VPIEJ-L Discussion Archives

August 1994

=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Aug 1994 08:54:16 EDT
Reply-To:     Judith Gresham 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Judith Gresham 
Subject:      Re: VT Model
In-Reply-To:  <199407301633.JAA30436@eis.calstate.edu>
 
I found this discourse interesting because--
  I am proficient with producing attractive and readable paper publications
(newletters, manuals, etc.).
  I accepted a position to produce a newletter for a new organization,
and found the newsletter was to be distributed soley through e-mail.  The
mix of services used by the members precludes attaching files to some.
This means the newletter must be pure ASCII and self-contained within the
e-mail message.  I find I have to rethink my presentation.
  While one would think that scholarly journals are content-oriented and
not subject to the above problems, one must remember that tables of data
are included that extend beyond an 80-column limitation.  Some may
include illustrations.  I have found some on-line documents that merely
delete the tables.
  Unfortunately, one must plan for the lowest common denominator and/or
devise alternative delivery systems for tables and illustrations.
 
Judith
San Bernardino, CA
 
On Sat, 30 Jul 1994, Gail McMillan wrote:
 
> >To: boudreau@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R. Boudreau)
> >From: gailmac@vt.edu (Gail McMillan)
> >Subject: Re: VT Model
> >
> >Thank you for send me your thoughts about the VT Model posted to VPIEJ-L
> earlier this week.  I'm responding to you though I'd like your permission to
> post our comments to the list.  Like I said initially, I certainly don't
> have all the answers but the idea is a sound one that could serve publishers
> and libraries well if the collaborate.
>
> ******Gail,
> Of course you may post our comments to the list.  I thought I had posted
> mine to the whole list; did they go only to you?  (Must be a result of how
> the list header is set up.)  Anyway, I have some clarifications, but I'll
> wait until I see your responses on the list.
> --Mike B.*****
> >
> >>Following are some comments on the VT Model for journal publishing.  I find
> >>the idea interesting, particularly its aim to capitalize on the distinction
> >>between "browsing" and "directed searching," but I also find some of its
> >>underlying assumptions to be questionable.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Electronic networks offer wonderful new tools for directed
> >>>searching.  It is now possible (and software is available on
> >>>a few platforms) to embed an active link in a paper as a
> >>>reference to another paper. Selecting the link automatically
> >>>locates and opens a copy of the second paper.  Electronic
> >>>preprint collections and tools like this make it likely that
> >>>publishers will lose control of the directed-search mode in
> >>>the near future.
> >>
> >>Of course, hypertext links are only one way of locating a piece of
> >>information you've already identified as desirable, and they don't help if
> >>you're not already reading a paper that has such links.  But I'm curious as
> >>to how publishers can be seen as now having "control of the directed-search
> >>mode." Do you mean merely that publishers control access to the information
> >>they publish? If so, how will the availability of hypertext links force
> >>publishers to give up this control?  They would still have to agree to let
> >>their documents be linked.
> >
> >Why would anyone need permission to link articles?  If my library
> subscribes to two related titles and they are stored on the library's
> server, why couldn't we implement links--perhaps ones that are identified by
> subject specialists within the library (or the campus) or by activating
> links authors inserted in their articles?
> >>
> >>>The old mind-set was to deny access to non-subscribers.  The
> >>>new attitude would be that subscribers receive guides and
> >>>aids to finding material which is in principle freely
> >>>available, but in fact is buried in an avalanche of other
> >>>information.
> >>
> >>The most useful aspect of this idea, it seems to me, is that it recognizes
> >>that organizing, storing, locating, and retrieving information are services
> >>for which one can reasonably be expected to pay.  But these seem to be
> >>services that librarians already provide; publishers don't do this.  This
> >>seems to be asking publishers and librarians to switch jobs.
> >
> >No, certainly not.  Librarians would continue to do what they do best,
> including providing cost-free access to information (now its electronic, in
> addition to the other formats).  Publishers would continue to provide their
> services, including specialized publications for their paid subscribers.
> >>
> >>>There is another "product" which is nearly invisible but
> >>>very important.  This is quality control through editors and
> >>>peer review.  There is nothing that intrinsically ties this
> >>>to traditional publishers, but that is where it is currently
> >>>located and where the track record is.  It is been painfully
> >>>lacking in most areas of the electronic network.
> >>
> >>Yes, and in the realm of electronic publishing there is a distressing
> >>tendency to underestimate the importance of editing for content *as well
> >>as* copy editing.  If there is indeed an "information explosion" going on,
> >>then copy editing and design (which will soon enough have its application
> >>in e-publishing) should become even more important as scholars and other
> >>users need to digest more and more information.  Good copy editing and
> >>design is what makes the process of reading and understanding easier.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Archives cost money, so
> >>>one maintained by a commercial publisher would almost
> >>>certainly have to be revenue-producing.  But
> >>>revenue-producing archives are problematic in many ways, and
> >>>will probably fare poorly in competition with free,
> >>>non-commercial journals and preprint databases.  They will
> >>>also interact awkwardly with the navigation and retrieval
> >>>tools coming into use.
> >>
> >>How do you know?
> >
> >Awkward in that a search may result in several hits and she would have
> immediate access only to the free articles but would have to determine if
> the unseen articles were worth paying for--considering what is known about
> the content and the delay that may be cause during the money transactions.
> >>
> >>>Part of the mission of a research library is to archive
> >>>material and make it freely available to its users.
> >>>Supporting journal archives would be a direct contribution
> >>>to this mission.
> >>
> >>But let's not fall into the trap of thinking that the libraries provide
> >>this service "for free" just because they don't charge fees to individual
> >>users.  The storing, cataloging, finding, retriving skills I mentioned
> >>above are indeed bought from librarians: they are paid for by taxes,
> >>student fees, and so on.  If a library is supporting an archive for
> >>journals or any other text, you can bet your next paycheck they're going to
> >>recover their costs for establishing and supporting that archive.
> >
> >Yes, there is no free lunch.  However, we are measuring success in terms of
> the numbers of searches and retrievals.  Of course, some say that cost
> recovery (at least) may be necessary some day.  so, one possibility may be
> to for the library to seek reimbursement from those who are making money on
...
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 1 Aug 1994 08:55:29 EDT
Reply-To:     "Michael R. Boudreau" 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         "Michael R. Boudreau" 
Subject:      Re: VT Model
 
>>Why would anyone need permission to link articles?  If my library
>subscribes to two related titles and they are stored on the library's
>server, why couldn't we implement links--perhaps ones that are identified by
>subject specialists within the library (or the campus) or by activating
>links authors inserted in their articles?
 
Sorry I wasn't clear.  I meant that publishers would still have to grant
permission for their publications to be stored in an archive from which
they could be accessed directly or by links.
 
 
>>>>Publishers
>>>>cannot support copy editing of files for a free archive
>>>>because editing is expensive and the costs cannot be
>>>>recovered.  Editing lies outside the expertise and mission
>>>>of the library, so the library cannot support it either.
>>>
>>>Then the solution is to find a way to recover the costs of copy editing,
>>>not to dispense with it.
>>
>>Why?  Many of us would rather read ASCII for free than to pay for a nice
>layout (e.g., two columns, varied fonts, etc.).
 
You're confusing copyediting and design.  I would not fuss too much about
having to read ASCII text if it were clear, concise, easy to follow, and at
least occasionally lively--all the qualities that good copyediting helps to
bring to an article.  I could read through one murky, wordy, awkward,
poorly organized article if I really had to; but if I needed to get through
a large collection, I'd start to feel pretty good about paying for
readability.
 
And let's not underestimate the importance of good design.  A "nice layout"
may sound like a mere luxury--until you have to sit in front of the
computer and read a few hundred K worth of plain ASCII text.  I'd like to
see publishers and libraries cooperate to find ways to make documents not
only accessible electronically, but easy on the brain and the eyes as well.
 
 
>>>>editors should
>>>>continue to request rewriting to improve useability.
>>>
>>>They can request it all they want; some authors are incapable of providing
>>>it.
>>
>>Perhaps the authors should pay for it then.
 
I'm all for that.
 
 
>>>How many bad articles are you willing to read just because
>>>they're free?
>>
>>Are they "bad articles" because they are not pleasingly displayed?  I think
>I missed your point here.
 
Bad because poorly written.  See?  I need to hire a copy editor just for my
postings to this list...
 
 
--Mike Boudreau
University of Illinois Press
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:13:36 EDT
Reply-To:     "Michael R. Boudreau" 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         "Michael R. Boudreau" 
Subject:      online document formatting
 
Judith Gresham writes:
 
>  I accepted a position to produce a newletter for a new organization,
>and found the newsletter was to be distributed soley through e-mail.  The
>mix of services used by the members precludes attaching files to some.
>This means the newletter must be pure ASCII and self-contained within the
>e-mail message.  I find I have to rethink my presentation.
>  While one would think that scholarly journals are content-oriented and
>not subject to the above problems, one must remember that tables of data
>are included that extend beyond an 80-column limitation.  Some may
>include illustrations.  I have found some on-line documents that merely
>delete the tables.
>  Unfortunately, one must plan for the lowest common denominator and/or
>devise alternative delivery systems for tables and illustrations.
 
Are you familiar with Adobe Acrobat software?  In brief, this allows you to
create a fully formatted document which is saved as a 7-bit ASCII file (and
hence transferable via email) and which can be viewed and printed by anyone
who has the viewing application, even though they don't have the
originating application (or the original fonts).
 
I've been testing the software on books and journals we produce, and I
wonder if anyone has any experience actually distributing Acrobat files.
 
--Mike Boudreau
University of Illinois Press
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:14:04 EDT
Reply-To:     "J. KENNEDY" 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         "J. KENNEDY" 
Subject:      Electronic publication
 
 
Text item: Text_1
 
     I have a project to electronically publish a book that the WHO
     currently publishes in hard copy.  The publication contains
     information that is stored in a database.  In years past, the
     information within the database has been exported into a document
     processor and the book has been crafted from this "exported" data.
 
     Now, we would like to electronically produce this publication.  What
     this means specifically, is that we would like to marry a database
     search engine with a text display package (perhaps like what is
     currently available with CD-based encyclopedias, etc.)  However,
     unlike a encyclopedia, where the search engine searches amoungst the
     text of the document, we want the search engine to search the database
     files.  Results of the user queries would be presented in a menu or
     roster format.  The user could then choose an item from the list and
     display the associated text page.
 
     Questions:
 
     Are there any pre-written packages that accomplish this task?
 
     If so, what are they?
 
