Re: The True Cost of the Essentials

[David Goodman]

I have only one improvement to make to Eberhard's proposal:
A better way to get the funds is from not maintaining the
printed journals (or their electronic twins) at all.

I foresee only one problem:
Outside the physical sciences, few subject areas have a society strong
enough to do this.

I can see only one place where Mark might object:
Money for permanent archiving to his standards.
But he has never stated what his standards are that would not be met by
the proposed system using currently available technology,
though several of us have asked him to. If there really is something there
that's expensive and necessary, we will have to make provision for it.

He is much more expert at such matters
than I am, so I want to know what I am not aware of.

Dr. David Goodman
Research Librarian and
Biological Sciences Bibliographer
Princeton University Library
dgood...@princeton.edu609-258-7785

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Eberhard R. Hilf wrote:

> dear Mark,
> following the discussion on both channels I am worried about the
> 'abstract' nature of it.
>
> APS asks for a solid proposition for a future scenario with a sound
> business model?
> It seems that you start from assuming that the short cut of free access
> full texts available on the web from the author to the reader
> (by either his server, distributed services or central archives)
> is inevitable. Thats fine.
>
> The future role of the learned societies such as APS as the leading one in
> Physics is the same as ever: serve the physicists with
> professional services for their daily work.
> APS as society's information management competence center instead of
> document distribution center.
>
> That means here: a bundle of services to manage scientific documents:
> * intelligent personalized retrieval
> * crossreference across all sources, including inst.-webservers,
> * virtual subfield collections and alerting
> * professional offline refereeing (refereeing after dissemination of the
> documents, and independent of where it resides (even across publishers of
> course); closest to this is the successful 'living reviews of
> Gen.Relativity', although far too slow), that is referees who are experts
> (and might even be paid by APS) to oversee actively their field and the
> new papers and read them and referee/summarize openly.
> * permanently updating collection of authors tools to help them writing
> and transferring to MathML/XML in a 'state of the art' way.
> [Revtex 4 was in that respect at that time the best tool by concept].
> * etc.
>
> The business model follows from this:
> * registered users [Members of the society APS or associated societies
> (DPG) for free, who paid with their fee: thus contracts with the other
> major societies (how much per member would be an estimate?]
> * registered Institutes, Libraries
> * anyone from Industry by registration (highest fee,..).
>
> Example: we as a small physicist group of 10 pay at present 1.000,-$ per
> year and person for computer programmes, and a virtual share of about
> 100,-$ per year and person to the library for journals, and about 50,-$
> per year per person for society membership fees. We always use the
> computers, but miss a surrounding to use MAthML-Physics etc., never go to
> the library since  the web exists, and see virtually nothing from our
> society (apart from the 17 docs per year of NJP..).
> Estimate for the above mentioned services 100,-$ per year and person,
> would add in physics to more than APS and those few other physics
> societies (IoPP?, JPS?, not DPG) who are willing to serve and improve
> those services would ever need? [500.000 physicists worldwide make up thus
> for 50 Mill. $ per year, enough?]
>
> Transition period: charge the printed copies of APS much higher, and
> reduce the online versions gradually to zero.
>
> Dear Mark, I am shure you will quickly bomb down these naive propositions.
> But still I would be glad for an answer. Since DPG is starting a server,
> where we invited APS to join with services and which could serve as a
> marketing place for these services http://www.fachportal-physik.de/
>
> Ebs
>
> .
> Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.;
> CEO Institute for Science Networking
> an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Oldenburg
> Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg
> ISN: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/
> my homepage: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/~hilf
> h...@physnet.uni-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: 0049-441-798-2884/5851
> PhysNet for the EPS: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Mark Doyle wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >
> > > I have invited Mark Doyle of APS to specify concretely what parallel
> > > measures he is recommending that BOAI pursue in order to ensure true
> > > archiving in the long-term. BOAI's mandate is to hasten and facilitate
> > > open access for the entire peer-reviewed corpus, now, but if there are
> > 

Re: Interview with Derk Haank, CEO, Elsevier

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Private research universities do not dominate research. They only play an 
important role in research, and this mainly in the US, not elsewhere. In 
Europe, this is completely untrue.

