-------- Original Message --------
From: "Peter Picerno" <ppicerno@nova.edu>
Subject: RE: Invoking Cloture (Again) on "Serials Crisis = Library
        Underfunding" -- Albert Henderson
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 12:09:21 -0400

Mr. Henderson:

There are several statements in your response to Mr. Velterop's posting
which are interesting.

Regarding: "These institutions report revenues and expenditures
through the National Center for Education Statistics.
Readers who do the ultimate calculations will find
surpluses."
-- I do not think that it is anywhere implicit in either the Constitution of
the USA, the charter of any educational institution, or any other legal and
or official source which comes to mind that any institution of higher
education is under any obligation to spend every penny it receives. If it
were, what would happen in times such as these when endowments, scholarship
funds, university investments, and other non-budget sources of educational
revenue suffer declines and losses of capital basis because of the recent
economic downturn? I think that a surplus is a much wiser situation than a
debt.

Regarding: " ... library spending
and profits of private research universities. According
to published data, these institutions appear to have cut
library spending in half, far more than the average of
all higher ed institutions!"
-- Interesting that all the cuts in library spending do not seem to have
affected the viability of those institutions, their research, or their
academic reputations. Perhaps, after all, some of those VPs for finance
and Provosts have more wisdom than they are normally credited with! To
interpolate from Mr. Velterop: "Scientists are not only the generators
of  the scientific literature, but also the main beneficiaries of their
publications." So let them sow and reap their information crops without
the intervention of libraries and publishers! If there are even five
researchers at an institution who 'need' one very expensive journal, why
should they, their research grants, or their department, not subscribe
to it instead of breaking the library's budget with some staggering cost
for information which is of use to less than .01% of a university's
constituency? The internet, open access, electronic publishing, and
such, are really just a return to what learned societies did
before the emergence of journals and journal publishers: i.e.,
researchers with the same interests corresponded with one another
without the 'benefit' of publications. Lectures and papers were
presented at society meetings, important findings were distributed in
oftentimes privately published monographs.

Regarding: "... journal publishers would have invested in
making the literature more completely available than it
will ever be in the anarchy of researchers self-publishing
various versions of their work. They also would have been
able to invest in summaries, indexes, reviews, comments,
and other aids to researchers confronted with a chaotic
and unmanagable flood of information."
-- But none of the publishers did that, did they?? Not even in the
post-Sputnik era when academia was flowing with the milk and honey of
instant tenure no obligations to have to teach classes, and laboratory
corridors were paved with gold. So why should one ever have thought that
there would be benevolent or philanthopic behavior on the part of an
institution which essentially has thrived as a parasite -- i.e., feeding
off of information which it does not itself generate but then claims
ownership of that information which it then proceeds to withhold from
all but those who are able and/or willing to pay exorbitantly.

Cheers!

P V Picerno

-------- Original Message --------
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:00:04 -0400
From: Albert Henderson <chessNIC@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Invoking Cloture (Again) on "Serials Crisis = Library
    Underfunding"

Steven cannot help repeating his bizarre promise of a
financial windfall benefiting researchers despite his
unilateral 'cloture' in the discussion group that he
'moderates.' Each time he re-opens the door he
should expect my newly phrased response aiming to
illuminate the darker root of his project.

In answer to Jan Velterop's question, US Department of
Education statistics reflect a reduction of total
library spending by all higher education institutions
since 1976. The cut equals the increase in total
revenues less expenditures (which I call profitability).
That includes the so-called public institutions that
our mythology claims spend every nickle they receive.
These institutions report revenues and expenditures
through the National Center for Education Statistics.
Readers who do the ultimate calculations will find
surpluses.

I published a table summarizing these trends in my
article "Growth of printed literature in the
Twentieth Century" in SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING, edited by
Abel and Newlin. (Wiley. 2000. p. 8) Library spending
fell by one point while the surplus increased as much.

I also published these historical trends in the
supplemental graph that accompanies the online version
of my editorial in SCIENCE [289:242. 2000]
<http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/1051760.shl>

On the same URL, you will also find library spending
and profits of private research universities. According
to published data, these institutions appear to have cut
library spending in half, far more than the average of
all higher ed institutions!