     Initially, this document would be distributed on diskettes, though
     there should be no barrier to eventually distributing on CD-ROM or
     even on the WWW.  Are there any front-ends that work across these
     platforms?
 
     All replies gratefully appreciated.
 
     Thanks,
 
     John Kennedy
     World Health Organization
     Geneva, Switzerland.
     kennedyj@who.ch
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 2 Aug 1994 08:15:54 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Electronic Editorial Office Costs
 
Three responses to Andrew Odlyzko's Questionnaire about Electronic
Editorial Costs follow below. -- S.H.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:   Fri, 29 Jul 94 08:34:56 EDT
From: Janet Fisher 
Subject:  Editorial Costs
To: Andrew Odlyzko 
Cc: Stevan Harnad 
 
Thanks for sending me a copy of your questions about editorial
payments. I agree with Stevan's description of the process that an
editor (and support staff) go through to review papers. Yes, it is
common for publishers to pay a portion or all of the expenses of the
editorial office. In the humanities this is less the case, but it
varies tremendously depending on the editor, the editor's institution,
and the competition for the journal. When publishers compete for a
journal, this is where the deal can either be made or broken. These
costs have increased dramatically for a large percentage of our
journals in the last five years due to tightening funds at
universities. We now have editors wanting us to buy them computer
equipment and software, editorial tracking packages, etc.
 
In addition to editorial office support, some editors do indeed receive
royalties (in our case, usually after the journal has reached a
break-even position and the Press has recovered its initial deficits).
Or the bottom line can be split with the editor and/or the editor's
institution (if they own the journal). Also, we usually return 50% of
subsidiary rights income to the editorial office. Patricia Scarry (U of
Chicago Press) and Jill O'Neill (Elsevier) gave a presentation on
editorial office costs at the last Charleston Conference. You could
contact them for copies of their presentations: Patricia at phone
312-702-7359; Jill at phone 212-633-3754.
 
I would be happy to provide more detailed numbers -- with the journal
identities hidden, of course -- and percentages of total costs, if you
wish. But I probably cannot do this before the end of August because of
previous commitments and a 10-day trip coming up. Let me know what you
would like and I'll see what I can do. We have a diverse list of
journals in disciplines from humanities to social sciences to computer
and cognitive science, and an extremely wide range of financial
arrangements.
 
The other point I would make is that most journal editors accept
between 25% and 35% of the papers actually received. Possibly 10% are
rejected outright, but the rest of the rejected do go through the
review process and possibly through a revision stage also. These take
up the time of the editor and the editor's staff also, and this time
has to be paid for too. Only in a very few fields (like economics)
are submission charges common.
 
    Note from S.H.: The acceptance rate varies greatly from discipline
    to discipline. The acceptance rate in physics and mathematics is
    more like 75-80% and author page charges are less uncommon there.
 
    CICCHETTI DV. THE RELIABILITY OF PEER REVIEW FOR MANUSCRIPT AND
    GRANT SUBMISSIONS - A CROSS-DISCIPLINARY INVESTIGATION. BEHAVIORAL
    AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 1991 MAR, V14 N1:119-134.
 
    HARGENS LL. VARIATION IN JOURNAL PEER REVIEW SYSTEMS - POSSIBLE
    CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
    ASSOCIATION, 1990 MAR 9, V263 N10:1348-1352.
 
    ROBERTS J.  NSF RETHINKS ITS PROPOSAL TO REVISE PAGE-CHARGE RULES.
    NATURE, 1993 MAR 4, V362 N6415:7-7.
 
    CHANGE - TO VOLUNTARY PAGE CHARGES.  IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
    RELIABILITY, 1992 SEP, V41 N3:327-327.
 
Most of our editors have at least a half-time assistant to handle the
clerical parts of the editorial tasks (acknowledging manuscripts,
contacting potential reviewers, sending manuscripts out for review,
dogging reviewers, writing authors, etc.), and if the assistant is a
"managing editor type" and also does copyediting, this is more likely a
full-time position. These costs can be anywhere from $12,000 to $30,000
per year just for that staff position.(Not including equipment, phone,
fax, postage, office space, university overhead [yes, really!] that
universities often try to recuperate.)
 
Editorial board members are usually not paid, but this doesn't mean
that Editors are not. A few of our journals given token payments to
Associate Editors (the usually three top people under the editor) but
not to editorial board members. The fact that you have been a member of
the editorial board of 18 journals and never been paid is consistent
with our experience. But you cannot conclude from that fact that
editors are not paid and editorial offices are not paid for by the
journal or publisher.
 
I would also argue that there will still be some "typesetting" cost
with electronic journals. I do not believe that authors -- even in the
most highly sophisticated fields -- will ever do all the formatting
required to take manuscripts directly without some intervention.
"Typesetting" will really become formatting, I guess, but there are
costs associated with this. We should know more about what these are
once _Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science_ begins
publication.
 
I guess that's all for now. Let me know what editorial costs you are
interested in and if you have questions -- or disagree- ments -- over
anything in this message.
 
JANET H. FISHER    PHONE (617) 253-2864
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR JOURNALS PUBLISHING
MIT PRESS, 55 HAYWARD STREET, CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142
FISHER@MITVMA.MIT.EDU  FAX (617) 258-6779
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date:     Tue, 26 Jul 94 12:51:25 EDT
From: VMONTY@VM2.YorkU.CA (Vivienne Monty)
 
Hi: I shall look for harder data but in Library Science and History,
two fields that I am familiar with, I have never known a scholar/editor
to be directly paid. It is mostly in terms of release time or such
renumeration that I have known. Even these release time arrangements
are hard to get now in Canada at least.
 
Often the scholar/editor however has a "bureaucracy" to call on at the
Association sponsoring the journal or the publisher who take care of
the day to day administrative operations. The key word is often and NOT
always however.
 
As stated earlier in your discussions, the world of academe "sponsor"
academic publishing to a large degree through the granting release
time, research leaves and the personal time of scholars. Universities
have a tremendous Dollar value investment in editorships, writing etc
whether some realize it or not. And some count such time as zero.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 13:02 CDT
From: Jack P Hailman 
Subject: Re: Odlyzko Editorial Survey
 
Things might be changing on the subject of paid editorships, at least my
own views have changed.  I served as editor of Animal Behaviour for
three years (or was it five?), and never again would I devote that much
of my life uncompensated.  I wonder if other former editors of major
international journals feel the same way?
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:44:27 EDT
Reply-To:     Samuel Richter 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Samuel Richter 
Subject:      Re: online document formatting
 
>>Judith Gresham writes:
>>
>>>  I accepted a position to produce a newletter for a new organization,
>>>and found the newsletter was to be distributed soley through e-mail.  The
>>>mix of services used by the members precludes attaching files to some.
>>>This means the newletter must be pure ASCII and self-contained within the
>>>e-mail message.  I find I have to rethink my presentation.
>>>  While one would think that scholarly journals are content-oriented and
>>>not subject to the above problems, one must remember that tables of data
>>>are included that extend beyond an 80-column limitation.  Some may
>>>include illustrations.  I have found some on-line documents that merely
>>>delete the tables.
>>>  Unfortunately, one must plan for the lowest common denominator and/or
>>>devise alternative delivery systems for tables and illustrations.
 
There is also the MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) standard
which some mailers support.  Some people often think it means Multimedia
Internet Mail Extension, but that's understandable since it allows you
to send almost any kind of data through the mail, including audio and
video.  What this means is, you can use the existing software you have
to create figures, tables, etc and embed them in a MIME message.
See RFC (Request For Comment) #1341 (available by ftp from ftp.uu.net under
/pub/rfc, I think) for the MIME specification.  As far as mailer programs go,
I think PINE is MIME-compliant (and free).
 
 
>>Are you familiar with Adobe Acrobat software?  In brief, this allows you to
>>create a fully formatted document which is saved as a 7-bit ASCII file (and
>>hence transferable via email) and which can be viewed and printed by anyone
>>who has the viewing application, even though they don't have the
>>originating application (or the original fonts).
>>
>>I've been testing the software on books and journals we produce, and I
>>wonder if anyone has any experience actually distributing Acrobat files.
>>
>>--Mike Boudreau
>>University of Illinois Press
>>
 
I have currently finished a prototype on-line journal delivery system
using Mosaic and WAIS and all I can say is thank God for Acrobat.
We typeset journals and each journal article is a postscript file usually
about 2-3+ megabytes in size.  After distilling, we get a PDF file
of about 150-300k -- the size of a medium-large bitmap.  I don't think
electronic distribution of PostScript files would be capable without it.
 
 
Sa///xr
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:46:14 EDT
Reply-To:     "Dieke van Wijnen (Tel 078 334 264)" 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         "Dieke van Wijnen (Tel 078 334 264)" 
Subject:      Re: online document formatting
In-Reply-To:  <"4532 Tue Aug 2 14:20:49 1994"@relay.surfnet.nl>
 
Dear Mr. Boudreau,
 
In response to your question re: distribution of Acrobat files, the CAJUN
project (John Wiley & Sons and the Dept. of Computer Science at the
University of Nottingham (Professor David Brailsford)) is doing this with
the journal Electronic Publishing, Dissemintaion and Design.
For info: circus@cs.nott.ac.uk
 
Dieke van Wijnen
Wolters Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands
 
 
> Are you familiar with Adobe Acrobat software?  In brief, this allows you to
> create a fully formatted document which is saved as a 7-bit ASCII file (and
> hence transferable via email) and which can be viewed and printed by anyone
> who has the viewing application, even though they don't have the
> originating application (or the original fonts).
>
> I've been testing the software on books and journals we produce, and I
> wonder if anyone has any experience actually distributing Acrobat files.
>
> --Mike Boudreau
> University of Illinois Press
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:48:13 EDT
Reply-To:     RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu
Subject:      (Forwarded) Re: VT Model
 
Forwarded message:
From:     Self 
To:       "Michael R. Boudreau" 
Subject:  Re: VT Model
Date:     1 Aug 94 23:58:14
 
Hey folks:  you talk about nice layout etc in a mess like this:
 
---------inserted clip
 
>>>
>>>Then the solution is to find a way to recover the costs of copy
editing,
>>>not to dispense with it.
>>
>>Why?  Many of us would rather read ASCII for free than to pay for a
nice
>layout (e.g., two columns, varied fonts, etc.).
 
You're confusing copyediting and design.  I would not fuss too much
about
having to read ASCII text if it were clear, concise, easy to follow,
and at
least occasionally lively--all the qualities that good copyediting
helps to
bring to an article.  I could read through one murky, wordy, awkward,
poorly organized article if I really had to; but if I needed to get
through
a large collection, I'd start to feel pretty good about paying for
readability.
 