Moreover, even US private universities depend heavily on public money to 
carry on their research. NSF, DoD and the like feed MIT, Harvard , Stanford 
et tutti quanti.

Finally, private US research universities are "not for profit organizations".

I would also like to point out that the "hoarding" rhetoric is out of 
bound... Soap boxes are confined to Hyde Park!

Whether universities have more revenue than before is totally beside the 
point as I do not see why this extra revenue should be automatically 
allocated to buying over-priced journals from the Elseviers of the world. I 
would rather see universities spend their money on research or scholarships.

Finally, where did you ever get the fact that universities have cut their 
library spending in half? 

The problem, Mr. Henderson, is that you come back and back with the same 
faulty arguments over and over again, as if you were a soldier obeying some 
kind of orders to stonewall whatever is stated on e-publishing lists that 
does not conform to the business logic of large commercial publishers. 
Haven't you noticed that this attitude has already discredited you in the 
eyes of most of the readers of this list? This is perhaps the reason why you 
responded to me personally and not to the whole list. As you can see, I am 
responding to you with the whole list in attendance.

Jean-Claude Guédon



Le 2 Avril 2002 14:27, Albert Henderson a écrit :
> on 2 Apr 2002 jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
> > Let me respond in the body of the text below.
> >
> > Le 1 Avril 2002 09:58, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Richard Poynder wrote:
> > > > interview... with Elsevier Science chairman Derk Haank...
> > > > in April's Information Today:
> > > > http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr02/poynder.htm
> > > > richard.poyn...@dsl.pipex.com
> > > > http://www.richardpoynder.com
> > >
> > > The interview is interesting and shows the Elsevier chairman to
> > > be very reasonable, open and well-intentioned.
> >
> > I would rather say that he is clever and tries to avoid direct
> > confrontation.
> >
> > > I think that this confirms yet again that it is and always has been a
> > > waste of time and energy to demonize and vilify publishers like
> > > Elsevier, who really are not any better or worse than any other
> > > company, but just happen to find themselves in an anomalous business,
> > > with large profits but an unusual confluence of interests, including
> > > conflicts of interest, in a radically changing technological setting.
> >
> > It seems to me that a company that is intent on maintaining as high a
> > profit rate as it can in the context of social transactions (information
> > largely produced by public money, given away by their authors, reviewed
> > freely by peers, and bought by libraries or research labs with largely
> > public money) has to face the fact that its legitimacy will be hotly
> > contested. I do believe that the intensense barrage if criticisms
> > levelled at Elsevier and other similar companies has something to do with
> > the Elsevier Chairman and his apparent reasonable stance...
>
>   The 'profit motive' argument might have some
>   standing if the private research universities that
>   dominate sponsored research did not sport profits
>   double those reported by Elsevier and other
>   publishers. These universities have cut library
>   spending by half in order to inflate their financial
>   hoards. Moreover, universities have $1 billion
>   in patent revenue now (which they did not have
>   in 1980), resulting from sponsored research. They
>   deprive library users of information generated by
>   the rest of the world only because they have
>   become skilled at academic 3-card Monte.
>
> Albert Henderson
> Pres., Chess Combination Inc.
> POB 2423 Bridgeport CT 06608-0423
> 

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Eberhard R. Hilf wrote:

> It seems that [APS starts] from assuming that the short cut of free access
> full texts available on the web from the author to the reader
> (by either his server, distributed services or central archives)
> is inevitable. Thats fine.

As we will see, the meaning and even the coherence of Ebs's further
questions revolve on resolving a fundamental ambiguity here. Is this
assumption (let us call it Assumption F for Free) assuming free
full-text online access to peer-reviewed postprints or only to
pre-peer-review preprints?

