March 31, 14

15. Library
1. Has there actually been a downturn in library purchasing of
university press books from 1975-2010? And if so, does this
decline temporally coincide with the sharp increases in
serials prices in the 1980s and 1990s, as is often claimed?
8
Fact-checking the Fairy Tale
(Our Research Questions)
Monday, March 31, 14

16. Library
1. Has there actually been a downturn in library purchasing of
university press books from 1975-2010? And if so, does this
decline temporally coincide with the sharp increases in
serials prices in the 1980s and 1990s, as is often claimed?
2. Are the purchasing trends for university press books
consistent across
a. Different-sized academic libraries (by materials budget)?
b. Different-sized university presses (by title output)?
8
Fact-checking the Fairy Tale
(Our Research Questions)
Monday, March 31, 14

17. Library
1. Has there actually been a downturn in library purchasing of
university press books from 1975-2010? And if so, does this
decline temporally coincide with the sharp increases in
serials prices in the 1980s and 1990s, as is often claimed?
2. Are the purchasing trends for university press books
consistent across
a. Different-sized academic libraries (by materials budget)?
b. Different-sized university presses (by title output)?
3. Does academic library purchasing of university press books
from 1975-2010 exhibit the same trend as academic library
purchasing of monographs in general over the same period?
8
Fact-checking the Fairy Tale
(Our Research Questions)
Monday, March 31, 14

18. Library
Data Sources
9
Monday, March 31, 14

19. Library
Data Sources
• Ideal would be detailed university press sales data,
broken out by customer types
9
Monday, March 31, 14

20. Library
Data Sources
• Ideal would be detailed university press sales data,
broken out by customer types
…but that’s not available
9
Monday, March 31, 14

21. Library
Data Sources
• Ideal would be detailed university press sales data,
broken out by customer types
…but that’s not available
• What is available:
9
Monday, March 31, 14

22. Library
Data Sources
• Ideal would be detailed university press sales data,
broken out by customer types
…but that’s not available
• What is available:
• Press output figures from AAUP’s annual Directory
9
Monday, March 31, 14

23. Library
Data Sources
• Ideal would be detailed university press sales data,
broken out by customer types
…but that’s not available
• What is available:
• Press output figures from AAUP’s annual Directory
• Library materials budget figures from ACRL’s annual
Academic LibraryTrends & Statistics
9
Monday, March 31, 14

24. Library
Data Sources
• Ideal would be detailed university press sales data,
broken out by customer types
…but that’s not available
• What is available:
• Press output figures from AAUP’s annual Directory
• Library materials budget figures from ACRL’s annual
Academic LibraryTrends & Statistics
• Library holdings data from OCLC WorldCat (via
FirstSearch)
9
Monday, March 31, 14

25. Library
Sampling: Presses
• Population: 53 AAUP
members with complete
publication records,1975-2010
• Divided into Top, Middle, and
Bottom thirds by mean annual
title output
• Randomly selected five
presses from each third
(n=15)
10
Sample Presses Mean Books/Yr
Princeton University Press 205.1
MIT Press 182.6
Johns Hopkins University Press 161.8
University of Michigan Press 97.8
University of Washington Press 91.2
University of North Carolina Press 78.3
Duke University Press 71.1
University of Minnesota Press 65.2
University of Wisconsin Press 53.6
Pennsylvania State University Press 53.2
University Press of Mississippi 46.2
Ohio University Press 43.7
University of Missouri Press 41.9
Wayne State University Press 35
Northern Illinois University Press 15.2
Monday, March 31, 14

26. Library
Sampling: Libraries
• Population: 324 libraries included in ACRL’s 2010 statistics
for doctorate-granting institutions
• Divided into quartiles by total 2010 materials expenditures
• Data from initial 8-library sample presented at ASIS&T
2013
• UM & UW, plus 2 libraries each from the other three
quartiles (randomly selected w/in similar in-quartile ranges)
• Expanded sample using same semi-random selection
process to choose 6 more libraries roughly evenly
distributed throughout each quartile (n=32)
11
Monday, March 31, 14