And let's not underestimate the importance of good design.  A "nice
layout"
may sound like a mere luxury--until you have to sit in front of the
computer and read a few hundred K worth of plain ASCII text.  I'd
like to
see publishers and libraries cooperate to find ways to make documents
not
only accessible electronically, but easy on the brain and the eyes as
well.
 
 
>>>>editors should
>>>>continue to request rewriting to improve useability.
>>>
>>>They can request it all they want; some authors are incapable of
providing
>>>it.
>>
 
-----------end of inserted clip
 
Who can figure out who said >> and who said >>>>.  Good grief!!!
 
;-(
 
Bill Russell :-)
internet:  russellb@ext23.oes.orst.edu
vox: 503-347-3683   fax:  503-347-6303
snail mail:     775 Tenth St. S.E.
                Bandon, OR 97411-9108
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:49:05 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Re: Electronic Editorial Office Costs
 
From: amo@research.att.com (Andrew Odlyzko)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 06:07 EDT
 
> I cannot speak about physics with any confidence, but the acceptance
> rate for a typical journal in mathematics is usually considerably
> lower than 75-80%.  Judging from my own experience in serving on
> a variety of editorial boards, I would estimate that rate is perhaps
> around 50%.  The rate of acceptance to all the journals in mathematics
> is higher, and might easily approach 75%.  If a paper is rejected
> because of a serious mistake, or else because the results had been
> published previously, then that usually ends the matter.  However,
> when a paper is rejected because of the much more subjective judgement
> that it is not of sufficient quality, the author typically submits
> it to another journal.
 
It would be extremely useful to get exact figures across disciplines.
Apart from the social science acceptance rates (25%) cited by Janet
Fisher and the physical science rates (75% in physics, perhaps 50% in
math), there are the biomedical sciences (low acceptance rates), the
humanities (probably varied), and interdisciplinary journals (Science,
Nature, etc.) with very low rates. And the acceptance rates probably
rise as one descends in the prestige hierarchy (except where
self-selection keeps submissions to prestigous journals at a high level
of likely acceptability, as in the top physics journals). All these
data would be useful to have. The articles I cited (Cichetti, Hargens)
report some of it.
 
> In evaluating the costs of running a journal, it is the 50% acceptance
> rate that is the significant one, not the 75% rate.  The work involved
> in handling a rejected manuscript is usually comparable to that of an
> accepted one.
 
I agree completely. And another figure that needs to be calculated
field by field is the ULTIMATE (cross-journal) acceptance rate: It is
my belief that in one form or other, just about EVERYTHING gets
published eventually, if the author is persistent enough, even if it's
in the unrefereed vanity press. Having approximately the same
manuscript refereed repeatedly for different journals is a drain on
resources, but I'm not sure how to get around it: the prestige
hierarchy is based in part on (intellectual) competition.
 
> The other remark is that page charges have essentially disappeared
> in mathematics.  They have been bringing in less and less revenue,
> and the American Matehmatical Society, for one, has eliminated them
> completely.
 
This has to be re-thought. Page charges made little sense in paper
publication, since the publisher needed to take copyright and charge
subscribers anyway. Author page charges were usually just a voluntary
supplement, sometimes offered as a way of speeding publication. But in
the electronic medium, where total page costs would be so much lower
(75% lower) and reader access would be so rapid, global and free, it
should be re-thought whether it would not in fact be to EVERYONE's
benefit (especially the author's) if the requisite advance subsidy to
cover the FULL minimal costs per electronic "page" came from a
combination of learned society, university, library, and
author-publication-grant sources.
 
Stevan Harnad
Editor, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, PSYCOLOQUY
 
Cognitive Science Laboratory
Princeton University
221 Nassau Street
Princeton NJ 08544-2093
harnad@princeton.edu
609-921-7771
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:49:29 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Acceptance Rates
 
From: Ann Okerson 
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 12:19:03 -0400 (EDT)
 
Rates of Acceptance:
 
There is not a great deal of real data published about this particular
question.  There are a lot of general, informal speculations and
assertions.  The acceptance rates for individual journals are certainly
*not* the same as the overall acceptance rates across *all* journals in
a field.
 
According to a presentation I heard a couple of years ago from the
Editor of the PMLA, a major journal in the modern languages area
published by the Modern Languages Association, the rejection rate for
PMLA is in the low 90% range.  The journal is relatively small, highly
prestigious, and has not grown commensurately in physical size with the
growth in the size of the literature of the field.  The editorial board
works diligently to select the small proportion of submitted articles
that can be published, but the Editor-in-Chief affirmed that "much" of
the work that is rejected is of high calibre, and "the great majority"
of it ends up published elsewhere, often in more specialized journals.
He presented no data beyond that.
 
According to figures from Louis Addis, formerly Librarian at the
Stanford Linear Accelerator, slightly over 70% of the high energy
physics preprints that are accessible via SLAC's major database of same,
are eventually published somewhere in the print physics literature.
That is, the finished products are recognizably close to the original
preprint and thus the librarians can indicate with the preprint record
that the work has appeared in Journal XYZ with a standard citation to it
in its "finished" form.
 
In attendance at many, many meetings of societies, publishers, and
libraries on the topic of scholarly journals and communication, I have
heard many generalizations about the rejection and acceptance rates
in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities.  Yet in each of these
broad areas, the range of acceptance/rejection across journals must
be very, very great, for the "averages" rarely resemble the specific
data quoted for any individual title, such as the PMLA.
 
Absent real data, this suggests that one should be careful of making
generalizations.  What does seem true is that a great majority of work
is eventually published somewhere.  In high energy physics, we know it's
close to at least 3/4 of all submissions.  I've always thought that
passing an article through two or three or more editor's or publisher's
hands wastes some of the time of the system overall.  (Note that this
competitive process is also the way that book submissions, particularly
in the trade market, work and the mechanism by which work is rewritten,
revised, and improved.) I hope, possibly naively, that some of the
current duplication of editorial and reviewing effort can be reduced as
the process of scholarly communication is more and more electronically
supported.
 
Ann Okerson/ARL
ann@cni.org
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 3 Aug 1994 10:52:53 EDT
Reply-To:     James Powell 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         James Powell 
Subject:      Pardon the interruption...
 
Just a housekeeping note:
I have received several angry messages recently from individuals who have for
various reasons lost control of their subscription to VPIEJ-L and feel that I
am not speedy enough in fixing their problem.  I feel it is time to once again
remind everyone that it is your responsibility to keep track of the lists you
subscribe to, their specific commands, and what userid you used to subscribe
to a particular list.  If you know your userid is about to change, unsubscribe
from all listserv lists under the old userid and resubscribe under the new
id.  I maintain this list in my SPARE time, as often as not from home in the
evenings and I prioritize requests.  Requests to fix userid problems are at
the bottom of my list.  Moderating the list is top priority.  So please, please
keep a list of your subscriptions and a copy of the welcome message sent by
listserv.
Thanks.
 
James Powell ... Library Automation, University Libraries, VPI&SU
1-4986       ... JPOWELL@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
             ... jpowell@borg.lib.vt.edu - NeXTMail welcome here
             ... Owner of VPIEJ-L, a discussion list for Electronic Journals
Archives: http://borg.lib.vt.edu:80/   gopher://oldborg.lib.vt.edu:70/
          file://borg.lib.vt.edu/~ftp
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Aug 1994 08:15:17 EDT
Reply-To:     mark@csc.albany.edu
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         mark@csc.albany.edu
Subject:      VT model
 
I wonder about the efficacy of using a print journal to distribute
summaries.
 
It would be much better to have summaries in a WWW archive, so they can
be linked with the complete text.
 
In fact, it would be even better to have an archive consisting of
abstracts/summaries from _different_ electronic journals. They could
be catalogued by subject matter, as is done for reviews by Math Reviews.
 
People could browse the abstracts in their areas of interest and
immediately get any articles they find valuable.
 
The summaries could also be linked to reviews as they became available.
 
 
As far as the complete texts are concerned, they would be considerably
more useful, I think, if they were word processed according to style
designs common to all papers from a particular journal. These papers
will be around for a considerable length of time, and should be dressed
up in an appealing manner.
 
In fields where there is no consensus on word processing technology,
postscript versions could be provided.
 
For people with graphical interfaces, postscript and some other processed
media can be browsed on line. For others, they can be fetched and printed.
If there is a perceived need in a given field, ascii versions could be
provided for browsing via non-graphical connections. Nevertheless, a processed
version should be available for printing.
 
At the New York Journal of Mathematics, we provide papers in .dvi format,
as this format has become the standard one in mathematics. Generated by
TeX, the documents are made via custom style files which encode the
typesetting design. This permits our journal to provide quality
control for the typesetting of our papers at relatively low overhead.
 
Presumably, similar design specifications can be standardized in other
word processing systems.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mark Steinberger
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Steinberger       | Editor in Chief, New York Journal of Mathematics
Dept. of Math. & Stat  |
SUNY at Albany         |   http://nyjm.albany.edu:8000/nyjm.html
Albany, NY 12222       |   gopher nyjm.albany.edu 1070
mark@sarah.albany.edu  |   ftp to nyjm.albany.edu in /pub/nyjm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 5 Aug 1994 08:17:47 EDT
Reply-To:     Barry Kapke 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Barry Kapke 
Organization: DharmaNet International
Subject:      GASSHO: Call for Submissions
 
 
                             CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
 
  GASSHO, an international Buddhist electronic journal, is soliciting
  submissions for future issues.
 