> The future role of the learned societies such as APS...:
> a bundle of services to manage scientific documents:

Nothing hinges on this, but on the assumption of free online access to
all the peer-reviewed full texts, I, for one, if I were a publisher,
would be very reluctant to stake my future on products/services like the
following:

> * intelligent personalized retrieval

Can learned societies really do this better than free research
community service providers? And sell the product/service? (I ask this
in the spirit of openness and realism. Nothing is at stake for
open-access in this, as this is all predicated on the assumption, F,
that full-text access will be free.)

> * crossreference across all sources, including inst.-webservers,

Same question as above.

> * virtual subfield collections and alerting

Same.

> * professional offline refereeing (refereeing after dissemination of the
> documents, and independent of where it resides (even across publishers of
> course); closest to this is the successful 'living reviews of
> Gen.Relativity', although far too slow), that is referees who are experts
> (and might even be paid by APS) to oversee actively their field and the
> new papers and read them and referee/summarize openly.

Ebs is unfortunately smuggling in a little speculation of his own on
this: Are we speaking about offline refereeing of ALREADY PEER-REVIEWED
POSTPRINTS? In other words, is this 2nd-order review? If so, I again ask the
same question as above: Is this something learned society publishers
like APS can do better than the research community can do itself, for
free, and can they sell it?

A variant of this already exists, in the form of open peer commentary
journals such as Behavioral and Brain Sciences http://www.bbsonline.org
and Psycoloquy http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy but they
combine the functions of pre-publication peer review and
post-publication peer-commentary. Presumably these can be separated. In
that case the usual question remains (as it does for all the options
above, including the free access itself, to the peer-reviewed
full-texts), namely, how is the peer-review to be paid for?

Presumably there are answers there, e.g.:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

But then is the commentary phase any different? Are the
commentaries/reviews peer-reviewed? If so, presumably commentary/review
journals will have the same cost-recovery model as conventional journals.

Or perhaps, in addition to journals for reviewed commentaries/reviews
there can be ad-lib commentaries/reviews, in which case the question
again arises: Is this something that learned societies could provide
and sell, or can the research community implement it for free? (I am
really only asking the questions here, not answering them!)

But, more important, Ebs may have been making the implicit assumption
above that the free full-texts referred to at the very beginning are NOT
peer-reviewed texts, but merely unrefereed preprints. And this ad-lib
post-hoc reviewing service is meant to replace classical peer review?

If so, we are no longer predicating this on the assumption, F, that
open access -- as described, for example, in the Budapest Open Access
Initiative http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ -- is already available.
Rather, we have made a transition from the question of open access
(to the current peer-reviewed literature, such as it is)
into some sort of untested and unspecified agenda for peer review
reform:

"Peer Review Reform Hypothesis-Testing"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0479.html

But in that case, all bets are off, and the subject has been changed
from the sure one (that free online access to the current peer-reviewed
literature is optimal and inevitable) to the hypothetical one (that
peer-review reform may be desirable, and it may be possible to couple
certain new, untested peer-review "reforms" with certain new ways to
access the resulting literature -- whatever that literature may turn
out to be).

> * permanently updating collection of authors tools to help them writing
> and transferring to MathML/XML in a 'state of the art' way.
> [Revtex 4 was in that respect at that time the best tool by concept].
> * etc.

Certainly XML authoring tools will be necessary. (Are learned societies
in the best position to develop and sell them? Each society it own
tools?

Re: Interview with Derk Haank, CEO, Elsevier

[Richard Poynder]

At 11:44 03/04/2002 +0100, you wrote:


At 15:14 01/04/02 -0600, Thomas Krichel writes:

  Bernard Lang writes:

> The one important point I read there is:
>
DH> "You can put your paper on your own Web site if you want. The only
DH> thing we insist on is that if we publish your article you don't
DH> publish it in a Springer or Wiley journal, too. In fact, I believe we
DH> have the most liberal copyright policy available."
>
>   Is that what the Elsevier copyright form says ?

  Yes, at least one that was common for economics journals
  a few years ago. However, as far as I am aware off,
  that policy is not posted on any Elsevier web site.

>   Furthermore, he did not say anything about putting it on another web
> site.  On an open archive managed by someone else ?

