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: [gwhitney@utk.edu] > > 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: 70244.1532@compuserve.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."