  Issue                   Topic                             Deadline
  ~~~~~                   ~~~~~                             ~~~~~~~~
  September/October       Health & Healing                  August 18
  November/December       Human Rights, Buddhist Values     October 18
  January/February        Dana                              December 16
  March/April             Teaching Dharma                   February 15
  May/June                Children & Family                 April 16
 
  Academic papers intended for refereed consideration should be notated as
  such. 1-2 refereed articles will be accepted for each issue of GASSHO and
  2-3 non-refereed articles will be accepted for each issue. Book reviews,
  or reviews of events, are also being solicited.
 
  Please submit complete articles or abstracts as soon as possible. Send
  your ideas or submissions to: Barry Kapke, Editor, GASSHO, PO Box 4951,
  Berkeley CA 94704-4951, or e-mail to dharma@netcom.com. Electronic
  submissions are preferred to hardcopy.
 
  Sample copies of GASSHO may be retrieved via anonymous ftp at
  ftp.netcom.com in the subdirectory /pub/dharma/Gassho/ as well as by
  gopher or ftp to etext.archive.umich.edu or coombs.anu.edu.au
 
--
Barry Kapke, Director   |    "All that we are    | INTERNET: dharma@netcom.com
DharmaNet International |    is the result of    | WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/
P.O. Box 4951           | what we have thought." |   pub/dharma/defa-home.html
Berkeley, CA 94704-4951 |        (BUDDHA)        | DIAL-UP BBS: (510) 836-4717
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Aug 1994 08:36:58 EDT
Reply-To:     "Todd A. Jacobs" 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         "Todd A. Jacobs" 
Organization: Jacobs Publishing, LTD
Subject:      ADP Supports Writers
 
ASSOCIATION OF DIGITAL PUBLISHERS
6052 Wilmington Pike #161
Dayton, Ohio  45459-7006
 
                         ADP Supports Authors
 
               Membership Offers Protection to Writers
 
 
For Immediate Release
Friday, August 05, 1994
 
Contact: Todd A. Jacobs
         Association of Digital Publishers
         202-388-9742
 
Dayton, Ohio--A little-known provision of the Association of Digital
Publishers Quality Assurance Criteria came under scrutiny this week by
the Board of Directors.  The Criteria are standards which all ADP
members are required to follow as a condition of membership.  The
provision in question discusses contractual obligations.
 
     One of the main concerns of authors and their agents remains the
book publishing contract.  In many cases, traditional publishing
contracts are not designed to accommodate electronic publishing.  As a
result, many authors are unsure whether they are safe in accepting
electronic publishing contracts.  The Board met to determine whether
its charter allowed it to intercede on an author's behalf to ensure
fair treatment.
 
     The Board of Directors examined all relevent guidelines, and
concluded that it is within its purview to hear grievances filed by
authors against member publishers. "You don't have to be a member to
file a grievance.  We feel that offering certain mediation and
arbitration services is in the public interest," said ADP Chairman
Todd Jacobs. "However, we also offer educational services to our
publishers and member writers which we hope will obviate the
necessity."
 
     The assurance that the ADP will assist authors in receiving fair
treatment from member publishers is an encouraging sign to writers
interested in electronic publishing.  The author is the very heart of
the publishing industry, and the ADP is continually taking pro-active
steps to make electronic publishing an attractive alternative for the
contemporary writer.
 
                        #         #         #
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 8 Aug 1994 08:37:20 EDT
Reply-To:     David Farmer 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         David Farmer 
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Subject:      Re: ADP Supports Writers
 
In article <31tgre$3l7@clarknet.clark.net> tjacobs@clark.net (Todd A. Jacobs)
writes:
>
>                         ADP Supports Authors
>
>               Membership Offers Protection to Writers
>
>Publishers Quality Assurance Criteria came under scrutiny this week by
>the Board of Directors.
 
Who are the members of this ``Board of Directors'' and what are
their credentials?
 
It would be unfortunate if your failure to provide this basic
information resulted in people thinking there is something fishy
about your organization.
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 9 Aug 1994 08:37:01 EDT
Reply-To:     calvin@savvy.com
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         calvin@savvy.com
Organization: United States Information Corp.
Subject:      Freebies & Giveaways
 
Just Located the Internet Financial Services Mall.
Very interesting.   Freebees & Giveaways.  :-)
 
Gopher to 'financial.savvy.com'
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:57:13 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      On Trade vs. Esoteric Publication
 
   The following remarks by Bernard Naylor, Director, University of
   Southampton Library, are followed by comments from Stevan Harnad.
 
The Full discussion is archived in two files in:
ftp://princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/Subversive.Proposal
filenames:     archive.NOW
               who.payspiper
Other URLs:
gopher://gopher.princeton.edu/1ftp%3aprinceton.edu%40/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/
http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/DataSources/bySubject/Psychology/Psycoloquy.html
http://louis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/psycoloquy
http://192.190.21.10/wic/psych.03.html
 
>From: "B.Naylor" 
>Date: Thu, 4 Aug 94 17:38:16 BST
 
        A SMALL CONTRIBUTION TO THE SUBVERSIVE DISCUSSION
 
                Bernard Naylor
 
        Director, University of Southampton Library
 
1. Having quite a large department to run, I've only been able to keep
one ear so far on the progress of your interesting discussions. I'm now
snatching a few moments to make a comment or two which I hope you will
find constructive.
 
2.1 The model which divides scholarly communication into
"trade-scholarly" and "esoteric" is conceptually tidy, but I'm not
convinced it takes full account of the actual state of affairs. While we
are locked (for the time being) into the commercial and paper mode, I
believe that journal articles can actually be described as lying at
different places on a long and seamless spectrum rather than falling
neatly into two groups. Often, the actual place where a journal is
located on the spectrum is hard to define, and it may change with time
as an article becomes hot or loses heat. Hence we have to imagine that
there will be confusion in an indeterminate, but probably large,
central area of the spectrum if the model to which you are working is
to emerge. This will be while "journals" (or, more precisely, the
communications they contain) follow through the process of being
assigned to one of the two groups. And even then, any given article may
show a tendency to migrate from the group to which it has become
assigned.
 
2.2 The journals of highest prestige (which are most often the ones with the
fewest apprehensions about the present financial situation for
journals) will continue to be the magnets for people who think their
work is of the highest quality and deserves the widest scholarly
attention. Hence, the division of scholarly communication into two sets
is likely to be seen as having connotations about quality of content.
(I.e. "publish trade-scholarly" equals higher quality and relevance.
"Publish esoterically" equals lower quality and relevance.)
 
2.3 Scholars here are already under heavy pressure from their
departments to publish in highly-rated outlets and I cannot see that
pressure easily letting up. It can have very serious financial
consequences in the UK for a department if its members don't achieve
that, because the process of awarding them money on account of their
research makes that an important criterion. I cannot imagine any
scholar readily saying to his/her head of department: "Actually, my
work is of relatively low scholarly quality and relevance so I do not
propose to try to get it published in any of the journals which our
profession ranks highest" - even though, in practice, that may be where
it will end up.
 
2.4 Money is also relevant here. I doubt whether a discussion about the
altruism of the members of academe would get us very far. I just think
that any scholar who observes that he could get some money for
something he publishes as well as transmitting his ideas is quite
likely to be attracted by that possibility. The attraction of that will
become even stronger if he perceives someone else (e.g. an information
broker) making money out of something he (the scholar) has made
available free. It could be argued that the activities of the
information broker should be stopped, but I think that would break down
because for some people information brokers provide a very useful
service, enabling them to use their own time in other, more productive
ways.
 
2.5 I therefore think that the possibility I raise in my "Future of the
Journal" paper, namely that the electronic (and esoteric) sector could
feature for some time as the sink for the material of lesser quality,
could quite likely emerge.
 
3.1 I've found the debate about where the costs of publication really
lie very interesting. It may turn out to be true that the "ordinary"
publishers are exaggerating the costs which the network will not
substitute, by a factor of about three (their "over 70 per cent", as
against your "less than 25 per cent"). If it does, I shall be a bit
surprised since most of them depend, for earning their living, on being
more or less right about that kind of thing.
 
3.2 I think one reason for their caution about electronic substitution
is because they find speculation about alternative cost-recovery models
very complex and difficult. But one of the two main purposes of
substitution is to address a perceived economic problem - the other
being to introduce one further industry to the IT revolution. The road
from yesterday contains enough litter from high-tech disaster projects
to suggest some caution, at least, on the economic/costing front.
Remember; the conclusions reached are for testing in settings where red
faces are the least of the penalties for being proved wrong.
 
4.1 On the question of technology, I am reasonably confident that I
have not come across any technological problems which I don't think can
be solved. There are still important questions as to: how soon? and by
whom? and at what cost? At present, the "information superhighway"
itself does not exist internationally in a form which could cope with
the information traffic currently carried (not very efficiently) by
print on paper (the "fat pipe" under the Atlantic at 1.5 Mbps is surely
hopelessly inadequate?) and the other problems I referred to in my
paper are also with us and have to be resolved if an electronic
solution is to operate satisfactorily. Print on paper is currently
carrying a colossal amount of information into all sorts of unlikely
academic places.
 
4.2 An important additional consideration on this point, in my view, is
what I might call "the mental preparation of the sector". The academic
sector, in my view, has been right to point to the serious mistakes
made in some industries where technological advance has been implanted
without adequate preparation of the work force, in the form of
reorientation of work processes and training of working people. We are
now seriously contemplating the most dramatic change in the working
habits of scholars for some centuries, but I look in vain for
convincing signs that our sector appreciates this and is collectively
bending its mind to preparing for the consequences. There is far too
much "Throw the technology at them and they'll get on with it". A
change of this magnitude is going to cause confusion and muddle anyway
for a time, but we ought to be doing far more to minimise that. Our
present approach, in my view, is asking for trouble. One of the biggest
drags on the introduction of advanced technology solutions lies in the
attitude of the people for whom we consider them to be intended. It's
crucial that a much better effort is directed to changing that. When I
had to cancel some physics journals a few months ago, our physicists
gave me the impression that I was bringing the roof down on their
department, and Paul Ginsparg wasn't mentioned once in their
remonstrations - though I've no doubt they're well aware of what he's
doing.
 
4.3 I recently asked a group of about twenty chief university
librarians (that is, about 20 per cent of the total UK cohort) "by what
date do you expect your present number of current subscriptions to
print-on-paper journals will have been reduced by 80 per cent". The
extremes were "1995" and "2050" with 2010 by far the favourite
prediction (2010 was mine as well - honestly). (I said I thought that
might be a way, for some of them, of saying "after I've retired".)
There is some belief out there that the present system will collapse
and change suddenly quite soon but it's not very widespread - though it
may be right. Otherwise, it implies that Southampton University Library