  The concept of "own" web site is a fuzzy one.


I have in my drawer a copy of copyright signed with Elsevier about 8
months ago by a researcher of my lab.

Below, part of Rights of authors :

   "Posting of a preprint version of this work on an electronic public
   server is permitted.  Posting of the published article on a secure
   network (not accessible to the public) within the author's
   institution is permitted. However, posting of the published article
   on an electronic public server can only be done with Elsevier's
   written permission."

This seems more precise than is the interview. What is your feeling?

Helene Bosc
Bibliotheque
Unite Physiologie de la Reproduction
et des Comportements
UMR 6073 INRA-CNRS-Universite F. Rabelais
37380 Nouzilly
France



Below is some text from the interview that didn't make it into the final
version due to length constraints. It may or may not help to clarify
things, but here it is anyway.

Richard Poynder: If an academic went to an Elsevier journal and said "I
want to retain the copyright on my paper for self-archiving purposes" the
editors would accept that?

Derk Haank: We can't have individual negotiations with every individual
author. People transfer copyright, but at the same time we grant them usage
for anything else other than in a commercial or society journal, so you can
put it in your reader, you can put it on your own web site, and you can put
it on the university web site etc., but for official publishing uses we
expect exclusivity.

Richard Poynder: And that is stated in the copyright form they sign?

Derk Haank: Yes. Copyright has proved a very well understood way to make
clear that that is what is happening, but I am open for discussions with
regard to the author retaining the copyright if that serves anybody better.

Re: The True Cost of the Essentials

[Eberhard R. Hilf]

dear Mark,
following the discussion on both channels I am worried about the
'abstract' nature of it.

APS asks for a solid proposition for a future scenario with a sound
business model?
It seems that you start from assuming that the short cut of free access
full texts available on the web from the author to the reader
(by either his server, distributed services or central archives)
is inevitable. Thats fine.

The future role of the learned societies such as APS as the leading one in
Physics is the same as ever: serve the physicists with
professional services for their daily work.
APS as society's information management competence center instead of
document distribution center.

That means here: a bundle of services to manage scientific documents:
* intelligent personalized retrieval
* crossreference across all sources, including inst.-webservers,
* virtual subfield collections and alerting
* professional offline refereeing (refereeing after dissemination of the
documents, and independent of where it resides (even across publishers of
course); closest to this is the successful 'living reviews of
Gen.Relativity', although far too slow), that is referees who are experts
(and might even be paid by APS) to oversee actively their field and the
new papers and read them and referee/summarize openly.
* permanently updating collection of authors tools to help them writing
and transferring to MathML/XML in a 'state of the art' way.
[Revtex 4 was in that respect at that time the best tool by concept].
* etc.

The business model follows from this:
* registered users [Members of the society APS or associated societies
(DPG) for free, who paid with their fee: thus contracts with the other
major societies (how much per member would be an estimate?]
* registered Institutes, Libraries
* anyone from Industry by registration (highest fee,..).

Example: we as a small physicist group of 10 pay at present 1.000,-$ per
year and person for computer programmes, and a virtual share of about
100,-$ per year and person to the library for journals, and about 50,-$
per year per person for society membership fees. We always use the
computers, but miss a surrounding to use MAthML-Physics etc., never go to
the library since  the web exists, and see virtually nothing from our
society (apart from the 17 docs per year of NJP..).
Estimate for the above mentioned services 100,-$ per year and person,
would add in physics to more than APS and those few other physics
societies (IoPP?, JPS?, not DPG) who are willing to serve and improve
those services would ever need? [500.000 physicists worldwide make up thus
for 50 Mill. $ per year, enough?]

Transition period: charge the printed copies of APS much higher, and
reduce the online versions gradually to zero.

