---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:22:42 -0400
From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Re: Article: Free Internet Access to Traditional Journals (Thomas              J. Walker)

on 02 Oct 1998 Thomas J. Walker <tjw@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU> wrote:

>From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM>

>>I read the article with interest. It contains many errors including
>>claiming that the first journal was published by a society and
>>that Federally financed page charges cannot be paid to commercial
>>publishers.

TJW> I understand that who published the first journal is debatable but the
TJW> scenario I gave is, in my experience, the most often used. A recent
TJW> confirmation of my choice is Schaffner AC. 1994. The future of scientific
TJW> journals: lessons from the past. Information Technology and Libraries
TJW> 3:239ff.

The only debate is over whether Philosophical Transactions or Journal des
Scavans was first. Daniel J Boorstin (The Discovers. Random House 1983) or
the contemporary History of the Royal Society (1667) by Bishop Sprat would
be better sources. You might also consult David A. Kronick's History of
Scientific and Technical Periodicals. The Origins and Development of the
Scientific and Technological Press 1665-1790. [New York: Scarecrow Press.
1962.] or his Economic aspects of scientific journalism in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. [Publishing Research Quarterly 11,2
(Summer):62-79.1995]

I have seen the misattributation of the first science journal to
non-profits a number of times in otherwise reliable publications. Is it an
error or is it "anti-commercial publisher revisionist" history? Where are
the referees?

TJW> I did not say that Federally financed page charges cannot be paid to
TJW> commericial publishers (they can be) but I did say that at the time they
TJW> were first permitted (1961) they could not be.  My source is Spilhaus AF Jr.
TJW> 1982. Page charges. In: CBE Ad Hoc Committee on Economics of Publication,
TJW> editors. Economics of scientific journals. Bethesda (MD): Council of
TJW> Biological Editors. p 21-27.

You are correct, you said page charges were approved "to nonprofit
publishers"  with the word "nonprofit" in italics. Did I misinterpret the
meaning of your emphasis?

Page charges were invented during the Depression. Maybe they belong there.
They were instituted the American Physical Society and by AIP around 1932.
(AIP was founded in 1931) The Atomic Energy Commission permitted page
charge payments in 1951. In 1961, the Office of Science Information
Service of the National Science Foundation drafted a policy that included
the requirements that journals involved were operated not for profit. It
also mandated that publication could not be contingent on payment. The NSF
policy, creating a special discrimination not found anywhere else, might
have been illegal in my opinion. It was reversed in 1993 after receiving a
record number of comments. [see Publishing Research Quarterly. 10,4:47-49.
1994/95]

Many commenters suggested that page charges be abolished and the money
spent to support libraries. It also pointed out that other agencies, (NIH,
NASA, DOD) had no regulation banning payment of page charges to for-profit
publishers. Fred Spilhaus's article simply presents the view from AGU, not
as a thorough historical review.

In fact, publishers have been reducing their page charges. The 1985 annual
report of AIP, for instance, asserts that raising library prices will
offset revenue lost from reduced page charges. [Physics Today July 1986]

One of the points I have tried to make is that an objective investment of
money and resources, supported by objective expert advice, is what
elevates a published work above the rest. Its value is asserted with
investment and proved by purchase.

If you ask the author, with all the biases of an author, to provide the
investment, you lose an essential element. The proposals made by you and
Harnad appear to make author subsidies a requirement. Many authors that I
know feel that their work should be valued by readers and that payments
should flow from buyer to publisher to author, not the other way around.

In opposition to authors, university administrators appear to contest the
value of knowledge. They don't want to pay for it. If editors,
researchers.  and librarians cannot support the value of knowledge, I
believe the mission of the university is doomed.

        You make an excellent point focusing on the 2% growth of library
        spending during the 1970s (no growth in constant dollars). The
        relevant comparison is the continued growth of world research
        work product -- journal articles -- about 65% during that period.
        Fatter journals and subscription cancellations forced prices up.
        Inflation and currency exchange fluctuation also contributed.

>>More important, I think that the author is a pawn in universities'
>>program of shedding the cost of their libraries. Administrators
>>rammed through a major reallocation of university spending based on
>>the idea of "resource sharing" and the success of Xerox. They cut
>>libraries from 6% to under 3% of university spending. The result
>>was the "serials crisis." They never got approvals from faculty
>>senates or the research community. Then they tried to blame publishers'
>>profits and excessive publishing by researchers. Now, based on the
>>Internet, they hope to cut libraries to less than 1%.

TJW> I'm for public access to publicly financed research (as are the librarians I
TJW> know).

Free public access is a role of libraries, not publishers. Even NTIS
charges for reports of Federally financed research. Why shouldn't science
overhead -- now $5 billion -- provide some real support to libraries
rather than support page charges that have demonstrated little help to
dissemination? As it is, overhead for libraries amounts to around $160
million (about one percent of Federal obligations for academic research)
divided among 100 universities. It is never seen by the library as far as
I can tell. Federally sponsored research accounts for 60% of research
dollars spent by these schools. As we know, the esoteric journals used for
advanced research are generally more expensive than materials used by
undergraduates. I believe this should be the focus of reform.

>>When the Copyright Act of 1976 was passed, the costs of the science
>>journal system were borne as follows according to Donald W. King et al.
>>in SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS IN THE UNITED STATES (Dowden Hutchinson, 1981)
>>
>>         12% Authors
>>         14% Publishers
>>         10% Libraries and (A&I) secondary organizations
>>         64% Users
>>
>>King's work on the economics of scientific journals was an enormous
>>undertaking, financed largely by the National Science Foundation at
>>a time when "dissemination" was recognized by science policy as
>>important. It gave us benchmarks like the distribution of costs
>>described above. I feel this is a key question.

TJW> Much has changed since 1976.  (See Fig. 2 in my paper and consider the
TJW> Internet and WWW.)

>>My understanding of the allocation envisioned by Walker and others
>>who like author subsidized publishing and "free" access-not-ownership
>>would be:
>>
>>                        30% authors
>>                        70% users
>>
>>No publishers. No libraries. Probably little discernable difference
>>between validated and vanity publications.

TJW> This is not in my article and is not what I envision.  What I tried to
TJW> communicate in my article is that as long as we have paper publication
TJW> (which is in no danger of disappearing immediately) publishers can earn
TJW> additional income by selling authors something they want: universal,
TJW> permanent access to their refereed work.  I also suggested that when paper
TJW> publication ends, researchers and their institutions should find a way to
TJW> continue toll-free Web access to research results.

I appreciate your comments. It still does not clarify how the economic
burdens of scientific journals will be allocated based on page-charges and
free access.

You wrote in your article, "In order to provide free access, the publisher
will have to be paid up front..."

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>