Email list hosting service & mailing list manager


Re: Scholarly Publishing Principles David Goodman 09 Jun 2000 00:52 UTC

AH's view may have had some validity in  the era when we had no
alternative to conventional print publication.

David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu            609-258-3235

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Albert Henderson wrote:

> on 8 Jun 2000 Fytton Rowland <J.F.Rowland@LBORO.AC.UK> wrote:
>
> > This looks interesting.    Fytton.
> >
> > >Date:         Wed, 7 Jun 2000 09:57:27 -0500
> > >Sender:       Open Lib/Info Sci Education Forum <JESSE@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
> > >From:         Susan Searing <searing@ALEXIA.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
> > >Subject:      Scholarly Publishing Principles (fwd)
> > >
> > >Messages to jESSE: [reply, or jESSE@listserv.utk.edu]
> > >         to Moderator: [gwhitney@utk.edu]
> > >         to Sender: [take e-mail address from message below]
> > >Info on jESSE: [http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/jesse.html]
> > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Not too long ago, this list discussed the cost of LIS journals and what
> > >actions, if any, LIS authors should take to counter the rising costs.
> > >The "Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing" addresses
> > >this issue head-on.
> > >
> > >The principles are at: <http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html>
> > >
> > >An article about them in the _Chronicle of Higher Education_ is at:
> > ><http://chronicle.com/daily/2000/06/2000060701n.htm>
> > >[subscriber password required]
> [snip]
>
> Letters to the Editor, Chronicle of Higher Education:
>
> Denise K. Magner's coverage of "Principles for Emerging Systems of
> Scholarly Publishing" (1) could have balanced this latest sortie
> in a decade-old propaganda campaign (2) with some dissenting
> sources. The new "pact" runs roughshod over long expressed pleas of
> academic senates, faculty, and researchers for library spending
> that keeps pace with the growth of research. (3) Lotka's Law of
> Productivity tells us that the number of papers published is
> immutably related to the number of scientists. (4) Unfortunately
> their contributions to knowledge are branded "excessive" by the
> Babbitts who bypass peer review when possible as they lobby for
> research grants. (5) Moreover, the weeping about costs is bogus.
> Spending on libraries has risen only half as fast as research
> revenues. (6) It could have, should have risen more. Guided by
> university administrators, Federal research grant policy
> purportedly includes "libraries" as an overhead factor. (7)
>
> Universities manufactured the library crisis. Their cuts of
> library spending and increasing R&D forced publishers to raise
> prices sharply to cover fixed costs with fewer sales units. The
> earliest subscription cancellations, of "duplicates" addressed
> to research offices, forced researchers to use grant money to
> buy publications. (8,9) It also forced publishers to ask authors
> for production subsidies. (10) It also increased university
> profits. Last year, the profits of private research
> universities averaged 25 percent "after taxes," according to
> IRS documents disclosed in the Chronicle. (11)
>
> Clearly, their obsession with financial goals has driven
> university managers beyond the pale. In their pursuit of
> financial "productivity," based largely on the mirage of
> photocopiers replacing publishers and library collections,
> they have forgotten that the cost-effectiveness of
> information is determined by better output rather than
> reduced spending. (12) As a former president of Columbia
> University once pointed out, "a government contract becomes
> virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity." (13) In
> this context, the so-called pact is clearly part of a strategy
> aimed at tenure and the power of learned associations in the
> war against faculty. (14)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Albert Henderson
> Editor, Publishing Research Quarterly 1994-2000
> email: 70244.1532@compuserve.com
>
>
> References and notes for editorial use.
>
> 1. Magner, Denise K. June 7, 2000. (Today's News) Academics
> and Industry Pact to Guide the Evolution of Scholarly Publishing.
> Chronicle of Higher Education.
> http://chronicle.com/daily/2000/06/2000060701n.htm
>
> 2. Association of Research Libraries. 1989. Report of the ARL
> Serials Prices Project.  Washington DC, Association. Dated May,
> 1989.
>
> 3. Shapiro, James. Dec. 12, 1997. University libraries: the
> 7-per-cent solution. Chronicle of Higher Education. XLIV(16),
> B4-5.
>
> 4. Price, Derek J. de Solla. 1961. Science since Babylon.
> New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1961. enl. ed. 1975  p. 175.
>
> 5. Weiner, T.  August 24, 1999. Lobbying for Research Money,
> Colleges Bypass Peer Review. The New York Times. A1,A12.
> "Critics Say Politics Distorts Priorities of Science"
>
> 6.  Henderson, Albert. 1999. Information science and
> information policy. The use of constant dollars and other
> indicators to manage research investments. Journal of the
> American Society for Information Science. 50:366-379.
>
> 7. U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of
> Management and Budget. 1995. Principles for Determining
> Costs Applicable to Grants, Contracts, and Other
> Agreements with Educational Institutions. Circular A-21.
> Rev. June 20, 1995. Section F8 (Identification and
> assignment of indirect costs. Library expenses)
>
> 8.  White, H. S. 1980.  Factors in the Decision by
> Individuals And Libraries to Place or Cancel Subscriptions
> to Scholarly and Research Journals. Library Quarterly
> 50:287-309. Partial abstract: Using outside funds such as
> grants to purchase subscriptions was reported by 8 percent
> of 750 individuals. The cancellation of library
> subscriptions accounted for just over 1 percent of responses
> by individuals. Roughly 20 percent indicated they formerly
> used a library copy, but this had become impractical. The
> disappearance of outside funds, such as grants, accounted
> for cancellation of journals by near 7 percent of respondents.
> The number one reason for library cancellations was given as
> budget curtailments.
>
> 9. Campbell, Paulette Walker. May 7, 1999. NIH may use the
> Internet to distribute findings of research financed by its
> grants. Chronicle of Higher Education. 45(35):A33.  "N.I.H.
> Director Harold E. Varmus told lawmakers ... researchers spend
> hundreds of dollars of their N.I.H. awards on subscriptions to
> scientific journals."
>
> 10. National Enquiry into Scholarly Communication. 1979. Scholarly
> Communication. The Report. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
> Press.
>
> 11. Chronicle of Higher Education. Nov. 26,1999. Pay and benefits.
> Research institutions  I & II, 1998. XLVI:A44ff
>
> 12. Machlup, Fritz. 1962. The Production and Distribution of
> Knowledge in the United States. Princeton: University Press.
> "'Productivity of R&D' thus comes to refer to the ultimate
> output increments (or input economies) in the areas in which
> the new knowledge, the  direct output of R&D, is applied."
> "...R&D expenditures are investment, and the incremental
> outputs (or economies) attributable to the application of the
> R&D findings are return." p. 188
>
> 13. Eisenhower, Dwight D. Jan. 17, 1961. Farewell Address.
>
> 14. Nelson, Cary. April 16, 1999. The war against faculty.
> Chronicle of Higher Education. 45(32):B4 "National disciplinary
> organizations must shift their focus from creating professional
> opportunities to active monitoring of the higher-education
> workplace."