In the last issue I neglected to list Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division) as one who is remaining on the newsletter editorial board. My apologies and my thanks to her!
216.2 RESPONSE TO JENNIFER KOSTELNIK'S ARTICLE IN NO. 214
Jamie Cameron, Director, Publications, Institute of Mechanical
Engineers, f_lewis@imeche.org.uk
[Received February 18, 1999]:
I am responding to the contribution from Jennifer Kostelnik on SPARC. I was aware of the ACS discussions with SPARC when they started as I was on the Governing Board for publications on the ACS, though I stress, I am commenting in my personal capacity!
First, I would say that while indeed there are three new journals to which librarians are being asked to subscribe, it is absolutely inevitable that as research and development progresses and subjects subdivide and cross borders there will always be a need for new journals. I think the point of the SPARC initiative is to address this in what is hoped would be a slightly more cost effective manner. I don't think, by the way, it is a case of seducing Editorial Boards from other journals -- it is by no means uncommon for research workers to feature on more than one Editorial Board. As you say, the crucial thing is to attract an increasing number of good papers and therefore make these journals more attractive products for library acquisition budgets.
Going on to Mary Case's quote, I wonder in fact to what extent the SPARC Journals will be able to draw papers away from top expensive competitors and if so to what extent the competitors will decrease in size and price. This is the sort of line that many learned society publishers have been taking already but with I would have thought only limited success.
You talk about "increasing the demand on library budgets." It is unquestionably true that if a need for a new journal is perceived someone will fill that need. The argument is that a SPARC journal will fill that need more appropriately than a commercial publisher. It is also the case that people will begin to consult the new journals and submit their best papers to them if they cover a new area of research which has not been significantly covered before. Certainly, innovative electronic access is important and I would add to that quick and efficient refereeing.
Again, I would argue that the SPARC journals are not "merely less expensive versions of traditional publications" but are filling a need, possibly reasonably cost effectively, which has appeared as research develops, and which is not already being filled.
216.3 WRONG ECONOMIC MODEL FOR THE ARL SPARC PROGRAM?
Stephen J. Bensman, Louisiana State University,
notsjb@unix1.sncc.lsu.edu
I have just read the piece by Jennifer Kostelnik, Yale Chemistry Librarian, on the ARL SPARC program and agree with much of what she has to say. For my part, I have doubts about the SPARC initiative on three grounds. Most of these doubts relate to the goal "to create a more competitive marketplace for research information by providing opportunities for new publishing ventures, endorsing new publications and information products, and recruiting authors, editors, and advisory board members." The three grounds are as follows:
1) The initiative may result in an increase in the amount of scientific and technical material that is published. Anybody familiar with the probability structure of human knowledge knows that the bulk of the new material will be of secondary importance, and this is precisely where the major dysfunctions are taking place. Therefore, the SPARC program may be based on an incorrect understanding of the probability structure of the scientific and technical information market.
2) A vast proportion of the high quality scientific and technical information produced is already being published in a cost effective manner by the US associations. From this perspective, the American Chemical Society becoming a SPARC publisher seems something of a redundacy. The commmercial publishers are largely restricted to the secondary scientific and technical information. This is because there is a historical connection between the US associations and the scientific and technical elite -- a connection that probably cannot be altered. This makes somewhat puzzling the goal of "recruiting authors, editors, and advisory board members." Therefore, the SPARC program may be based on an incorrect understanding of the social structure of the scientific and technical information market.
3) The fostering of an increase in the amount of secondary scientific and technical information may only put further pressure on first copy costs and, thus, lead to more, not less, inflation. The commercial publishers will not retire from the field, and the SPARC initiative threatens, for social reasons, an increase in the amount of secondary literature that is published, because the scientific and technical elite will not abandon their connection with the US associations. One of the reasons the material of the commercial publishers costs more than the material of the US associations is that the commercial publishers cannot sell as much of it due to its lower quality and, therefore, have to charge much more to cover first copy costs. A further increase in the amount of secondary scientific and technical information would only exacerbate the problem of covering first copy costs. Therefore, the SPARC program may be based on an incorrect understanding of the economic structure of the scientific and technical information market.