27. Library
Sampling: Libraries
12
Sample Library ARL? 2010 Mat. Exp.
U of Michigan Yes $23,002,928
U of North Carolina Yes $16,970,946
U of Washington Yes $14,841,396
Indiana U Yes $13,490,434
Ohio State U Yes $11,954,846
George Washington U Yes $11,509,525
Rutgers U Yes $10,510,456
U of Missouri - Columbia Yes $9,751,527
Wayne State U Yes $8,601,311
U of California - Davis Yes $7,462,149
U of Utah Yes $6,728,095
Clemson U No $6,171,729
U of Central Florida No $5,933,541
U of New Hampshire No $5,631,810
SUNY at Albany Yes $5,193,274
Nova Southeastern U No $4,587,719
Sample Library ARL? 2010 Mat. Exp.
U of North Dakota No $3,679,894
U of Toledo No $3,273,810
Eastern Michigan U No $2,997,353
U of Colorado - Denver No $2,594,027
Middle Tennessee State U No $2,368,158
U of San Francisco No $2,212,411
U of Alaska No $1,975,558
Worcester Polytechnic U No $1,704,634
Texas Woman's U No $1,160,169
Southern New Hampshire U No $982,113
Barry U No $723,143
Teachers Coll. at Columbia U No $616,796
Alabama State University No $507,296
University of Dallas No $438,834
S. Dak. Sch of Mines & Tech No $218,304
Alliant International U No $160,307
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Monday, March 31, 14

28. Library
Data Collection
• Iterated manual WorldCat search
• Number of books held by each library published by
each press in each year (1975-2010)
• Example:
• Publisher:“Duke University Press”
• Limit type to: Books
• Limit availability to: EYE
• Post-search: Limit > LimitYour Results ByYear
13
Monday, March 31, 14

29. Library
Data
Collection
15 presses
x 32 libraries
x 36 years
= 17,280 data points
14
Monday, March 31, 14

30. Library
Database Limitations
• Data errors: duplication, inconsistent entries,
retrieval bugs
• Change over time:WorldCat reflects library
holdings now(ish)
• Could have purchased long after publication
• Could have gotten rid of books in years since
purchasing
• Cataloging backlogs: may cause errors in counts of
recent works
15
Monday, March 31, 14

31. Library
Beyond the Limitations
• Sources of error in WorldCat tend to affect
the raw numbers, but not necessarily the
overall trends
• Numbers for press output should be solid:
straight from AAUP’s own Directory
So, what do these data show?
16
Monday, March 31, 14

32. Library17
Findings 1
Trends in Library Purchasing: Volume Count
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
0
500
1000
1500
2000
TitleCount
Mean Sample Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Total Sample Press Output
Monday, March 31, 14

33. Library17
Findings 1
Trends in Library Purchasing: Volume Count
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
0
500
1000
1500
2000
TitleCount
Mean Sample Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Total Sample Press Output
Monday, March 31, 14

34. Library
Findings 1
Trends in Library Purchasing: Volume Count
18
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
TitleCount
Total Sample Press Output
Mean Sample Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
U of Michigan
U of North Carolina
Monday, March 31, 14

35. Library
Findings 1
Trends in Library Purchasing:
Library Holdings as a % of Press Output byYear
19
0
25
50
75
100
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2010
%ofPressOutput
Mean Holdings (%)
Monday, March 31, 14

36. Library
Returning to the first question...
20
1. Has there actually been a downturn in library purchasing
of university press books from 1975-2010? And if so,
does this decline temporally coincide with the sharp
increases in serials prices in the 1980s and 1990s, as is
often claimed?
FINDING: Yes - but only since ~2000.
The claim that these purchases have been in free fall
since the 1980s or 1990s does not hold up.
However: from the press perspective, one could see
how it might seem that way.
Monday, March 31, 14

37. Library
Findings 2
Larger Libraries ≠ Smaller Libraries
Title Count
21
0
300
600
900
1200
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
LibraryHoldings:TitleCount
Large Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Medium-Large Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Medium-Small Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Small Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Monday, March 31, 14

