158.2 CHALLENGE TO SCHOLARLY SURVEYS AGAIN REJECTED, American Physical Society
158.3 FUTURE ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT, Aline Soules
158.4 ADDING CANCELLATION CHARGES INTO SUBSCRIPTION PRICES, Sheila Webber
158.5 JOURNALS INFLATION, Albert Henderson
Tony Schwartz, University of Massachusetts Boston, tony@delphinus.lib.umb.edu.
Luke Swindler, in his note (Newsletter no. 155) regarding the _Journal of Academic Librarianship_'s $50 copyright fee, suggests that our profession ought to appeal to JAL's sense of fair or reasonable pricing. However, there are reasons to believe that JAL will eventually discover -- in purely economic terms -- that its copyright fee is costing it a significant revenue stream (as well as good will).
The national median cost for one library to get an article from another library is about $18. Only rarely in that kind of transaction does a journal publisher receive copyright revenue. In recent years, ILL departments have been afforded the less costly option of ordering articles through commercial document delivery services. UNCOVER, for example, typically charges $11.50 an article -- substantially less than a typical borrowing cost based on the national mean of $18 -- and UNCOVER's price includes at least $3 copyright to the journal publisher on every transaction.
Thus, journals have a strong incentive to have their articles distributed through document delivery services. (Elsevier certainly understands that; its copyright fees are $8.50 - $12.50 -- a range that keeps its articles below or just at the median level of ILL costs.)
An economically rational ILL department would never order a *JAL* article through a document delivery service (and pay well over $50); hence, JAL will lose all that potential revenue, year after year. So much for expensive copyright fees.
Now, let's consider JAL's $158 subscription price. JAL might think that its high copyright fee would have the effect of preserving its subscription base. Perhaps not incidentally, JAL's subscription price is two to three times the median for our profession.
By reducing its copyright fee, JAL could afford to reduce its subscription price; the first shift and possibly the second would increase JAL's own revenues; both shifts would place JAL more in the mainstream of the scholarly communication system.
What is truly astonishing is that JAL's editorial board is... well... "asleep at the wheel." That board includes not only writers who have built a reputation on the "serials crisis," but some national library leaders, too.
I am inclined to cancel (this summer) my library's subscription to JAL, but would like to hear, through this Newsletter, JAL's side of the story.
158.2 CHALLENGE TO SCHOLARLY SURVEYS AGAIN REJECTED
Reprinted with permission from _APS News_ January 1996, page 5.
Judge Leonard B. Sand, of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, issued a decision on November 2, 1995, reaffirming the First Amendment right to publish surveys analyzing the prices of scientific journals. The decision represents a significant confirmation of the legal protection afforded speech of importance to the scholarly community.
In 1986 and 1988 The American Physical Society (APS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP) published surveys prepared by Professor Henry Barschall of the University of Wisconsin/ Madison analyzing the comparative prices of physics journals. A suit challenging the articles was brought by Gordon & Breach Science Publishers (G&B). As noted by Judge Sand, "[a]s it happened, journals published by AIP and APS scored near the top of the articles' rankings and several of G&B's journals were ranked at or near the bottom." G&B filed suit in New York, as well as a series of related actions in Europe, claiming that the articles constituted false or misleading advertising.
The recent decision arises from G&B's request that the court modify its previous decision holding that publication of the articles was speech entitled to constitutional protection. Judge Sand stated that "it is plainly _inconsonant_ with justice to grant [G&B's] requested relief," noting that G&B "seek[s] back-door entry to revisit the issue, after undertaking the exact discovery that the Court cautioned against in the first instance."
G&B also challenged various "secondary uses" of the surveys, including advertising, letters, and presentations by APS and AIP officials. Judge Sand ruled for AIP and APS on several of these claims, but found there were factual issues as to others that had to be resolved at trial. For the remaining secondary uses, G&B will now have to show that the surveys were false or misleading-- claims that have been previously rejected in Switzerland and Germany after thorough review.
Dr. C. Kumar N. Patel, President of The APS, and Dr. Roland W. Schmitt, Chair of the Governing Board of the AIP, stated that "we are extremely gratified by Judge Sand's decision. His action provides important protection for studies of an issue of significant importance to libraries and the scientific community as a whole -- the escalating price of journals in a period of declining library budgets."
They said, however, "we are distressed that, in having to litigate the remaining secondary uses, AIP and APS will have to defend again in the U.S. what has previously been found in Germany and Switzerland -- that the surveys are not false or misleading. Although we are confident that we will prevail on the remaining issues, the scholarly community is not served by the diversion of scarce resources into the defense of G&B's lawsuits."
For further information or a copy of the decision, contact Joan Wrather (301) 209-3093, fax: (301) 209-0846, or email: (jwrather@acp.org).
158.3 FUTURE ELECTRONIC ENVIRONMENT
Aline Soules, University of Michigan, soulesa@umich.edu.
Regarding Hamaker's Haymakers, 156.2, I would like to add another idea. If the electronic environment progresses in the ways that Chuck Hamaker suggests, I think we will see an additional element, namely the diffusion of information sources. A number of smaller publications may indeed find that it is cheaper for them to load their lone title on the internet; however, that will make it more difficult for indexing and also for jobbers such as FAXON. I also think that if the smaller publisher wants to survive, s/he might possibly offer a publication free to a faculty member if s/he is willing to assign 1 or 2 articles from the publication as required reading to students. Students would then purchase access to those articles (not the whole publication), thereby providing revenue for the publisher.
In fact, maybe there won't be whole publications any more. Perhaps there might only be a series of articles provided by a publisher.
158.4 ADDING CANCELLATION CHARGES INTO SUBSCRIPTION PRICES
Sheila Webber, University of Strathclyde, sheila@dis.strath.ac.uk.
Dresser (no. 155) makes the valid point that certain fixed costs exist, whatever the medium of the periodical. What IS bizarre is the attempt to equate revenue lost through cancellations (on which the publisher could have influence) with overall changes in the cost of living (for which the publishers cannot be blamed). In fact even the annual parading of inflation figures does not suggest a businesslike approach (how many other types of supplier would be arrogant enough to assume that YOU, the customer, are automatically responsible for compensating them, the supplier, for the state of the national economy? In most other industries there is at least an attempt to increase efficiency, reengineer the product -- or reduce the number of product lines). Telling your customers that it's THEIR fault that your product is unpopular is a ... novel ... marketing tactic, and one unlikely to be encountered in textbooks (or in successful businesses, I would have thought).