More to the point, I believe that if library spending
had kept pace with R&D -- as it did in the post-Sputnik
decade -- journal publishers would have invested in
making the literature more completely available than it
will ever be in the anarchy of researchers self-publishing
various versions of their work. They also would have been
able to invest in summaries, indexes, reviews, comments,
and other aids to researchers confronted with a chaotic
and unmanagable flood of information.

Thanks for asking.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>

-------------Forwarded Message-----------------

From:
September 1998 American Scientist Forum,
INTERNET:SEPTEMBER98-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
To:
[unknown], INTERNET:SEPTEMBER98-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG

Date:
9/17/2002  5:12 PM

RE:
Re: Invoking Cloture (Again) on "Serials Crisis = Library Underfunding"

      [Moderator's Note. As Jan Velterop is relatively new to this, I have
       to point out that cloture means that no more discussion will be
       posted on this topic. (This is no reflection on Jan's excellent
       commentary!) Albert Henderson's Library-Underfunding-Conspiracy
       Hypothesis has been discussed endlessly on this list and nothing new
       has been said by its proponent in years. The relentless repetition
       has lately only been relieved by a rise in intemperateness (towards
       university administrations) on Albert's (usually good-natured)
       part (as I, Charlie-Brown-like, keep relenting now and then on
       Albert's postings, which are not always obviously headed back to
       the perennial football). But experience has repeatedly confirmed
       that, unstanched, the flow takes over all bandwidth, and it's
       always back down to Library-Underfunding, irrespective of what new
       possibilities the online medium may offer. The past discussion is all
       there, permanently, in the Amsci Forum Archives. That's enough. There
       is no need to keep re-enacting it year after year. Out of courtesy
       to Jan, I will exceptionally post his unexceptionable comment this
       time, but please, no more on this topic! If anyone really wants to
       keep discussing the Library-Underfunding-Conspiracy with Albert,
       they can email him directly. He maintains a Blind CC list of some or
       all of the Amsci list anyway, so, under his auspices, those people
       will be spammed with his replies whether they like it or not, but
       at least it won't go to the official list, or be archived. But I
       can't keep approving comments unless I let Albert reply, regardless
       of how predicatble his reply may be! -- S.H.]

Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>:

According to Albert Henderson "...the profitability of higher education
institutions in the U.S. increased by exactly the same amount that was
ruthlessly cut from library spending". Is that *all* or most of US HE
institutions, Mr Henderson?

Fortunately, the world of science doesn't begin and end in the US. The
overwhelming majority of HE institutions elsewhere are not in profit, or
anywhere near, and just cannot afford sufficient access to the
scientific literature at current price levels, indeed sometimes not even
to what could be seen as the essential basic scientific information. Is
Mr Henderson implying that scientific pursuits, or even efforts to
improve health, the environment, education, et cetera should not be for
those without the requisite wealth?

Scientists are not only the generators of the scientific literature, but
also the main beneficiaries of their publications. Maximum dissemination
is in their direct interest. They gain in terms of citations, feedback,
recognition, acknowledgement and that enhances their career prospects
and the prospects of continuing their research. It is not for nothing
that they don't get paid for their published research articles. The
value of research results for scientists lies not in the saleability of
the research articles. If possible they would broadcast their results.

The point is that that it now is possible. Full open access to primary
research literature is wholly logical and the only reason why it wasn't
there in the past was its physical impossibility. That's now remedied by
the existence of the internet. The *only* reason why publishers exist is
the need for 'stratification' and certification of the literature
(quality control, labelling, whatever you call it). Publishers, with
their journals, are the organisers of that stratification and
certification. And some may also find a role in facilitating open access
in a professional way. That's what they should earn their money with,
not with creating artificial scarcity of the information and the
subsequent high prices that are typical for scarce commodities. Of
course, as long as they can get away with it, they will. But Mr
Henderson's indignation over the emergence of desirable alternatives is
little short of absurd.

Jan Velterop
Publisher, BioMed Central