Albert Henderson wrote:

> > snip...
>         The myth of 'excessive publication' has no
>         factual basis, of course. It is a canard spread by
>         unscrupulous managers seeking to undermine the
>         influence of scientists and scholars. Derek de Solla
>         Price and others investigating questions of
>         productivity in science established clearly that most
>         [between 53 to 61 percent of] authors contribute no
>         more than one paper in a lifetime while about 25
>         percent can  be called 'very prolific.' [LITTLE SCIENCE
>         BIG SCIENCE. rev. ed. Columbia University Press 1986]

So the "myth" of "excessive" publication (undefined term) has "no
factual basis, of course"?  How could it, since it's a subjective
judgment?  Pace Mr Price, who died in 1983 (and whose book detailed the
"exponential" --his term-- growth in scientific publication, despite
what he may have said about individual productivity), more modern
figures constantly repeat the average of between one or two
peer-reviewed scientific papers per year per researcher across many
scientific disciplines.  There is also evidence of similar quotas--a
couple of peer reviewed papers a year-- being promoted by academic
departments and academic administrations.  Incongruously, you
accuse the latter in the above paragraph of *condemning* excess
research
in an attempt to undermine the influence of scholars (although they
depend on them to bring in grants, as you say later--the usual theme of
administration as all-around whipping boy, whatever the logic.   It's
also well established
that senior researchers have smaller output than junior researchers,
that junior researchers suffer from angst about the pressure to publish
to even be admitted into the guild, and that quite often junior
researchers do the major work on papers bearing a senior researcher's
name (usually, along with their own).  Check editorials and opinion
pieces in The Scientist, e.g., S. Perkowitz, Jan. 1993.

Pressure to publish leads to hasty, sloppy work.  Hasty and sloppy
published work may mislead later researchers, no matter how
comprehensive
the library collection.  Peer review which must be carried out in a week
or two can't catch all of that.  I am encouraged by attempts of
university administrations to look for qualitative measures, and hope
they continue in that path despite the lures of grants and cash flow.

What is the library's mission?  For publishers and their advocates,
including yourself, unfortunately, it boils down to one objective: "to
get more
money and to spend its money for as many of our products as possible;"
the only qualitative measure you recognize is acquisitions spending, and
any attempt of the library to get off that treadmill meets with your
withering scorn.

Frieda Rosenberg
UNC-Chapel Hill

         Don't forget that peer review is first applied to
>         the grant proposals that release billions of dollars,
>         with an extra 50 cents for overhead for every dollar
>         actually spent by researchers, to higher education.
>
>         Referees are not provided with libraries that are
>         comprehensive enough that they can actually check
>         unfamiliar sources and verify the claims on which
>         a particular piece of research is based.
>
>         Yes, the reward system is at fault. But it is not
>         directly connected with tenure and authorship. Ask
>         why would university administrators support a highly
>         critical review process that would cost them grants
>         and cash flow????
>