Journal subscription decisions should be based on practical and objective criteria. The best criteria are a combination of the following factors:

1. faculty (expert) advice through accountable reasoning and study,
2. citation analysis (i.e. SCI impact factor), provided by library staff,
3. use study data (imperfect as it may be), provided by library staff,
4. fiscal reality, interpreted by the Library Committees

The library staff cannot adequately scan, evaluate and recommend the purchase of new journals without these factors. Factor number 1 above will become even more important as we are forced to downsize our library collection due to fiscal reality.

In order to provide expert advice the library suggests that new requests be supported with some analytical material. A typical support document would include a statement of coverage relevance after (1) scanning the table-of-contents from a number of issues using Current Contents, and (2) reviewing a number of abstracts online through one of our many abstracting and indexing databases. This will help the appropriate Library Committee to ascertain the importance of this particular title to current and developing research areas.

We are at the point where each new title purchase requires the cancelation of a currently-held subscription. Duplicate titles are kept to an absolute minimum after considering cost-per-use analysis and alternative access options. (The Current Contents database provides table-of-contents to offices and labs; some journals are now available online, etc.)

A comprehensive collection of journals (regardless of current research areas) is an ideal goal; however, our financial base no longer makes this a possibility. Inflation of science journal prices has been at 8%-15% per year [over the past 6 years], while our budget this year will increase at 3%-8% [if we are lucky]. Thus, we will begin cancelations to simply maintain a reasonable core collection of journals.

To avoid a steadily deteriorating collection, this situation requires that one of the two options below be adopted for a satisfactory long term solution:

1. appeal to the administration for additional G.A. funding
(this approach would definitely require faculty action and support), or

2. influence journal price inflation.

1. authors give away their work to commercial publishers and then require their institutions to buy this material at inflated prices, and

2. `publish or perish' pressures that result in ever larger amounts of data that will be published somewhere _regardless of its quality_.

I suggest the long term solution is with the information producers:

• take control of your dissemination mechanisms [and their costs],
• take control of your editorial review and quality control mechanisms to distribute only the best material as peer reviewed and worthy of purchase and archiving.

If not, larger portions of your overhead funds and operating funds will be funneled away from your grad student and lab allocations into an ever-increasing library fund (if you really expect to support comprehensive collections).

Libraries can present faculty with the options and criteria, but the collection decisions must be made in consultation with the endusers. If individual faculty requestors choose to withhold their expert opinions it will fall upon the department Library Committees to decide which current titles (if any) are of less value than the newly proposed titles. The library should/will not make that decision alone if there is an issue of de-selection involved.

I would be happy to discuss these issues further at any time. I am held accountable; it requires the outlined factors and overall understanding of the situation to make wise decisions.