Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 10:19:01 -0400
From: Marc Brodsky <brodsky@aip.org>
Cc: lustig@aps.org, mcilrath@aps.org, rmeserve@cov.com
Subject: G&B statement -AIP/APS response

 September 12, 1997

AIP and APS Response to G&B Statement
                After an extensive trial before Judge Leonard B. Sand in
federal court in New York, all claims of error by Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers ("G&B") concerning the Barschall survey were
rejected and judgment was awarded to the American Institute of Physics
("AIP") and The American Physical Society ("APS").  The G&B statement
reflects efforts to try to evade the finding that G&B's claims have been
decisively shown to be entirely without merit.  Indeed, the statement
includes many extraordinary misstatements.  We respond to a few here:
                1.      G&B claims that the AIP and APS observations
about G&B's attacks on those who criticize its journals are "self-serving
and unworthy of those who favor a fair, yet competitive business
climate."  In fact, however, the court, commenting on the evidence that
"G&B has engaged in an aggressive corporate practice of challenging
any adverse commentary upon its journals through threatened and actual
litigation," found that "[t]his evidence persuasively demonstrated that the
present suit is but one battle in a `global campaign by G&B to suppress
all adverse comment upon its journals.'"  The court made findings
concerning a variety of circumstances in which G&B has threatened
librarians, scholars, and other non-profit societies.  In short, contrary to
G&B's claims, the record at trial showed many documented examples of
G&B's efforts at intimidation.
                2.      G&B attempts in its statement to resurrect its claims
of errors in the Barschall survey.  But G&B had the opportunity to
present its claims of error to the court and Judge Sand rejected them all,
finding that "Barschall's methodology has been demonstrated to establish
reliably precisely the proposition for which defendants cited it -- that
defendants' physics journals, as measured by cost per character and by
cost per character divided by impact factor, are substantially more
cost-effective than those published by plaintiffs." (emphasis omitted)
Indeed, the court found that "regardless of the measures used, G&B's
journals consistently scored at the bottom" in terms of
cost-effectiveness and that "[n]o evidence was received contesting
[this] analysis."
                G&B claims in its statement that the "gravest error" in the
survey derives from the fact that 7 of the 11 G&B journals in the survey
did not have "impact factors"  (a measure of citation frequency published
in the Science Citation Index) and that the cost-effectiveness ratio for
these journals was thus calculated by dividing by zero, yielding an
"obviously meaningless figure."  But G&B's assertions bear no relation to
Barschall's work.  While it is true that 7 of the G&B journals in the survey
did not meet the stringent standards for inclusion in the SCI database,
Barschall did not calculate a cost-effectiveness ratio for these journals.
G&B's claims otherwise are entirely false.  Indeed, as noted by the court,
"[p]laintiff made no serious effort to attack the data relied upon by
Barschall or his method of calculation . . . ."  G&B's assertion that it was
necessary to engage in litigation in order to correct errors thus rings
hollow given the absence of any such evidence of errors at trial.
                3.      G&B claims in its statement that the Barschall study
was "an advertisement for [AIP and APS] journals published in the form
of an unbiased academic research,"  citing a French decision.  What
G&B does not tell the reader is that the French decision was issued in
1991 and is now being examined on appeal.  Moreover, G&B does not
inform the reader that Judge Sand held in 1994 that the articles published
by AIP and APS were not advertisements, but rather were speech fully
protected by the First Amendment.  The court reaffirmed this decision in
1995 in responding to a G&B motion to reopen the issue, observing that
"[p]laintiffs have failed to make [the necessary] showing and now seek
back-door entry to revisit the issue . . . ."  In short, G&B's disparagement
of the AIP and APS is entirely misdirected.
                4.      G&B states that Judge Sand indicated that "serious
concerns" would be present if the defendants were to assert that
"Barschall's methodology proves that their product is superior to
plaintiffs."  But this hardly represented a victory for G&B.  The reason is
that the court held that "plaintiffs adduce no evidence that defendants
failed to qualify their claim precisely . . . ."  In short, not only was the
survey itself fair and accurate, but all the defendants' references to the
survey were found to be completely without reproach.  In any event,
witnesses for both G&B and the societies testified that APS and AIP
journals are generally recognized as the premier journals in their fields.
                The fact of the matter is that AIP and APS published an
article on a matter of pressing concern to the scholarly community -- the
escalating prices of journals -- and G&B could not tolerate the revelation
of accurate information about its journals.  The G&B statement
unfortunately reveals that G&B intends to continue to ignore the court's
wise advice: "If G&B believes that librarians will make more optimal
decisions if they consider information other than that provided by
defendants, its solution is to augment rather than censor the available
truthful information."
                We would be happy to provide a copy of Judge Sand's
decision to any readers who are interested.
                        Marc Brodsky, AIP
                        Thomas McIlrath, APS