ON Fri, 22 Sep 2000 David Henige <dhen...@library.wisc.edu>
asked some good questions:
> Although a semi-outsider, I find the debate between Henderson and Rouse
> fascinating, less for its contextual implications than for the character
> of the argumentation itself. Let me first delcare two interests.
> First, I work in the same library system as Ken Rouse; second, my field
> is history and therefore well outside (whew!)some of the arguments being
> made.
>
> Still, one does not need to be in the STM stable to recognize the
> pointlessness of arguing respective "quality" here. Let's face it, even
> the scientists would be unable to determine an "objective" set of
> criteria to determine inherent "quality" and then to find an equally
> objective method to apply it and finally to disseminate it. So, why
> bother?
Clearly, the norms of science require objective
criteria such as a documented foundation, appropriate
methodology, logical conclusions, understandable writing.
Mathematics must be provable. Once accepted for publication,
a paper continues to be read and the work evaluated.
Insofar as dissemination, some say that channels targeted
to special interests are more effective than those
that deliver lots of unwanted material. Others emphasize
economies of scale. Each argument has some merit and
each type of channel may be more appropriate than
alternatives in certain circumstances.
> We have no choice in this instance then but to call "quality" a wash.
> The question then becomes, if none of the antagonists can demonstrate
> that they publish better quality materials than the others, why does one
> party (guess who?) charge so much more for roughly the same
> merchandise.
That's a fair question, asked and answered many
times over. The first part of the answer is in
the level of service and the size of circulation
that diffuses first-copy costs. A journal published
for 100 customers will cost them each more than a
journal published for 1,000 costs each of its
subscribers, although the total first copy cost may
be the same. The second part is that it is never
"roughly the same merchandise," however, as a close
inspection would reveal.
It almost induces one to think of the word "monopoly,"
> doesn't it?
>
When a corporation prepares a literature review for
internal use, it is not only a monopoly but a trade
secret. Copyright and patents are monopolies, just
like other property. Such monopolies attract
investment and are therefore sufficiently in the
public interest to be supported by the Constitution.
> And it is just here of course the other Q word comes into play. While
> not one usually to sing the praises of quantification, here it can
> legitimately serve as a tie-breaker. This, I gather, is the burr that
> abrades certain parties in the dispute. Regardless of the "bias" of
> Prof. Barschall, several courts at least have shown that his
> quantitative methodology is sound.
It is as sound as a mathematical proof. But is it
relevant? What court has said it is a reliable basis
for purchase, renewals, etc??? Judge Sand's opinion
certainly raised a red flag.
> After all, we all recognize that the
> Chicago Cubs' announcers are Cub-friendly, and this might affect their
> read on various things. But it hardly affects onfield play. In other
> words, bias is not necessarily a fatal flaw. If it were, we all would
> "know" even less than skeptics imagine we know.
The problem with Barschall is that, as a Director
of AIP, he covertly represented the interests of
a major physics publisher. By having him on your
library committee, your boss put a fox in charge of
the chicken coop.
Barschall parlayed that opportunity into claims of
"scientific findings," awards from various library
associations, etc. In the process, he abused the
ITALIAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY mercilessly -- perhaps
stemming from some old rivalry. Bias or not, his
workmanship was incredibly sloppy. He claimed, for
instance, to find the averages of non-existent
numbers! Any twelve-year-old knows better. [read
more in my article "Lawful Misconduct" in THE
SCIENTIST 12,2 p. 7-8 Jan 19, 1998]
>
> Even an outsider can only be amused by Henderson's attempt to portray
> the terms of the debate as those of "class struggle."
Yes, thanks. I thought the idea was ironically amusing,
given that neither public universities nor commercial
publishers think of themselves in terms of "class struggle."
The term is certainly apt when you consider the hubris of
elitism that goes with the undeserved abuse meant to
compete and deprive the victims of opportunities.
> And the outsider
> might be tempted to laugh out loud at the notion that the downtrodden
> commercial publishers represent the underclass, or, in terms of "class
> struggle," the proletariat. Desperately frivolous statements like this
> can only have the effect of destroying whatever credibility there might
> otherwise be in a given argument.
>
> Personally, I think it is much too kind to argue (per Rouse) that the
> commercial publishers altruistically stepped in when they perceived a
> failure of nerve on the part of academic publishers. To be sure, they
> were quicker off the mark, more attuned to the spoor of the dollar, but
> it is a matter of blaming scholarly organizations (and not just those in
> STM) for shortsightedness. It is time to correct the prescription by
> seeking aggressively to recapture what the scholarly community gave up
> without a struggle so many years ago.
Thanks for proving my earlier point. Your last assertion
is an example of those petty "class struggle" myths based
on (and requiring) ignorance of the facts.
History documents rather clearly that commercial publishers,
starting with Henry Oldenburg, have always been important,
valued members of the scientific community. Even the vaunted
PHYSICAL REVIEW was first published by Macmillan, well before
the American Physical Society was founded. Any doubt about
this will be resolved by examining the first 100 years of
PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS and PHYSICAL REVIEW. Springer,
Elsevier, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft (ancestor of
Academic Press) also come to mind as having imprints with
historical precedence.
>
> Henderson notes that "[c]ommercial publishers . . . attracted many
> editors and authors of the highest quality." What is missing from his
> formulation are the reasons for this. Could we have more details? 1099
> forms?
The answer is that when proponents of novel research
are snubbed and shunned by their colleagues, they
are welcomed by commercial publishers who are willing
to underwrite expenses for years before seeing a
profit. What other options, short of starting their
own association, do they have? Many new commercial
journals simply represent the failure of associations
to address the needs of their members.
No 1099s needed.
>
> Finally, Henderson speaks of the "embarassment [sic]" that scholarly
> organizations must have felt at the inability to keep pace with the
> demands of the publish-or-perish system. Maybe they did--or maybe they
> just hoped to stem the tide of more and more about less and less.
What I meant was that the policy of not starting
any new journals became an embarrassment (thank
you so much for the spell check) for the American
Chemical Society when other publishers' new
ventures provoked loyal members. The members
probably demanded to know why ACS was sitting on
the sidelines while important data was being
disseminated by its "competitors." Wouldn't you?
My impression was that ACS had suffered from the
political influence of editors who thought they
could monopolize editorial power and finesse the
librarians who were complaining not only about the
general proliferation of new journals but about ACS's
two-tier pricing!
Universities would easily keep pace with the demands
of R&D if they would recognize that libraries are a
part of science and budget accordingly. When they have
done this it worked. Several hundred years of library
growth kept pace with the exponential doubling of
journal articles until the Faustian bargain was made,
turning management of higher education over to
non-faculty professionals.
When universities fail to budget adequately for libraries,
as they have since 1970, they simply make the research
community miserable. Are the larger university profits and
administrative expansion worth the trouble? Yes, of course
they are -- but only to the management team. What does an
administrator care about the troubles of researchers,
librarians, and publishers? What influence does the academic
senate have any more?
Thanks for reading my text and for your comments.
Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>
.
.
.