Dear Mark, I am shure you will quickly bomb down these naive propositions.
But still I would be glad for an answer. Since DPG is starting a server,
where we invited APS to join with services and which could serve as a
marketing place for these services http://www.fachportal-physik.de/

Ebs

.
Eberhard R. Hilf, Dr. Prof.i.R.;
CEO Institute for Science Networking
an der Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Oldenburg
Ammerlaender Heerstr.121; D-26129 Oldenburg
ISN: http://www.isn-oldenburg.de/
my homepage: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/~hilf
h...@physnet.uni-oldenburg.de tel/Fax: 0049-441-798-2884/5851
PhysNet for the EPS: http://physnet.uni-oldenburg.de/PhysNet


On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Mark Doyle wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> > I have invited Mark Doyle of APS to specify concretely what parallel
> > measures he is recommending that BOAI pursue in order to ensure true
> > archiving in the long-term. BOAI's mandate is to hasten and facilitate
> > open access for the entire peer-reviewed corpus, now, but if there are
> > concrete parallel measures that do not retard the primary objective,
> > I am sure that BOAI will be happy to take them on board. Unfortunately,
> > Mark's (somewhat piqued) reply is far too vague to consititute a
> > concrete
> > recommendation:
>
> Suffice it to say that a concrete recommendation will be forthcoming (not
> in days, but months most likely). My main goal is to raise awareness at
> institutions
> and libraries that want to promote non-publisher archiving of research
> articles. They
> should consider carefully what kind of infrastructure should be built and
> understand what costs are involved so that can be covered in any new
> economic model that is to supplant the subscription model. Such
> understanding
> may be helpful for extant journals trying to undo the subscription model
> and
> for establishing alternative journals on a sound financial footing
> without
> losing some important benefits provided by the status quo.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> Mark Doyle
> Manager, Product Development
> The American Physical Society
> do...@aps.org
>

Re: Interview with Derk Haank, CEO, Elsevier

[hb...@tours.inra.fr]

At 15:14 01/04/02 -0600, Thomas Krichel writes:

  Bernard Lang writes:

> The one important point I read there is:
>
DH> "You can put your paper on your own Web site if you want. The only
DH> thing we insist on is that if we publish your article you don't
DH> publish it in a Springer or Wiley journal, too. In fact, I believe we
DH> have the most liberal copyright policy available."
>
>   Is that what the Elsevier copyright form says ?

  Yes, at least one that was common for economics journals
  a few years ago. However, as far as I am aware off,
  that policy is not posted on any Elsevier web site.

>   Furthermore, he did not say anything about putting it on another web
> site.  On an open archive managed by someone else ?

  The concept of "own" web site is a fuzzy one.


I have in my drawer a copy of copyright signed with Elsevier about 8
months ago by a researcher of my lab.

Below, part of Rights of authors :

   "Posting of a preprint version of this work on an electronic public
   server is permitted.  Posting of the published article on a secure
   network (not accessible to the public) within the author's
   institution is permitted. However, posting of the published article
   on an electronic public server can only be done with Elsevier's
   written permission."

This seems more precise than is the interview. What is your feeling?

Helene Bosc
Bibliotheque
Unite Physiologie de la Reproduction
et des Comportements
UMR 6073 INRA-CNRS-Universite F. Rabelais
37380 Nouzilly
France

http://www.tours.inra.fr/
TEL : 02 47 42 78 00
FAX : 02 47 42 77 43
e-mail: hb...@tours.inra.fr

Re: Interview with Derk Haank, CEO, Elsevier

[Bernard Lang]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:27:05PM -0500, Albert Henderson wrote:

> The 'profit motive' argument might have some
> standing if the private research universities that
> dominate sponsored research did not sport profits
> double those reported by Elsevier and other
> publishers. These universities have cut library
> spending by half in order to inflate their financial
> hoards. Moreover, universities have $1 billion
> in patent revenue now (which they did not have
> in 1980), resulting from sponsored research. They
> deprive library users of information generated by
> the rest of the world only because they have
> become skilled at academic 3-card Monte.

Let's burn them all.

They rob the people and Elsevier. They do not deserve to live.
Let's also burn all African universities who hoard their profits to
keep their countrymen in misery and ignorance.

