Tuesday, September 18, 2001, 1:59:10 PM, Albert Henderson wrote: >> you could be interpreted as expecting that academia be held accountable to >> the publishing industry for something. I'm sure, however, that in your >> experience and wisdom, you know that the scholarly publishing industry is a >> service industry. It arose as a convenient mechanism for disseminating >> information for the use of others and for expediting scholarly >> communication. As such, the publishing industry has no place, right, or >> privilege to have expectations or to make demands of academia -- the very >> institution which the industry serves. It does have the right to make a >> profit and to sustain its profit-making activity so long as its product is >> of use to academia. AH> My point was not clear. Uuniversity managers have made AH> "publishing" a tactical battleground in their war AH> against faculty. Since most "university managers" ARE faculty, with tenured faculty appointments in a teaching department, why would they be warring on themselves. Almost all deans, VPs, and Presidents end up back in the faculty ranks after some period of time in the hot seats. AH> Tenure, the influence of individual AH> researchers and their associations, and the financial AH> power of associations are all tied to publishing. Tenure is an antiquated, archaic, and unnecessary device in the twenty-first century, but that's a different debate. As far as administrators trying to get rid of tenure, I've never noticed such activity in the universities I've worked in. AH> By cutting library spending, university managers add to AH> profitability while undermining faculty authorship, AH> influence, "shared governance," and the finances of AH> faculty associations. Faculty have plenty of opportunities to publish, it is just the changing nature of those opportunities that is the burr under your saddle. I don't see any clear relationship between library spending and "shared governance" or faculty associations. If I'm napping through something, I'm sure you'll awaken me to the situation. >> to be very carefully scrutinized as to their value and their usefulness. It >> is even possible that some enterprising libraries might go so far as to pay >> departments or individuals in departments to subscribe as individuals rather >> than to burden the library with an inordinately expensive institutional >> subscription. AH> The libraries that tried that trick in the 1970s wound up AH> with staggering claims problems -- chasing faculty rather AH> than publishers. Moreover, many associations' membership AH> agreements require their members to not cooperate. For once I agree with Mr. Henderson. The scam of getting faculty to subscribe on behalf of the library has been tried and has failed for a multitude of reasons, including those he states. AH> I am also encouraging US WORLD REPORT etc. to look more AH> closely at the collection failure quotient of library AH> collections. That's the ratio of interlibrary borrowing AH> to collection size. I would think any student wanting an AH> excellent education would like to have access to materials AH> without waiting two or more weeks. First, those who put any significant stock in those various ratings schemes get what they deserve. They're worth about as much as what they pay for them: a few bucks for the issue of the magazine. In addition, a number of major institutions refuse to participate in those silly exercises. As far as your "collection failure quotient" goes, I'd be interested in seeing the table of data that you have prepared on this. My experience is that some of the largest universities with the largest libraries do the most borrowing. After all, they have the most advanced and specialized programs, and we're all aware that no library can have all things for all people. In addition, interlibrary loans don't take two weeks any more. One week is more like it, particularly with systems like Ariel and ILLiad to facilitate electronic transmission and delivery of articles. Also, many libraries now have consortial courier arrangements and/or are willing to spend the money on delivery that is more rapid than "library rate". AH> Why? The page charges in question were supported by AH> Federal research grants. It was not the authors AH> but the university managers who decided to withhold AH> payment. [Koch, H. W. Physics Today. 21,12:126-127 1968] If they were all supported by federal grants, then the ones who were hurt by the withholding of page charges were the publishers. No wonder you're unhappy about it. AH> Moreover, page charges have been offered as the financial AH> salvation for the 'free' electronic journals that you AH> like so much. There is no question that there are no "completely free" publications. Someone has to pay for the hardware and software, net connections, printing, mailing, and whatever other charges that may relate to particular forms of publication. However, page charges differ little than the fees that authors pay to the despised book publishers commonly called "vanity presses" (which of course these days include Kinkos and other such quick publishing outfits). AH> The National Enquiry on Scholarly Communications, which AH> noted the deline in library spending -- and called AH> inadequate collections the most serious problem facing AH> scholars -- suggested production grants might save the AH> monograph. (1979) In other words, vanity presses. AH> famous Bible ... The oldest university presses came only AH> after 100 years of commercial publishing. And most university presses, like most association publishing organizations, are businesses that need to turn a profit. Just try to find a way for a member of the ACS or ALA to successfully influence the publishing arm of the organization. Even in cases where they're not separate corporations, they have a life of their own and are little influenced by members. AH> Moreover, the university presses are clearly another set of AH> victims of the war against faculty -- casualties of AH> "friendly fire." As noted, they need to make a profit. In most academic arenas the various "auxiliary enterprises" must each survive on their own, whether they're a press, a bookstore, the athletic teams, the food service, or anything else. I'm still interested in seeing these great stashes of money that are floating around our campuses. You've shown small numbers of dollars that are no more than sensible reserves, the same reserves that I'm sure each of us tries to keep in our personal finances and that any publisher would also try to keep available for unforseen business needs. dan -- Dan Lester, Data Wrangler dan@RiverOfData.com 3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho 83716-7115 USA www.riverofdata.com www.gailndan.com Stop Global Whining!
