Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 12:44:45 +0000
From: Marisa Westcott <marisa.westcott@GBHAP.COM>

Following, please find a summary overview statement which we hope will
answer many of the questions that have been asked over the years regarding
Gordon and Breach and the AIP/APS.

Thank you,

Marisa Westcott
Corporate Communications Manager

****************************************************

After several questions raised to us, we'd like to clarify the background
and reasons why we are appealing the recent decision by the U.S. District
Court in New York not to grant us injunctive relief in Gordon and Breach v.
American Institute of Physics/American Physical Society.

As in previous court decisions in other countries, the U.S. court
acknowledged that G&B had shown there are superior procedures for
determining a journal's cost-effectiveness. The judge also said that he
would have "serious concerns" if AIP/APS were to assert that Barschall's
methodology proved AIP/APS products superior in value or quality. Indeed,
the court noted that "Defendants apparently now acknowledge that Barschall's
analysis does not demonstrate abstract product superiority or quality."

Similarly, the German court previously stated that it is "highly
questionable whether a
sound conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of scientific journals can be
derived from a statistical analysis of 'cost per character' in relation to
the number of citations." The Swiss court also held that it is "quite
questionable whether 'cost per character' can, in fact, make any statement
at all about the scientific value of a physics journal and its significance
to research and teaching."

In short, no court has ever held that the Barschall methodology is a valid
measure of
value, quality, or overall cost-effectiveness.  In fact, the study's attempt
at comparison
was based on the formula :  (Cost per Thousand Characters) divided by (SCI's
Impact ) to achieve the Cost/Impact figure that Barschall used to rank
Publishers.

The gravest error was manifested in the divisor of the SCI Impact. 7 out of
our 11
journals included in the survey do not have SCI Impact figures available,
although they are cited journals. These 7 journals are not research
journals, i.e. the type of journals not carried by SCI, yet they were
included in the table ranking of publishers by Cost/Impact. This means that,
for these seven journals, the Cost per Thousand Characters was divided by
Zero, resulting in an obviously meaningless figure.

The French court found in favor of G&B, stating that AIP/APS," by publishing
in their
journals articles which, in scientific guise, have as their goal the
denigration of competing journals by representing them as more expensive and
less influential than those published by themselves, committed acts of
unfair competition by illegal comparative advertising, for which they must
make reparation."

We'd like to offer our response to the questions about this case that have
been raised
many times in past years.

1. Why didn't G&B just publish its opinion, with its own supporting data,
about
Barschall's methodology, and let the readers of the survey decide on its
validity? In other words, why can't we respond in an open forum of academic
debate?

Opinion and supporting data, no matter how true, could not compete with the
imprimatur of scholarly research afforded the Barschall study as a
consequence of its publication in Physics Today as unbiased academic
research. As decided by the French court, the Barschall study was in fact an
advertisement for its journals published in the form of an unbiased academic
research study. Documents
presented in the U.S. court clearly show close collaboration between
Barschall and the AIP/APS business officers to construct and publish the
study during the years they were forced to increase their subscription rates
and in time to enclose with subscription renewals. Unlike a normal academic
study, Barschall's survey was never subject to peer review. All the courts
clearly recognized that AIP/APS used the Barschall surveys for promotional
 -- that is, commercial-- purposes. This would be tantamount to a company
like Kraft being made to be content simply to advertise its own response to
an ad by, say, General Foods that included not only wrong data in its
comparison of their products, but which was also presented as a health study
authored by a renowned health specialist. The Lanham Act protects against
this kind of unfair, false comparative advertising, and we are striving only
for fair representation in any comparison that is targeted to our common
market. Non-profit societies are not exempt from the Lanham Act when they
promote their products.

2. Why did G&B find it so important to respond to the survey?

Upon its publication and distribution, there was immediate and widespread
interest
among many who expressed concern about pricing with reference to the
Barschall study. We place great weight on the response from our subscribers,
especially from the decision makers of major academic institutions. We faced
a mounting negative reaction resulting from a survey which we know to be a
misrepresentation of the value of journals to our readers.
In the past, we viewed the societies and commercial publishers as
complementary to one another since their publications supported the general
advancement of the physical sciences, and commercial publishers devoted
their efforts toward creating the forums for new, smaller, areas of research
that may ultimately expand to major disciplines like liquid crystal
research. The survey created a false impression of the value of journals
which we believe adversely affects the dissemination of scientific
knowledge. We also saw the likelihood of acceptance by the distinguished
membership of the AIP/APS of a methodology endorsed by the publishing
division of its own society.

3. Will G&B address the complaint that it is trying to restrict adverse
commentary on its
pricing and publishing policies?

That our legal attempts at self-defense have been labeled by our opponents
as litigious and an attempt to censure comment is purely self-serving and
unworthy of those who favor a fair, yet competitive business climate. We
have carefully restricted our complaints to those who have used wrong
information and yet have urged boycotts against our publications based on
this information. We had no other choice but to make clear that
intentionally using this misinformation in this way is wrong, unfair, and,
ultimately, illegal. We were obligated to protect our business, editors and
employees, just as any business unfairly faced with boycotts would do.
Moreover, the trial showed there were only a few such instances over a
ten-year period, hardly constituting a pattern of suppressing comment. As we
showed at the trial, in these instances G&B was correcting misinformation
about its prices, as a result and impetus from its academic editors, not
from a non-existent corporate policy to stifle debate.

Further Background:

Although this dispute began with the refusal of our request for correction
of incorrect
prices and page counts regarding our journals, it soon became a serious
question about the methodology used in a study designed as an infomercial
for society journals.  This was immediately apparent by the inclusion of our
7 non-SCI journals in the ranking of publishers, as though they had SCI
figures to use in the Cost/Impact formula, and, moreover, that this formula,
touted as the most significant measure of the journal's cost- effectiveness,
was based on SCI's impact factor when SCI covers only about 5% of the
world's journals and does not calculate an impact factor for all journals
that are covered.

Lastly, all experts at the trial testified that the only effective cost
comparison was with
similar journals covering the same audience, and that one couldn't compare a
journal with broad coverage of many specialties against one which covers
only one.  If the competitive goal is realizing the demise of commercial
journals, then there is no cost-effectiveness if a specialist must subscribe
to thousands of irrelevant pages to get those few pages relevant to his/her
area.