must shed 300 print journals every year from now till 2010. At present,
that does not look very likely and this means the process will have to
accelerate substantially (and I expect it will) later in the period.
 
4.4 Rereading some of what you and Andrew have written makes me wonder
whether we are really that far apart. My job is to cope with today's
reality (which is largely, like it or not, both papyrocentric and
commercial) and try to anticipate the next few years' (say, five or at
most ten) changes reasonably intelligently. You and Andrew appear to be
speculating about a revolution which I am satisfied will come - though
I seriously doubt your present economic assumptions - and I sometimes
get the impression that Andrew might not disagree strongly with my
speculation and the speculation of my librarian colleagues as to the
time scale. I'm less sure, Stevan, about your views as to likely time
scales.
 
5.1 One of the points I'm trying to underline in pointing out that
journal publishing is an industry is that it will not sit quietly by
and let itself be subverted. We must assume that, if a concerted plan
emerges to cut major traditional publishers out from the knowledge
communication business, they will fight very strongly for their "share
of the action". Commercial publishers will have revenue streams to
defend, not least in the interest of the people they employ and of
their shareholders, and even learned societies and academic presses
could face massive upheaval if revenue-earning titles (which are also
circulated gratis to some as a privilege of membership) appear to be in
danger of complete substitution, and they will fight to prevent that.
 
5.2 One of the main points that publishers are likely to raise in this
country, and probably in Western Europe generally, will be to question
(to put it no more strongly) the propriety of academic institutions
using public money (all UK universities bar one very small one are
funded by the taxpayer) in order to drive a viable industry (as they
see it) to the wall. Perhaps the government will be happy to see the
publishers as resembling the toll bridge owners of past centuries whose
bizarre privileges were bought out or set aside with the growth of the
road network. But the mood in the UK, even among universities
themselves, is to press for more and more activities to go down the
"charging" road. Our government believes passionately in markets - I
think it claims it got its predilection for them from the United
States! - and I can see it saying: "You must allow commercial academic
publishers onto the academic superhighway on terms which allow them to
compete fairly for the survival of their role". I don't think this
necessarily means that it should always be carried out in the same way
as now - but they must be given a reasonable chance to adapt. I'm
genuinely surprised that you appear to think that it will be
politically acceptable in the United States to make most scholarly
information a non-tradeable commodity. I don't think it will be here.
 
6. Maybe these few remarks have irrevocably confirmed my typecast for
you! They are among the reasons why I think evolution is a better mode
than revolution and why I think that the economic problems which
libraries and others face in the scholarly communication field are
unlikely to be resolved by an agreement that it should all be for free
in an electronic setting.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments by S. Harnad:
 
> 2.1 The model which divides scholarly communication into
> "trade-scholarly" and "esoteric" is conceptually tidy, but I'm not
> convinced it takes full acount of the actual state of affairs... I
> believe that journal articles can actually be described as lying at
> different places on a long and seamless spectrum rather than falling
> neatly into two groups... there will be confusion in an indeterminate,
> but probably large, central area of the spectrum...
 
There is indeed a continuum from trade (scholarly) publishing to
esoteric (scholarly) publishing, but the lion's share of the kind of
periodical publication that I and most publishing scholars and
scientists are concerned with falls quite safely within the
unequivocally esoteric region of that continuum. The gray area is not
at issue, nor is it an issue.
 
At the root of our disagreement is your identification of the factors
you apparently think determine a journal's place in the continuum. You
think they have to do with the prestige of the journal, whereas I think
they are much bigger factors than that, and that they eclipse the
relatively trivial differences between high and low prestige esoteric
journals (they're ALL esoteric, compared to journals whose individual
articles actually have a nontrivial readership size). More below.
 
> 2.2 The journals of highest prestige (which are most often the ones with
> the fewest apprehensions about the present financial situation for
> journals) will continue to be the magnets for people who think their
> work is of the highest quality and deserves the widest scholarly
> attention. Hence, the division of scholarly communication into two sets
> is likely to be seen as having connotations about quality of content.
> (I.e. "publish trade-scholarly" equals higher quality and relevance.
> "Publish esoterically" equals lower quality and relevance.)
 
Here is the root of our disagreement. Of course the highest prestige
journals are the ones with the fewest financial worries (because they
are the last ones likely to be cut from library budgets), and, by
definition, they are also the ones that authors and readers value the
most highly. But this has NOTHING to do with the trade/esoteric
continuum! The high prestige journals, like their lowlier cousins are
ALL esoteric if one takes the proper measure of esotericism. This
proper measure is NOT:
 
(1) how much a journal costs,
(2) how many libraries subscribe to the journal,
or
(3) how likely libraries are to drop the journal.
 
Nor is it:
 
(4) how eager authors are to publish in the journal,
or
(5) how heavily publications in the journal weigh with promotions
    committee.
 
It is not even:
 
(6) how much weight readers assign to articles in that journal,
(7) how many individual subscribers there are to that journal,
or even
(8) how many readers browse that journal.
 
We are closer, but not quite there yet, with:
 
(9) how many readers READ a particular article in that journal
 
and even closer with
 
(10) how many readers CITE that article.
 
But even with the last two measures, the relevant comparison is not
between the more and less prestigious journals in a given field (it is
a foregone conclusion that prestige will correlate positively with (9)
and (10)). What one must look at is the average readership per article
in relation to the true cost of producing that article. An even more
dramatic way to depict it would be as the RATIO OF THE PER-PAGE
READERSHIP TO THE PER-PAGE COST. That ratio may differ a little if one
compares high- and low-prestige journals within a given field, to be
sure, but if one compares it with the ratio for pages that really DO
have a market -- either popular scientific and general intellectual
periodicals or the magazine market in general (with or without
adjusting for the contribution of advertising revenues, wherever they kick
in), then the true locus of most of scholarly/scientific publication
along the trade-esoteric continuum will, I suggest, become plainly and
unequivocally apparent. And once we scale up to this broader sample of
the continuum, the relatively trivial differences between high and low
prestige journals will be altogether eclipsed.
 
Let's be more specific. Though it's risky to resort to figures from
hearsay (and that is all I must confess I have so far), I am confident
enough in what I am about to point out that even if I am wrong by one or
two orders of magnitude, the upshot is the same: The average published
scientific article has fewer than 10 readers and no citers; I'll bet the
same is true for the average piece of scholarship in the humanities.
 
You aren't speaking of average work? Alright, let's move up to the top
end of the Gaussian distribution and consider just the top 5% of the
articles in a given field: How much higher do you think those figures
are likely to be for them? (And don't forget that this excludes 95% of
what is published, and is reckoned on a per-article, not a per-journal
basis: not even the most prestigious journals produce exclusively, or
primarily, winners.)
 
So what are the figures for a winner likely to be? Twenty readers, two
hundred, two thousand? Suppose it's two thousand. We all know that in
paper those rare articles that generate a huge demand are supplied
mostly in the form of preprints and reprints, because a journal
certainly cannot calibrate its print run by banking on occasional
individual articles. (Journals print issues and volumes, whereas
"citation classics" are relatively rare individual papers, exceptional
by definition.)
 
But citation classics and the best-sellers among the separata are not
what the economies of scholarly publishing are based on. Even if we
restrict ourselves to the single journal in each academic specialty that
is by consensus the most prestigious one, the per-page readership
ratios for most of its pages will be off-scale compared to the
periodical literature that actually has a market.
 
Why has this never come up before? Because no matter how absurd the
per-page ratios were in scholarly periodical publication, there was
nothing anyone could do about it (and they certainly weren't going to
give up the reporting and reading of scholarly research), because the
economies of paper were such that the only way to recover the true
costs of making the research available at all was by levying
reader-access charges. Yet of course it was never the (on average less
than 10) readers who actually paid the costs per page; it was the vast
infrastructure (mainly University libraries) that was set up to
SUBSIDIZE the minuscule demand there really was for any particular page
of this esoteric (sic, I now state without trepidation) corpus. The
nonreaders (all of us) subsidized the readers (each of us) of any
particular article.
 
Well that is simply no longer necessary; or, rather, the subsidy can
now be set up in a much more sensible way, matching the true demand
structure and the nature of the service provided by the publisher: not
by continuing to treat a no-market commodity as if it were a viable
trade item and benightedly trying to sell it to the vanishingly small
number of scholars who may ever want to see it, but by charging the
much lower true per-page costs of esoteric publication at the point
where it is the most sensible to charge them: At the point of access to
the peer community's eyes and minds. That much more modest per-page
cost will be the price of the service that esoteric publishers perform
for AUTHORS (and their institutions and research support agencies) in
making their work available to their fellow-specialists, globally, in
perpetuum, and, of course, for free. And we will all be the better off
for it.
 
> 2.3 Scholars here are already under heavy pressure from their
> departments to publish in highly-rated outlets and I cannot see that
> pressure easily letting up....  I cannot imagine any
> scholar readily saying to his/her head of department: "Actually, my
> work is of relatively low scholarly quality and relevance so I do not
> propose to try to get it published in any of the journals which our
> profession ranks highest" - even though, in practice, that may be where
> it will end up.
 
But this point is only pertinent if one accepts your assumption that
high-prestige journal = paper (= trade)
and
low-prestige journal = electronic (= esoteric)
whereas, as I have tried to argue, I think that assumption is
incorrect. Currently ALL journals, low prestige and high, are paper.
The trade/esoteric dichotomy, as I have tried to argue above, has
nothing to do with prestige. And it will continue to have nothing to do
with it as journals become electronic; prestige will continue to depend
on the rigor of the peer review and the quality of the authors and
submissions, not on the medium.
 
It is true that today's high-prestige paper journals are likely to be
the last to be cancelled by libraries for economic reasons, and it may
even be true that this irrelevant side-factor will affect the initial
conditions among electronic journals (the first new ones, and the first
ones to migrate, will not be the high-prestige ones), and that will of
course be regrettable, and will retard the inevitable, for reasons that
are NOT to scholarship's advantage. But that still has nothing to do
with the trade/esoteric continuum, and hence does not provide a
rational basis for drawing conclusions about the applicability and
appropriateness of the trade model to no-market papers, whether high
prestige or low.
 
> 2.4 Money is also relevant here. I doubt whether a discussion about the
> altruism of the members of academe would get us very far. I just think
> that any scholar who observes that he could get some money for
> something he publishes as well as transmitting his ideas is quite
> likely to be attracted by that possibility. The attraction of that will
> become even stronger if he perceives someone else (e.g. an information
> broker) making money out of something he (the scholar) has made
> available free. It could be argued that the activities of the
> information broker should be stopped, but I think that would break down