38. Library
Findings 2
Larger Libraries ≠ Smaller Libraries
% Change Since 1975
22
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
%Changesince1975
Total Sample Press Output
Large Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Medium-Large Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Medium-Small Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Small Library Holdings of Sample Press Titles
Monday, March 31, 14

39. Library23
0
20
40
60
80
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
LibraryHoldings:TitleCount
Large Presses Medium Presses Small Presses
Findings 2
Different Press Sizes, Similar Library
Purchasing Trends
Title Count
Monday, March 31, 14

40. Library24
Findings 2
Different Press Sizes, Similar Library
Purchasing Trends
Library Holdings as a % of Press Output byYear
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
LibraryHoldingsas%ofSamplePressOutput
Large Presses Medium Presses Small Presses
Monday, March 31, 14

41. Library
Returning to the second question...
25
2. Are the purchasing trends for university press books consistent
across
a. Different-sized academic libraries (in terms of materials budgets)?
b. Different-sized university presses (in terms of title output)?
FINDING: There is a difference in trend between big and
small libraries, but not between big and small presses.
Libraries above the median kept pace with increases in U. Press
output until the late 1990s, and their purchasing only began to
decline after 2000.
Only the smallest libraries in the sample showed a steady decline
in purchasing from these presses over the full 36-year period.
Monday, March 31, 14

42. Library
Findings 3
University Press Books Are Different
26
-25%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
125%
150%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Purchasing by Sample Libraries
%Changesince1975
Sample Press Monographs Overall Monographs
Monday, March 31, 14

43. Library
Findings 3
University Press Books Are Especially
Different at ARL Institutions
27
-67%
-33%
0%
33%
67%
100%
133%
167%
200%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Purchasing by Sample Libraries
%Changesince1975
ARL Institutions - Sample Presses ARL Institutions - Overall Monographs
Non-ARL Institutions - Sample Presses Non-ARL Institutions - Overall Monographs
Monday, March 31, 14

44. Library
Returning to the third question...
28
3. Does academic library purchasing of university press books
from 1975-2010 exhibit the same trend as academic library
purchasing of monographs in general over the same period?
FINDING: No - and especially not at ARL institutions.
ARL purchasing of university press books far outpaced
purchasing of other monographs at those same libraries, at
least since the late 1980s.
Monographic purchasing overall may be suffering due to
increases in electronic serials prices, but that overall trend
does not uniformly extend to university press monographs.
Monday, March 31, 14

45. Library
Conclusions (1)
29
• U Press output increased sharply from 1975 to 2004 -
by nearly 200%
• Output declined after 2004; back down to 1999 levels
by 2010
• U Library purchasing also increased from 1975 to 2000,
but at a slower rate than press output - by “only” 140%
• Purchasing declined after 2000, much faster than decline
in press output; back down to 1989 levels by 2010
• No temporal correlation between decline in U Library
purchasing of U Press books and the “serials crisis” of
the 1990s
Monday, March 31, 14

46. Library
Conclusions (2)
• Purchasing of U Press monographs has been
much more robust at large libraries than at
small ones
• No apparent difference in purchasing trend
by size of press
• U Library purchasing of U Press books has
been far more robust than U Library
monograph purchasing in general, especially
at ARL institutions
30
Monday, March 31, 14

47. Overall:
Something is happening here,
but it doesn’t fit the fairy tale
31 Library
Monday, March 31, 14

48. Library
Going Forward...
32
• How did the conventional wisdom diverge so far from what
these data show? Is there something that this approach
overlooks?
• What other explanations might there be for the decline in
the fortunes of university presses?
• A few thoughts:“Big Deals” post-1997 or so; generalized
university budget/econ woes; increase in DDA/PDA;
application of usage data to hone approval plans
• Whatever happened, it happened later
• If U Press internal data show markedly different trends than
those depicted here, why is that so?
• We hope they (you?) might share!
Monday, March 31, 14

49. Thanks!
Elisabeth A. Jones & Paul N. Courant
Contact: elisjone@umich.edu
33
Library
Monday, March 31, 14