Thanks Albert.  Now I see the light.

bernard.l...@inria.fr   Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX
 Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
   SIGNEZhttp://petition.eurolinux.org/SIGN

SPARC Debuts "Gaining Independence" free web manual

[Stevan Harnad]

-- Forwarded message --
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:56:49 -0500
From: Peter Suber 
To: fos-fo...@topica.com
Subject: SPARC Debuts "Gaining Independence" free web manual

For Immediate Release
April 1, 2002

For more information, contact:
Alison Buckholtz, 202-296-2296 x115
or 


SPARC DEBUTS GAINING INDEPENDENCE:
WEB RESOURCE GUIDES LAUNCH OF NONPROFIT
ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING VENTURES

Handbook Aids Universities, Societies and Independent Publishers in
Developing Start-Up Business Plans for Successful, Sustainable Electronic
Ventures

Washington, DC - SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources
Coalition) today launched Gaining Independence: A Manual for Planning the
Launch of a Nonprofit Electronic Publishing Venture. This new publication,
available on the Web free of charge at , is a
detailed, step-by-step guide leading readers through the creation of a
business plan for start-up and early-stage electronic publishing ventures,
including digital repositories and journals.

Gaining Independence will help universities, libraries, societies and
others conceive, plan and implement alternatives to commercially published
scholarly and scientific information.  It provides background on relevant
electronic publishing models and focuses especially on areas of business
planning that may be unfamiliar to those considering new communications
initiatives.  The manual includes sections on:  Situational Assessment and
Strategic Response; Technology and Technical Considerations; Markets,
Marketing and Sales; Organization; Finances; and the Financial Plan and
Operating Plan.  A detailed appendix links readers to pertinent resources.
"Gaining Independence delivers smart advice and solid direction to
potential publishers and entrepreneurs, whether at universities, libraries,
learned societies, consortia or independent firms," said Dr. Mike Hannant,
Publisher, The Royal Society of Chemistry.  "Its focus is on real-world
concerns, with emphasis on matters that might get overlooked, such as
proof-of-concept, marketing and financing, and these areas build a
foundation for the long-term viability of new electronic ventures. Gaining
Independence guides potential publishers through a process to make sure
each new product is sustainable."

"Gaining Independence offers a practical approach to planning and
implementing competitive electronic publishing ventures," said Michael J.
Bass, Hewlett-Packard Company's External Engagement Manager for the MIT/HP
DSpace Project.  "Universities, societies and other institutions which want
to create, build support for, and communicate a strategy for their
electronic journals, digital repositories and other projects will be
well-served by Gaining Independence and its emphasis on business planning
and long-term viability."

"SPARC was founded as a constructive response to market inequities in the
scholarly communication system," said Rick Johnson, SPARC Enterprise
Director. "Gaining Independence is another step toward building a system
that serves the needs of the scholarly community and facilitates effective
partnerships between scholars and their institutions or societies. Our aim
for Gaining Independence is to help make alternative scholarly initiatives
mainstream and self-sustaining by emphasizing the application of sound
business planning practices."

Gaining Independence complements Declaring Independence: A Guide to
Creating Community-Controlled Science Journals, which SPARC and the
Triangle Research Libraries Network introduced in early 2001.
Declaring Independence is available on the Web at
 and the printed handbook is available free of
charge by emailing .  Gaining Independence is also a
follow-on to Create Change: New Systems of Scholarly Communication, an
issues-based brochure and web resource available at
.

###
SPARC is a coalition of research universities and libraries supporting
increased competition in scholarly publishing.  Its membership currently
numbers approximately 200 institutions and library consortia in North
America, Australia, New Zealand and Asia. SPARC Europe, a regionally
focused initiative, is being launched in 2002.  SPARC is also affiliated
with major library organizations in Canada, the U.K. and Ireland, Denmark,
Australia and the USA.   SPARC is located on the web at
http://www.arl.org/sparc; SPARC Europe is located on the web at
http://www.sparceurope.org.