In conclusion, the ARL SPARC program appears to be based upon a Marxist model of monopoly capitalism. Therefore, it sees the main problem as the monopolization and commercial exploitation of the upper reaches of the scientific and technical quality distributions by a few key publishers. However, in my opinion, the proper economic model is monopoly competition, which was proposed by Noll and Steinmueller (Serials Review Vol. 18, Nos. 1-2 (1992): 32-37). This model leads to severe dysfunctions at the lower end of these distributions, and this is precisely the problem afflicting the scientific and technical information market. For example, after reading the literature, it is not clear to me whether a certain commercial publisher -- with an excessively large portfolio of titles, about which it incessantly brags -- is constantly raising its already exorbitant prices, because it is exploiting what it conceives to be its monopoly position, or because it feels under pressure to finance an ever increasing dead-weight load of scientific and technical schlock. It could even be a combination of both these factors. Perhaps the only way to deal with the problem is utilize the new technologies for the careful creation of a free market in scientific and technical information through document delivery. This could lead to an implosion in the amount of secondary scientific and technical information published due to an inability to make any money off of it for lack of sales. This may even cause a change in tactics on the part of the commercial publishers, forcing them to downsize their operations by merging and consolidating to eliminate redundant capacity. It is even possible that the only organizations capable of surviving economically in this new environment will be large ones operating on economies of scale. This is somewhat contradictory to the ARL goal of blocking mergers and consolidations on the part of the commercial publishers. In any case, the entire problem has to be rethought, and central to this rethinking must be how to handle the production and distribution of the secondary scientific and technical information in an economically efficient manner. It is here that the ARL SPARC program can do the most good, and a possible model for how this might be accomplished is the Los Alamos physics e-print archives, to which authors submit formatted articles. This restructuring may necessitate a change in promotion and tenure standards. The universities may then perceive the enemy and find him to be themselves.
Those readers of strong intestinal fortitude and interested in a fuller understanding of the theoretical bases underlying this screed may consult the following article: Stephen J. Bensman and Stanley J. Wilder. "Scientific and Technical Serials Holdings Optimization in an Inefficient Market: A LSU Serials Redesign Project Exercise," Library Resources & Technical Services 42 (July 1998): 147-242.
216.4 INTERNATIONAL LEARNED JOURNALS SEMINAR
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers,
slpsp@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
Reservations via http://www.alpsp.org.uk or by mail to Eileen Storrie, ALPSP Administrator, 17 Orchard Close, Shillingford, Nr Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 7HQ, UK
The traditional model of learned journal publishing is under strain; economic, social and technical pressures will make it impossible for journals to continue unchanged in the 21st century. The aim of this seminar is to examine some of the proposed solutions to these challenges. First of all, we will review what is known about the wishes and concerns of both authors and readers; this session will draw on ALPSP's own major survey of learned journal contributors, and on the work of the SuperJournal project. The next session will cover some of the radical proposals which have been put forward for complete re- thinking of what journals are and how they work. The third session will consist of accounts of a number of real experiments, currently being carried out by publishers, which explore new approaches to journal publishing. Finally, there will be a lively round-table debate on the right model or models for journal publishing in the 21st century.
Programme Highlights
What authors really want
--The ALPSP survey of learned journal authors: Alma Swan, Key
Perspectives Ltd
--A bill of rights for authors: David Gordon Wilson,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
What readers really want
--What readers value in electronic journals: lessons from
SuperJournal: Christine Baldwin, Information Design &
Management
Rethinking the learned journal model
--Why the learned journal cannot survive: Hugh Look
--Journals without publishers: proposed non-commercial models
for scholarly communication: Fytton Rowland, Loughborough
University
--The Deconstructed Journal: an alternative model for network-based academic publishing: John Smith, University of Kent
--A new way of selling access to journals: Academic Press's
vision of the future: Pieter Bolman, Academic Press
Real experiments
--The HighWire approach: Richard Gedye, Oxford University
Press
--Stopping the price spiral: the SPARC initiative: Robert
Parker, Royal Society of Chemistry
--Peer review revisited: Erik Sandewall, Linkping University,
Sweden
--The journal as an overlay on preprint databases: Bob Kelly,
American Physical Society
--New Journal of Physics: an author-funded journal: John
Haynes, Institute of Physics Publishing
Panel debate: What is the model for scientific information transfer in the 21st century?
Presentation of the Charlesworth Awards for Typographical Excellence in Journal and Serial Publishing
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Statements of fact and opinion appearing in the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues are made on the responsibility of the authors alone, and do not imply the endorsement of the editor, the editorial board, or the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Readers of the Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues are encouraged to share the information in the newsletter by electronic or paper methods. We would appreciate credit if you quote from the newsletter.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Newsletter on Serials Pricing Issues (ISSN: 1046-3410) is published by the editor through Academic Technology and Networks at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as news is available. Editor: Marcia Tuttle, Internet: marcia_tuttle@unc.edu; Telephone: 919 929-3513; Fax: 919 960-0847. Editorial Board: Keith Courtney (Taylor and Francis Ltd), Fred Friend (University College, London), Birdie MacLennan (University of Vermont), Michael Markwith (Swets Subscription Services, Inc.), James Mouw (University of Chicago), Heather Steele (Blackwell's Periodicals Division), David Stern (Yale University), and Scott Wicks (Cornell University).
To subscribe to the newsletter send a message to LISTPROC@UNC.EDU saying SUBSCRIBE PRICES [YOUR NAME]. Be sure to send that message to the listserver and not to Prices. You must include your name. To unsubscribe (no name required in message), you must send the message from the e-mail address by which you are subscribed. If you have problems, please contact the editor.
Back issues of the Newsletter are archived on 2 World Wide Web sites. At
UNC-Chapel Hill the url is: http://www.lib.unc.edu/prices/. At Grenoble the url is: http://www-mathdoc.ujf-grenoble.fr/NSPI/NSPI.html.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++