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 email@example.com 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: [firstname.lastname@example.org] > > > 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: email@example.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."