> because for some people information brokers provide a very useful
> service, enabling them to use their own time in other, more productive
> ways.
 
This passage is rather complicated, and again involves some assumptions
and contingencies that I think are erroneous: First, one of the marks
of the esotericity of most of scholarly and scientific periodical
publication is that the author does NOT make a penny from the sale of
his text, and does not, and never has expected to. (It is an instant
signal that one is in the trade rather than the esoteric region of the
continuum if this is not true, and the author expects and does receive
royalties for his pages. This happens in popular and general-audience
scholarly/scientific writing. OF COURSE most of us would jump at the
opportunity to make a few bucks from publishing our words, but how
often do we get a chance to do that?) Trade publishing is
medium-independent. When there is a potential paying readership, one
can and should charge, whether on paper or on the airwaves. It's just
that this contingency is absent in the region of the continuum I am
concerned with; no author is making money there on paper, and no author
will make money there on the Net either.
 
So whereas I agree that scholars are not altruists -- if there were
money for them to make from the sale of their words (and if this were
not too much at odd with their scholarly mission, if any) -- then they
would certainly be happy to collect it; but the fact is that for the
overwhelming majority of the scholarly/scientific corpus there IS no
money to be made from the sale of their words -- at least not money for
THEM (the author/scholars). Money is being made, to be sure, but it is
being made exclusively by the paper periodical publisher, not the
author.
 
Which brings me to the second (in my view incorrect) assumption: To
show why this assumption is incorrect, I must first re-introduce what I
have come to refer to as the "Faustian Bargain" that esoteric authors
have reluctantly entered into with paper publishers -- and let me
stress that in this metaphor it is PAPER that is the devil, not paper
publishers, for they too are victims of the tyranny of the true costs
and technology of that unfortunate medium. This bargain is ONLY
Faustian in the case of esoteric publication -- publication in which
the market for most papers is virtually zero, the author does not make
a penny, and his sole motivation is to reach the eyes and minds of his
peers and posterity with his findings. To have to treat that special
transaction on the same model as the quite normal and un-Faustian
bargain between a paper publisher and an author who makes his living by
selling his words is very close to absurd, yet for centuries there was
no choice: The only hope an esoteric author had of reaching his tiny
potential non-market of peers was to allow the publisher to charge for
access to his writing, even though he would not make a penny, because
that was the only way that the expenses and a fair return could be paid
for the true and sizeable per-page costs of the technology and
logistics of paper periodical production and distribution.
 
To repeat: The Faustian bargain was reluctantly accepted, despite
containing an essential internal conflict of interest (between the
esoteric author's desire to reach as many interested peers as possible
and the publisher's need to restrict access with a price-tag to defray
the substantial per-page costs and a fair return for his investment and
efforts), BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE.
 
So if the first incorrect assumption was that esoteric authors can and
do make money from selling their articles, the second one was that their
Faustian symbiotic relationship with the paper publisher would somehow
carry over to his "information broker" counterpart in the electronic
medium. But what are we imagining here? The true per-page costs (if my
estimate is right) are now down to less than a quarter of what they were
in paper, so there is no longer a Faustian dependence on a technology
whose sizeable costs need to be recovered by blocking access to esoteric
work that already has virtually no market; the author, his institution,
library, scholarly/scientific societies and research (publication)
grants can with a little perestroika EASILY collaborate to subsidize
his life-long published page quota as needed, thereby allowing access
to his work to be free for all (as it always should have been).
 
So who is this "information broker"? The editor of the electronic
journal and his editorial staff (their services are already reckoned as
making up most of the remaining < 25% per-page costs)? The (unpaid)
referees? The author's own word-processing budget? The
copy-editors/proof-readers (the rest of the < 25%)? Or the classifiers
and maintainers of the electronic archive (these are currently called
"librarians" and they do not normally get a cut from the sale of the
author's text in any case).
 
So what is it that the "information broker" is doing that allows the
author to get on with his scholarly life instead of being a jack of all
trades? In paper, this was clear: The author did not have to spend his
time printing, disseminating and archiving his work for all; the
publisher did it for him (but unfortunately had to charge admission in
exchange). Where is the counterpart of this in the electronic medium
that would warrant reincarnating the Faustian bargain yet again, now
that there is clearly no need for it?
 
> 2.5 I therefore think that the possibility I raise in my "Future of the
> Journal" paper, namely that the electronic (and esoteric) sector could
> feature for some time as the sink for the material of lesser quality,
> could quite likely emerge.
 
Even within the paper medium itself, new journals always have to
struggle initially to establish a niche (and many fail, or fail to
attain a high level of prestige). This is true in spades when it is not
just a new journal that is at issue, but a new medium. So the
prediction that the Net will carry material of lower quality than paper
initially is quite a safe one to make (I myself have described the Net
as a "Global Graffiti Board for Trivial Pursuit" till not that long
ago), but this has nothing at all to do either with esotericity or the
nature of the medium itself. The initial disparity is simply due to
history, demographics and initial conditions. Paper currently holds
virtually all the scholarly cards (and the hearts and habits of the
major card-players) and the Net is a haven for the young and
unscholarly or not-yet-scholarly.
 
But don't bank on it. The house of cards is also poised to collapse.
All that's needed is something that will overcome the primarily MENTAL
obstacles that exist currently: mainly superstitious habits and beliefs
about correlations between paper and quality, correlations that are
there, to be sure, but for arbitrary historical reasons rather than
functional ones -- indeed, as I am trying to suggest, these reasons are
becoming increasingly DISfunctional, and THAT will be what finally
makes the paper house of cards collapse.
 
> 3.1 I've found the debate about where the costs of publication really
> lie very interesting. It may turn out to be true that the "ordinary"
> publishers are exaggerating the costs which the network will not
> substitute, by a factor of about three (their "over 70 per cent", as
> against your "less than 25 per cent"). If it does, I shall be a bit
> surprised since most of them depend, for earning their living, on being
> more or less right about that kind of thing.
 
Indeed. But the PREMISE of such livelihood-preserving calculations is
that one must continue to earn one's living essentially the same way.
(As I suggested, those who have calculated the true per-page costs as
75% rather than 25%, as I do, have only been reckoning what electronic
processing will save from a system that is designed to produce PAPER
pages, as they do; let them redo it for a system designed solely to
produce electronic pages.)
 
If I am right, publishers will have to be prepared to do a major
restructuring (and reconceptualizing) of their role in esoteric
scholarly publishing or else this anomalous portion of the symbiotic
author/publisher system will simply break off and start anew, as an
autonomous form of publication. The key factor is that the Faustian
Bargain is no longer necessary; the true per-page costs (and a fair
return) for esoteric publication can be recovered on a page-subsidy model.
There is no longer any need to charge admission to a show that
virtually no one wants to see.
 
> 3.2 I think one reason for their caution about electronic substitution
> is because they find speculation about alternative cost-recovery models
> very complex and difficult.
 
Indeed; but that does not make those models wrong, or impossible. Nor
does it support your suggestion that publishers must be doing the
calculations correctly because that's what they do for a living...
 
But there are (and there inevitably will be) publishers who DO
understand the arithmetic (MIT Press seems to be one such publisher),
and it is my hope that their efforts will eventually lead in a direction
that serves the interests of all, without Faustian conflict, and without
heroic efforts to preserve the unstable and far-from-optimal status
quo.
 
> But one of the two main purposes of
> substitution is to address a perceived economic problem - the other
> being to introduce one further industry to the IT revolution. The road
> from yesterday contains enough litter from high-tech disaster projects
> to suggest some caution, at least, on the economic/costing front.
> Remember; the conclusions reached are for testing in settings where red
> faces are the least of the penalties for being proved wrong.
 
By all means. But I don't see esoteric scholarly/scientific publishing
as a potential cash cow for any big IT ventures (perhaps for popular and
wide-spectrum scholarly/scientific publishing, but not for the esoteric
region of the continuum). This no-market form of publishing is essential
to us all -- it's what keeps human learned inquiry going. But the trade
model just does not fit it (and never did).
 
Besides, most of us are talking about shrinking and restructuring rather
than big, risky investments; that's mostly what the migration from paper
to the Net entails (see Andrew Odlyzko's paper).
 
> At present, the "information superhighway"
> itself does not exist internationally in a form which could cope with
> the information traffic currently carried (not very efficiently) by
> print on paper (the "fat pipe" under the Atlantic at 1.5 Mbps is surely
> hopelessly inadequate?)... Print on paper is currently
> carrying a colossal amount of information into all sorts of unlikely
> academic places.
 
This is an empirical question, and not in my domain of expertise, but I
have heard that, once we decide to make a commitment to carrying the
(scholarly/scientific) information that way, the Net will be ABUNDANTLY
able to bear the weight. In any case, it is not clear to me who should
be worrying about capacity problems these days, when people are passing
vast quantities of, for example, porno-graphics, freely back and forth
on the Net. Metaphors, of course, settle nothing, but my own image of
the full corpus of esoteric periodical publishing (see Andrew Odlyzko's
essay for some sample figures) as the flea on the tail of the dog,
insofar as the Net's carrying capacity is concerned, especially in the
future, when more and more of the rest of the traffic will be
commercial and paid for (because it DOES have a market).
 
Humanity will be better served by granting that flea a free ride in
perpetuum, rather than treating it as if it were another commercial
traveller.
 
It's odd, by the way, that the "Net Capacity" and "Net Highway Toll"
alarms are so often sounded by individuals who are no better informed
than you or I are, but in whose interests it would be if there WERE an
awkward capacity limitation or a prohibitive toll...
 
> 4.2 An important additional consideration on this point, in my view, is
> what I might call "the mental preparation of the sector". The academic
> sector, in my view, has been right to point to the serious mistakes
> made in some industries where technological advance has been implanted
> without adequate preparation of the work force, in the form of
> reorientation of work processes and training of working people. We are
> now seriously contemplating the most dramatic change in the working
> habits of scholars for some centuries, but I look in vain for
> convincing signs that our sector appreciates this and is collectively
> bending its mind to preparing for the consequences. There is far too
> much "Throw the technology at them and they'll get on with it". A
> change of this magnitude is going to cause confusion and muddle anyway
> for a time, but we ought to be doing far more to minimise that. Our
> present approach, in my view, is asking for trouble. One of the biggest
> drags on the introduction of advanced technology solutions lies in the
> attitude of the people for whom we consider them to be intended. It's
> crucial that a much better effort is directed to changing that.
 
I agree with this completely. Authors, readers, librarians, etc. do
need to be prepared, informed, etc. But that's not an argument for the
status quo, or even for slowing down (the pace of the move toward electronic
journals is already excruciatingly slow, to my tastes: 99.9999% of the