++

Alison Buckholtz
Associate Enterprise Director
SPARC -- The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition
21 Dupont Circle, Ste. 800, Washington, DC  20036 USA
T: 202 296 2296 x115 * F: 202 872 0884 * E: ali...@arl.org
http://www.arl.org/sparchttp://www.sparceurope.org
http://www.arl.org/sparc/DI
http://www.createchange.org

Re: OAI and the rational publisher

[David Goodman]

Mark, I have two or three comments, based not just on this message but
your last reply to Stevan

1. Of all the possible organizations, your's is the strongest and the most
focused and therefore  the best able to take the step. I think the result
will be positive for your journals, as the best material from others may
soon be looking for another home.

2. The readership of APS journals is not limited to the membership of APS.
They are widely read in other fields--you do not serve only the physics
community. (This is true is all academic fields.)

3. What exactly do you think is necessary for proper archiving beyond
what Stevan's proposal calls for?

4. Can you envision any workable form of peer review that does _not_
involve journals?

David Goodman
Research Librarian and
Biological Sciences Bibliographer
Princeton University Library
dgood...@princeton.edu609-258-7785

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Mark Doyle wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> On Monday, April 1, 2002, at 05:26 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>
> > The solution for a publisher is obvious: it should publish good
> > journals, and only good journals. A publisher complaining about the
> > threat of OAI suggests that it knows very well that the quality of its
> > journals cannot compete.
>
> I don't really think that is universally the case. APS certainly has good
> quality journals, but we are still vulnerable to not being able to
> continue
> to publish the journals in the face of large cancellations. And there has
> been a steady decrease in subscriptions (for many reasons, over the last
> 30 years). It is an economic and financial reality that we don't have
> much
> wiggle room. We would also like to make our journals more widely
> available
> (ideally freely available). But we need a new model and it is very
> difficult
> for a single publisher to move unilaterally without support from
> institutions,
> fund agencies, and libraries. Thus, there is a reason for concern and it
> isn't irrational to worry about the transition to a new economic model.
> That
> doesn't mean the transition shouldn't take place though.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>

Re: Interview with Derk Haank, CEO, Elsevier

[Albert Henderson]

on 2 Apr 2002 jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca wrote:
 
> Let me respond in the body of the text below.
> 
> Le 1 Avril 2002 09:58, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Richard Poynder wrote:
> > > interview... with Elsevier Science chairman Derk Haank...
> > > in April's Information Today:
> > > http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr02/poynder.htm
> > > richard.poyn...@dsl.pipex.com
> > > http://www.richardpoynder.com
> >
> > The interview is interesting and shows the Elsevier chairman to
> > be very reasonable, open and well-intentioned.
> 
> I would rather say that he is clever and tries to avoid direct confrontation.
> >
> > I think that this confirms yet again that it is and always has been a
> > waste of time and energy to demonize and vilify publishers like
> > Elsevier, who really are not any better or worse than any other
> > company, but just happen to find themselves in an anomalous business,
> > with large profits but an unusual confluence of interests, including
> > conflicts of interest, in a radically changing technological setting.
> 
> It seems to me that a company that is intent on maintaining as high a profit 
> rate as it can in the context of social transactions (information largely 
> produced by public money, given away by their authors, reviewed freely by 
> peers, and bought by libraries or research labs with largely public money) 
> has to face the fact that its legitimacy will be hotly contested. I do 
> believe that the intensense barrage if criticisms levelled at Elsevier and 
> other similar companies has something to do with the Elsevier Chairman and 
> his apparent reasonable stance...

The 'profit motive' argument might have some 
standing if the private research universities that 
dominate sponsored research did not sport profits 
double those reported by Elsevier and other 
publishers. These universities have cut library 
spending by half in order to inflate their financial
hoards. Moreover, universities have $1 billion
in patent revenue now (which they did not have
in 1980), resulting from sponsored research. They
deprive library users of information generated by 
the rest of the world only because they have 
become skilled at academic 3-card Monte.

Albert Henderson
Pres., Chess Combination Inc.
POB 2423 Bridgeport CT 06608-0423