Re: Who Should Own Scientific Papers?

On 23 Sep 1998, Laurie Urquiaga <urquiagal[_at_]lawgate.byu.edu> wrote:
>
> As a librarian dealing with the reality of having to (re)purchase
> research which is "subsidized" in the first place by library
> collections, I do think the academic publishing model is seriously
> out of whack. At this point, I'm not sure that it shouldn't be
> reworked entirely.

The academic publishing model is out of whack, according to British economist David J Brown because the universities that finance libraries are separate from the agencies that finance scientific research. (ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING AND LIBRARIES. Bowker-Saur 1996: 41-42) The implication seems to be that universities are interested in getting grants but not in the quality of the research or in disseminating its work product.

Thus there is a familiar echo in Newt Gingrich's ideas about science, that bureaucrats love the process but have no interest in results.

The average Research University generates less than 1% of all journal articles, according to National Science Board figures. Why shouldn't they purchase the remaining >99%?  

> p.s. While catching up with the debate from last week, the following
> declaration caught my eye: <<No association that I know of runs its
> publishing program in the red on purpose.>>

> Allow me to broaden your circle :-) While perhaps no commercial
> publisher would do so, non-commercial publishers do it all the time.
> For example, the _BYU Law Review_ and the other legal journals we
> publish are always published 'at a loss' to the school (I might even
> venture to guess that NO law review operates in the black). In fact,
> new subscriptions are not solicited because they would cost us money.
> We publish for other reasons than generating income.

If enough university libraries could afford to pay a cost-based price, your publishing operations could run in the black. There may be good reasons to run a press as a 'ministry' in the service of the poor. I would consider each case on its merits rather than assert it is a generally accepted management principle in learned publishing.

However, the impoverishment of academic libraries is by design, not circumstance, a design that puts administrative priorities over research and education.

My issue with science policy is that the Federal government, which has partnered with universities to do research since World War II, has not included libraries or dissemination for the last 30 years. There was no discussion or debate. The decision to cut libraries out was made behind closed doors or in a smoke-filled room. Academic senates and members of professional associations gave no endorsement.

Bachrach et al. and Koonin are attempting to dilute copyright further with the only thought of being able to cut their library allocation even more. I don't see where they have for a moment studied the effect of the policy vacuum of the last 30 years or considered the future except in terms of increasing the administrative purse. I think they will aggravate the bottleneck in communications further.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Fri Sep 25 1998 - 11:46:11 GMT