esoteric scholarly periodical literature is still in paper, after all;
hence there is no precipitous hurtling toward an unknown doom going
on here!). Preparing the populace should be undertaken pari passu with
the migration itself, but certainly not prior to it, or instead of
it...
 
> When I
> had to cancel some physics journals a few months ago, our physicists
> gave me the impression that I was bringing the roof down on their
> department, and Paul Ginsparg wasn't mentioned once in their
> remonstrations - though I've no doubt they're well aware of what he's
> doing.
 
This is not surprising, and I don't think it is evidence of anything
more than that no one has a rational command yet over what is happening
and what is about to happen. It is because of this irrational factor
that I never make predictions about WHEN it will all happen; I simply
affirm THAT it will happen (and the sooner the better)...
 
> There is some belief out there that the present system will collapse
> and change suddenly quite soon but it's not very widespread - though it
> may be right. Otherwise, it implies that Southampton University Library
> must shed 300 print journals every year from now till 2010. At present,
> that does not look very likely and this means the process will have to
> accelerate substantially (and I expect it will) later in the period.
 
I suspect it will be a critical-mass effect: After a slow linear phase,
consisting mostly of new electronic journals rather than migrations of
established paper journals (though you are probably right that,
unfortunately, the weaker paper journals make take to the skies first)
as well as regressive "hybrid" projects (paper journals offering a
double deal: paper plus electronic version, but to subscribers only,
aimed eventually at developing an electronic-only subscriber base), a
critical mass of free-access refereed electronic journals will form and
demonstrate that they can be as rigorous as refereed paper journals,
but with the added advantage of (1) universal searchability and access
as well as (2) interactivity (peer commentary). That -- with the help
of subversive projects like Paul Ginsparg's HEP Archive and Public
Preprint/Reprint Archives created by authors -- will trigger a
relatively rapid and dramatic restructuring that will end with most or
all of the esoteric periodical corpus airborne.
 
> 4.4 Rereading some of what you and Andrew have written makes me wonder
> whether we are really that far apart. My job is to cope with today's
> reality (which is largely, like it or not, both papyrocentric and
> commercial) and try to anticipate the next few years' (say, five or at
> most ten) changes reasonably intelligently. You and Andrew appear to be
> speculating about a revolution which I am satisfied will come - though
> I seriously doubt your present economic assumptions - and I sometimes
> get the impression that Andrew might not disagree strongly with my
> speculation and the speculation of my librarian colleagues as to the
> time scale. I'm less sure, Stevan, about your views as to likely time
> scales.
 
Ah, I wisely refrain from committing myself to numbers when it comes to
time scale. I stick to (1) editing and adapting PSYCOLOQUY as a model
and to (2) trying to describe what is actually happening, what is
possible, and what is rational in talks and papers. Chronology must
fend for itself. (But if it's my 'druthers you're inquiring about,
it can't happen too soon for me.)
 
> 5.1 One of the points I'm trying to underline in pointing out that
> journal publishing is an industry is that it will not sit quietly by
> and let itself be subverted. We must assume that, if a concerted plan
> emerges to cut major traditional publishers out from the knowledge
> communication business, they will fight very strongly for their "share
> of the action". Commercial publishers will have revenue streams to
> defend, not least in the interest of the people they employ and of
> their shareholders, and even learned societies and academic presses
> could face massive upheaval if revenue-earning titles (which are also
> circulated gratis to some as a privilege of membership) appear to be in
> danger of complete substitution, and they will fight to prevent that.
 
No doubt. But what will eventually prevail, I hope, is what is in the
best interests of scholars/scientists and Learned Inquiry itself. As
most of our intellectual wares (99.9999%, as I said, and add more 9's
for the retrospective literature) are currently on the paper flotilla,
it is in ALL of our interests to ensure that that flotilla does not
sink prematurely. I believe a benign solution is possible to effect an
orderly transition to the skies, one that will be fair to all;
publishers simply need to be flexible and innovative, and not be
tempted to adopt the short-sighted strategy of filibustering in favor
of some version or other of the status quo. It just won't fly.
 
> 5.2 One of the main points that publishers are likely to raise in this
> country, and probably in Western Europe generally, will be to question
> (to put it no more strongly) the propriety of academic institutions
> using public money (all UK universities bar one very small one are
> funded by the taxpayer) in order to drive a viable industry (as they
> see it) to the wall. Perhaps the government will be happy to see the
> publishers as resembling the toll bridge owners of past centuries whose
> bizarre privileges were bought out or set aside with the growth of the
> road network. But the mood in the UK, even among universities
> themselves, is to press for more and more activities to go down the
> "charging" road.
 
You will not be surprised, perhaps, that this scenario evokes little
empathy. I hope the motivation on all sides will be more constructive
than this. Esoteric scholarly publishing is motivated by something far
more important to us all than the money to be made from selling its texts.
 
> Our government believes passionately in markets - I
> think it claims it got its predilection for them from the United
> States! - and I can see it saying: "You must allow commercial academic
> publishers onto the academic superhighway on terms which allow them to
> compete fairly for the survival of their role". I don't think this
> necessarily means that it should always be carried out in the same way
> as now - but they must be given a reasonable chance to adapt.
 
This makes it sound as if the only problem is access to the Internet:
But there WILL be a lot of toll-way traffic on the Internet. That is
absolutely irrelevant to the issue under discussion here. Unless
publishers are planning to re-tool themselves as telecommunications
companies, they are not the ones for whom those bells would toll in any
case! (This is a red herring, just as the capacity argument is.)
 
Paul Ginsparg's HEPnet currently gets 35,000 "hits" per day -- 35,000
physicists the world over retrieving articles. It is simplistic to
conceptualize Net use as a finite resource (dramatic increases in Net
capacity can be gotten for relatively small investments in money and
material; and it makes little sense to tax the number of bits received
or the time spent receiving them in an interdigitating network with
varying transmission times, especially if the Net is far from
saturation), so it is a mistake to imagine a toll on each "hit."
 
But suppose things did go in that direction: If the Net were privatised
(and apparently it is about to be), AND if the Universities chose to
pass on to their user communities the 10% increase in costs this would
entail over their current flat connection costs, this still would not
be reckoned on a "per hit" basis, but as a flat rate. Users would pay
their own flat rates for unlimited sending and retrieval, and the rest
would depend on WHAT they were retrieving: If it was a commercial
newspaper or magazine, they would be prepared to pay a further toll, as
they do now (and the writers of the material, and their publishers)
would make a fair profit from that toll.
 
But what if it was a scholarly article that only ten people would ever
want to read, and from which the author would never make a penny? Even
on this commercial tollway model there is no way to make it rational to
squeeze a further fee out of the would-be esoteric reader. It's a
foregone conclusion that the author, eager to be read, would happily
spring in advance for ten complimentary tickets for those few who will
ever want to see his show. Bref: The trade model makes no sense for
esoteric publication EVEN ON A COMPLETELY COMMERCIALIZED NET, and there
is still no money for the publisher to make for the sale of words no
one wants to buy!
 
The real service that esoteric publishing provides is to authors, their
institutions and their research funding sources: The "product" they
provide is not the author's words for those who want to buy them but
the means of access to the eyes and minds of the author's
fellow-specialists. Hence that's the natural place to seek to recoup
the true expenses of providing that service. I hope it is becoming
evident by now how hopelessly Procrustean a trade model is for a
product/service/market like this.
 
> I'm genuinely surprised that you appear to think that it will be
> politically acceptable in the United States to make most scholarly
> information a non-tradeable commodity. I don't think it will be here.
 
The United States has little to do with this. The question is: Why and
for whom do scholars publish? The answer is radically different from
the answer to the question of why an author who makes his living by
writing publishes. The esoteric market will simply reflect this, once
it has been released from its Faustian bonds to the commercial market.
"Trade" there will still be, but it will be the selling of the services
(25% of paper costs per page) of the esoteric publisher to the esoteric
AUTHOR and his institutions rather than to the esoteric READER and his
institutions, as it was under the Faustian model. There is a "subsidy" in
both cases: Institutions provided it through their library subscriptions
the old way; the new way, much less expensive, the (25%) subsidies will be
up front. And apart from the Institutions having to pay much less for the
availability of the esoteric scholarly corpus, individual
scholar/readers will be the greatest beneficiaries, now able to search,
browse and read one another's work in the Virtual Library to their
hearts and minds content, never having to worry about paying a toll to
go where virtually no one cares to go anyway.
 
What possible objection (or role) could the United States have in
something like that?
 
> 6. Maybe these few remarks have irrevocably confirmed my typecast for
> you! They are among the reasons why I think evolution is a better mode
> than revolution and why I think that the economic problems which
> libraries and others face in the scholarly communication field are
> unlikely to be resolved by an agreement that it should all be for free
> in an electronic setting.      --  Bernard Naylor
 
For the record, I'm for evolution rather than revolution too, and I
have my fingers crossed for a peaceful, fair and orderly evolution
rather than a revolution that produces casualties to anyone. And I'm
also for paying the true costs of refereed electronic periodical
publishing (they are low, but they are not zero); I am simply opposed
to having them paid (and/or surcharged) on a completely inappropriate
trade/subscription model (subsidized by University Libraries).
Everyone's interests would be better reflected and served if they were
paid an author/subsidy model.
 
Stevan Harnad
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:57:37 EDT
Reply-To:     David Stodolsky 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         David Stodolsky 
Subject:      Re: Electronic Editorial Office Costs
 
 
Stevan Harnad  writes:
> field by field is the ULTIMATE (cross-journal) acceptance rate: It is
> my belief that in one form or other, just about EVERYTHING gets
> published eventually, if the author is persistent enough, even if it's
> in the unrefereed vanity press. Having approximately the same
> manuscript refereed repeatedly for different journals is a drain on
> resources, but I'm not sure how to get around it: the prestige
> hierarchy is based in part on (intellectual) competition.
 
Moving the arena of competition from publication rates to citation
rates is one way. Since almost everything gets published, why not just
abandon this competition? There is no economic justification for prior
review in electronic publication. Various preprint archives have already
demonstrated that direct publication is viable.
 
Even with traditional publication, citation rates are given more weight
than publication rates. Trying to move the old mechanisms of accreditation
on-line is domed to failure, in the long run. We need more powerful
methods of evaluating citations. The old system of just counting them
has always been recognized as inadequate. Networking tools allow us
to see whether a citation supports or opposes a given publication.
 
This can reflect back upon the "publication rate". If an author sees
that his/her article is being devalued by numerous bad reviews, then
it would be wise to take it "out of circulation".
 
 
 
David S. Stodolsky, PhD      Internet: stodolsk@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Peder Lykkes Vej 8, 4. tv.               Internet: david@arch.ping.dk
