(cross posted to STS-L and SERIALST)

It seems to me that the defendants escaped by the skin of their
teeth. The Court's verdict noted that the promotional reprints
and cover letter dated Sept 1988 were destroyed before they
were mailed, thus eliminating the need for an injunction. "Nor
would injunctive relief be necessary to ensure that defendants
do not make such a claim. Defendants apparently now
acknowledge that Barschall's analysis does not demonstrate
abstract product superiority or quality." It seems that  the slide
presentations of the glaringly biased "Table 2" to librarians
didn't register. The court also failed to recognize that the
plaintiffs' arguments about differences in cost went
to Barschall's unfair exclusion of AIP's translation journals
from his rankings, an exclusion that brought AIP up from a
mid-range 5 cents per kiloword to 1.9 cents. At 5 cents,
AIP would have ranked 11th, not 5th. By excluding some
journals on the basis of cost, there are good reasons to
exclude others -- if one is being fair and objective. Foreign
journal prices are subject to added postage and the impact
of dollar devaluation (notably the subject of a 1987
resolution by RTSD of the American Library Association)
for instance, among other differences that would obligate
an unbiased researcher to separate them from domestic
products.

More important, in my humble opinion, was the offense
of blaming commercial publishers for the library crisis
and offering a boycott as a realistic solution. We all
recognize that crying "fire" in a crowded theatre, when
there is no fire, is a crime. Offering a false exit, when
there really is a fire, is a far worse crime. Judge Sands
ruled the articles were protected by the First Amendment,
denying the plaintiffs the opportunity to present a case
on behalf of the public interest. The strongest
evidence suggests that the library crisis is the product
of an economic imbalance between spending on
research and on libraries in research-oriented
universities. Barschall's evidence, the range of prices
per kilocharacter (factor of 80),  was actually smaller
than the range (factor of 90) found about 20 years
earlier in a sampling of 350 1968 journals in the
AT&T research libraries -- a year when there had
been no library crisis (NAS/SATCOM Task group
on the economics of primary publication. Washington
DC, 1970).

I found Barschall's solution  not only  "false and
misleading" but damaging to the public interest. It
was copied in the recommendations published  by the
Association of Research Libraries with an additional
unsigned economic analysis falsely purporting to reveal the
profiteering of four commercial publishers. An editorial in
SCIENCE, citing Barschall and ARL,  reached many
scientists and librarians outside of physics. These
"false promises of an exit" to the library crisis helped to
prolong it. The crisis continues as I write.

Barschall's rankings cast a slur on many publishers,
editors, and authors, impairing their dissemination of
information that is of intrinsic interest only to highly
specialized readers who have had no say in the debate
over "cost-effectiveness." They are the real victims of the
library crisis, unrepresented in court as well as at
the budget table or by their professional societies.
They  suffer with access substitutes, with the loss
of  browsable collections and circulating "duplicate"
subscriptions.

The library crisis has curtailed the acquisition of
books that are now published in ever smaller
editions and soon go out of print.  University and
other research-oriented presses have been forced
to restrict their coverage; some have increased
their demands for subsidies; others, including
AIP Press, have been sold or reorganized. The
crisis has also spawned  costly "deus ex
machina" fantasies of electronic miracle solutions
long before mature and inexpensive technology
will be available, leading to futher divisions
of scarce resources.

Organizations like AIP and APS enjoy a unique trust
because they are organized for the benefit of all, presumably
not for their own commercial interests. There can be no
doubt that profitability and increased dominance of physics
publishing have been the main goals of AIP, APS, and Barschall,
who hid his position as an AIP governor. Their interest in the
library crisis appears to be one of exploitation, not concern them.
Didn't they  offset lost page charge income by ratcheting up
library prices an extra notch while dropping page charges to
encourage more papers (see: AIP 1985 annual report)?

APS/AIP are uniquely qualified to properly illuminate the
library crisis and to press for reforms of research overhead.
AIP opened a public policy office in 1987, even as Barschall
counted kilocharacters. APS's policy office has been around for
years.  What for, if not to deal with important issues such as
this?  Resolving the library crisis at the policy level will
provide greater immediate benefits to the entire research
community than any supercollider.

If I were judge and jury, as Judge Sand was, I would
hold them to a higher standard than the present
narrowest finding of fact and reading of the Lanham
Act.

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