---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 20:49:46 +0100
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@COGLIT.ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Subject: 6 Reviews of Tenopir & King on Electronic Journals (148 lines)

BELOW ARE 6 REVIEWS OF:

    Tenopir, Carol, and Donald W. King (2000a) Towards Electronic
    Journals:  Realities for Scientists, Librarians, and Publishers.
    Washington, D.C.: Special Libraries Association.
    http://www.sla.org

THEY HAVE JUST APPEARED IN PSYCOLOQUY 11 (2000)

FURTHER REVIEWS, AND COMMENTARIES ON THE REVIEWS AND AUTHORS' RESPONSES
ARE INVITED BY PSYCOLOQUY (electronic journal of peer commentary)
Instructions: http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/psycoloquy/

(1)
Medeiros, N. (2000) Publication costs: Electronic versus print.
PSYCOLOQUY 11(089)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/
psyc.00.11.089.electronic-journals.2.medeiros
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.089

    ABSTRACT: "Towards Electronic Journals" (Tenopir & King 2000a,b)
    analyzes the scholarly journal publishing industry and the
    influences upon it that affect subscription costs. This book
    documents the impact journals have on scientists and libraries,
    especially in light of the Internet. Research studies corroborate
    most of the book's assertions, most notably the ones involving
    commercial publisher profit margins.

(2)
Bookstein, F.L. (2000) On "value-added" by electronic journals:
infelicity of a microeconomic metaphor.
PSYCOLOQUY 11(090)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/
psyc.00.11.090.electronic-journals.3.bookstein
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.090

    ABSTRACT: The book-length essay by Tenopir and King (2000a,b) is at
    once too conservative and too superficial for its subject-matter.
    Its authors have failed to consider most aspects of the social
    structure of science impinging upon the transition that ostensibly
    concerns them:  matters such as the content of an article, the
    metaphor of added value in comparing media of scientific
    communication, and the role of the scholarly community in shaping
    the knowledge structures it maintains over time. As a result, the
    authors' cost extrapolations are not likely to be of much help in
    the new world.

(3)
Ebenezer, C. (2000) Electronic journals: Incremental change or radical
shift?
PSYCOLOQUY 11(091)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/
psyc.00.11.091.electronic-journals.4.ebenezer
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.091

    ABSTRACT: Tenopir and King (2000a,b) aim to root discussions of
    future developments in electronic journal publishing in fact rather
    than speculation. A systems framework for assessing scholarly
    journal publishing is set forth. Detailed accounts are presented of
    all aspects of the scientific communication system. The analyses
    represent a landmark in the study of scientific publishing; the
    book is likely to become an indispensable reference. Its scope is,
    however, more limited than the title suggests, and the authors'
    work is vitiated somewhat by the age of some of the studies
    presented, and by their implicit treatment of scientific
    information as an undifferentiated whole.

(4)
Algarabel, S. (2000) The future of electronic publishing.
PSYCOLOQUY 11(092)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/
psyc.00.11.092.electronic-journals.5.algarabel
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.092

    ABSTRACT: Tenopir & King's (2000a,b) book is an excellent review of
    all the factors involved in publishing and their evolution from the
    traditional to the increasingly electronic environment. Speed,
    economy and new possibilities for interaction are the major factors
    favoring electronic publishing. The authors extensively acknowledge
    this fact.  The only minor point where the book should have
    extended its analysis concerns different ways in which electronic
    publishing could aid in the establishment of a more logical
    publication system, more in agreement with academic values, where
    availability and speed predominate over other, mainly economic,
    considerations.

(5)
Miller, L. N. (2000) Will electronic publishing reduce
the cost of scholarly scientific journals?
PSYCOLOQUY 11(093)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/
psyc.00.11.093.electronic-journals.6.miller
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.093

    ABSTRACT: Using voluminous data from over 30 years of research,
    Tenopir and King (2000a,b) describe the evolution of
    scholarly/scientific publishing, primarily in the United States.
    Their data thoroughly document how scientists find and use
    information, and the ways that publishers and libraries facilitate
    or frustrate the process. They develop cost and pricing models for
    print journals, and then use the models to predict the costs and
    pricing of electronic journals. Fixed costs dominate the total cost
    of most scholarly journals. Because the fixed costs of electronic
    journals are quite similar to those of print journals, the authors
    conclude it is unlikely that electronic journals can be produced
    and distributed at significantly lower cost than print journals.
    Their conclusions presume that the developing universe of
    electronic journals ultimately will closely resemble the present
    universe of print journals. If non-profit publishers become more
    prevalent in the e-journal universe, or if free archiving of papers
    leads to free or nearly free journals, the outcome may not fit
    their model.

(6)
Shum, S. B. (2000)
Research needed on online usage and peer review.
PSYCOLOQUY 11(094)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/
psyc.00.11.094.electronic-journals.7.shum
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.094

    ABSTRACT: We know little about how scientists search for articles,
    read them, annotate them, share them, or review them, and how they
    wish things might be in the future. How could ejournals and other
    network resources better support these activities? We need to know
    not only what and how much scientists do, but how they accomplish
    this work individually and collectively in their day to day lives.
    A detailed discussion of the pros and cons of new, electronically
    mediated peer review models would also be welcome.

PRECIS OF THE BOOK UNDER REVIEW:

Tenopir, Carol, and Donald W. King (2000b) Precis of: "Towards
Electronic Journals" PSYCOLOQUY 11(084)
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/2000.volume.11/
psyc.00.11.084.electronic-journals.1.tenopir
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?11.084

    ABSTRACT: This precis of "Towards Electronic Journals" (Tenopir &
    King 2000) focuses mostly on scientists' perspective as authors and
    readers, how changes over the years by publishers and librarians
    have affected scientists, and what they should expect from
    electronic journal and digital journal article databases. We
    describe some myths concerning scholarly journals and attempt to
    assess the future in a realistic manner. Most of our primary data
    involves U.S. scientists, libraries and publishers, but much of the
    secondary data is from a European perspective, which shows few
    differences.