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark           Voice + Fax: + 45 32 97 66 74
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:58:41 EDT
Reply-To:     Hans Andriese 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Hans Andriese 
Organization: NLnet
Subject:      Re: VT model
 
 
I expect Adobe's Acrobat family of products (for viewing, printing and
exchange of formatted documents) to get a 'hook' that enables WWW
browsing of its PostScript-based format.
Then it will be possible to publish a formatted document (wordprocessor
of DTP does not matter) complete with illustrations via WWW and do full
text search, download parts and print it like the author intended the
page to look like.
 
Hans
 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hans G. Andriese       Andriese Consultancy        handrie@inter.NL.net
Amsterdam NL           Phone: +31 20 6976 299      Fax: +31 20 6913 678
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:59:31 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Paul Ginsparg Replies from the French Alps (Les Houches, Chamonix)
 
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 94 11:45:34 -0600
From: Paul Ginsparg  505-667-7353 
Subject: Re: On Trade vs. Esoteric Publication
 
stevan,
 
(i know i promised e-mail blackout, but i found myself with a bunch of
networkphilic physicists so it became reasonable to restructure the
local environment with a lan and internet feed...)
 
just a few comments on the most recent (as usual from my pragmatic and
non-visionary approach -- in current commercial parlance "just do it"):
 
>From: "B.Naylor" 
>Date: Thu, 4 Aug 94 17:38:16 BST
 
> 4.1 On the question of technology, I am reasonably confident that I
> have not come across any technological problems which I don't think can
> be solved. There are still important questions as to: how soon? and by
> whom? and at what cost? At present, the "information superhighway"
> itself does not exist internationally in a form which could cope with
> the information traffic currently carried (not very efficiently) by
> print on paper (the "fat pipe" under the Atlantic at 1.5 Mbps is surely
> hopelessly inadequate?) and the other problems I referred to in my
> paper are also with us and have to be resolved if an electronic
> solution is to operate satisfactorily. Print on paper is currently
> carrying a colossal amount of information into all sorts of unlikely
> academic places.
 
i have always been perplexed by what goes into other people's calculation
of bandwidth. finally i realized that they are talking about transmitting
uncompressed bitmaps: an 8.5" x 11" page scanned at 300 dpi is roughly
a Mb. but remember that all the whitespace compresses extremely well
so this is already a grotesque overestimate. moreover in an earlier segment
of this thread, we pointed out that the "scan and shred" technique was
backward-looking, just adding additional expense with network distribution
an ad-hoc afterthought. the savings are enormous if one avoids the paper
stage entirely, instead retaining the electronic form the documents
typically *already* possess.
(for comparison a page of ascii is 3-4kb, and less than half that after
compression -- so we typically gain a factor of 500 over the raw bitmap.
using a sophisticated page markup language such as compressed postscript
[or preferably its successor [Adobe's pdf] with full font and graphics
capability,  the savings remain dramatic.)
yes it will be a major task to render all the currently existing "print on
paper" to network distributable form if that is desired, but we need to
point out repeatedly that the issue of costs under discussion centers on
a medium that is text from inception to final distribution.
even the "fat pipe" as a bottleneck is a red herring in any event, one
can always run mirrors (as i run in italy and japan) to ensure adequate
bandwidth -- that way only a single transfer accross the weakest link
is necessary.
and speaking of "unlikely academic places", i am currently organizing
a physics summer school in the french alps (les houches, next to chamonix --
i had expected to be out of network range but found an old hp 715 here
and together with some other stone age implements forged a 64 kbit/s
internet link -- say goodbye to minitel) and the students are from all over
the world. the most common comment regarding the physics archives is how
much they have *already* improved the situation in developing and former
eastern-block countries, where the "colossal volume of print on paper"
does not penetrate due to cost and other issues.
at lanl, the systems i'm running still consume less than .01% (i.e. .0001)
of the lanl.gov backbone capacity so we really do realize stevan's "flea
on tail" metaphor.
 
> When I had to cancel some physics journals a few months ago, our physicists
> gave me the impression that I was bringing the roof down on their
> department, and Paul Ginsparg wasn't mentioned once in their
> remonstrations - though I've no doubt they're well aware of what he's
> doing.
 
well it is still premature. note that the current physics archives
branched out from high energy particle physics and do not yet cover close
to the whole of physics. this was primarily due to lack of resources (i.e.
zero) at my end, a situation recently rectified, and when i get back to the
u.s. in mid sept there will be a dramatic horizontal expansion. (but even
so it may be a couple more years before you can cut physics journals without
complaint.)
 
> 4.3 I recently asked a group of about twenty chief university
> librarians (that is, about 20 per cent of the total UK cohort) "by what
> date do you expect your present number of current subscriptions to
> print-on-paper journals will have been reduced by 80 per cent". The
> extremes were "1995" and "2050" with 2010 by far the favourite
> prediction (2010 was mine as well - honestly). (I said I thought that
> might be a way, for some of them, of saying "after I've retired".)
 
your colleagues are incorrect. the driving force will not only be economics
but the enhanced functionality of the electronic medium. there are many
things that the new medium supports (see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/hypertex/ ),
including the overall fluid nature (on-line annotations, continuously
graded refereeing, automated hyperlinks to distributed resources including
non-text based applications, etc., etc.) that simply have no analog in print.
it will be more or less like moving from radio to television -- radio remains
for those things for which it's better optimized, but the majority of new
material will move to the new medium.
 
> 5.1 One of the points I'm trying to underline in pointing out that
> journal publishing is an industry is that it will not sit quietly by
> and let itself be subverted. We must assume that, if a concerted plan
> emerges to cut major traditional publishers out from the knowledge
> communication business, they will fight very strongly for their "share
> of the action". Commercial publishers will have revenue streams to
> defend, not least in the interest of the people they employ and of
> their shareholders, and even learned societies and academic presses
> could face massive upheaval if revenue-earning titles (which are also
> circulated gratis to some as a privilege of membership) appear to be in
> danger of complete substitution, and they will fight to prevent that.
 
this will proceed quickly. the subversion is that their bottom line will
be removed.
formerly we were at their mercy because we needed their production and
distribution facilities. now we can outdo them on both counts, at
dramatically reduced cost. at the same time, we expose how little
intellectual added value they provide in general (i mean the validation
and identification of significant research which can only come from
within the community.) sure they could remain in the game if they were
willing to scale down to the more efficient operation enabled by the
fully electronic medium, but the bottom line will not be there for them
and they will have little ability to compete with a streamlined
operation organized by researchers in alliance with their research
libraries (and perhaps non-profit professional societies).
 
> 5.2 One of the main points that publishers are likely to raise in this
> country, and probably in Western Europe generally, will be to question
> (to put it no more strongly) the propriety of academic institutions
> using public money (all UK universities bar one very small one are
> funded by the taxpayer) in order to drive a viable industry (as they
> see it) to the wall.
 
but why is it currently viewed as appropriate to use gov't funds to sponsor
this same "viable" industry in the form of overhead on grants that
eventually makes its way to research libraries for transfer to them???
 
re:
 
>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 17:12:04 EDT
>> From: "Stevan Harnad" 
 
>> Paul Ginsparg's HEPnet currently gets 35,000 "hits" per day -- 35,000
>> physicists the world over retrieving articles.
 
one small clarification:
actually it is just over 20,000 users (and more than just physicists
since it has branched out into other fields including computational
linguistics and economics).  the 35,000 "hits" per day include all variety
of searches, etc., not each an article retrieval.
 
 
pg
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 1994 09:00:16 EDT
Reply-To:     Ann Okerson 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Ann Okerson 
Subject:      Symposium on Scholarly E-Publishing Announced
 
 
 
 
       THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESSES
 
           THE ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES
 
And their collaborators: the University of Virginia Library, the
Johns Hopkins University Press, and the American Physical Society
 
                         ANNOUNCE
 
 
Scholarly Publishing on the Electronic Networks:  The Fourth Symposium
        Filling the  Pipeline and Paying the Piper
 
 
                        NOVEMBER 5-7
                       Washington, DC
 
Including:  Demonstrations of Current Scholarship and Projects
 
 
For the complete program and registration information on the Internet:
 
GOPHER as follows:        yourprompt> gopher arl.cni.org
Menu:  Scholarly Communication, Then:  ARL/AAUP Symposia
 
 
This three-day symposium, the fourth in a series sponsored by the AAUP
and ARL, with a great deal of help from our many friends, is
specifically aimed at university presses, learned and professional
society publishers, librarians, and academic faculty and researchers
interested in beginning electronic publications, particularly on for
distribution via electronic networks.  The Symposium's objective is to
promote information-sharing and discussion among people interested in
developing the potential of the networks, particularly for formal
publishing, with particular emphasis on not-for-profit models.  Anyone
interested in this topic is eagerly welcomed to join us.  Presenters
will discuss some of the latest research and development from the
not-for-profit sector, including faculty, societies, presses, and
libraries.
 
The Symposium has established itself as a place where different
not-for-profit stakeholders and supporters talk to each other about
their work and confront vexing issues together.  This year, in
particular, we will focus on the controversial areas of cost recovery in
an electronic environment and electronic fair use.  The program
committee, encouraged by registrants' comments, hopes that symposiasts
can help to build understanding and progress in these topics, which are
critical to a robust, organized future for scholarly communications.
 
Optional tours on November 8th include "A Day at the Press," sponsored
by the Johns Hopkins University, and "A day in the Academical Village,"
by the University of Virginia Library.
 
 
Programs will be mailed out on Friday to those on our paper mailing
lists.  If you would like to receive a printed program, contact Lisabeth
King, lisabeth@cni.org
 
E-mail address for general inquiries:  symposium@e-math.ams.org
E-mail for registration inquiries:     Lisabeth King
                                       (lisabeth@cni.org)
 
Proceedings of previous symposia available.   E-mail allyn@cni.org
------------
 
 
Ann Okerson/Association of Research Libraries
ann@cni.org
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Aug 1994 08:35:37 EDT
Reply-To:     "I.Pitchford-InterPsych" 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         "I.Pitchford-InterPsych" 
Subject:      Vacancies
 
InterPsych requires two enthusiastic volunteers:
 
1. EDITOR
---------
 
To take over management of the InterPsych Newsletter. This
publication has a circulation of something like 10,000, and reaches
many influential people at universities and professional
organizations throughout the world. We need an enthusiastic and
experienced individual prepared to devote time and energy into
promoting the Newsletter and to increasing its influence and academic
standing. This is a great opportunity to make a contribution. Apply
now!
 
2. COMPUTER SCIENTIST
---------------------
 
To act as advisor to the Board of Directors and to assist InterPsych
members to gain the maximum benefit from their use of the Internet.
Duties will also involve working with us on a new journal to be
produced in WWW/Mosaic format, creating an InterPsych WWW server to
co-ordinate psychology/psychiatry/mental health resources on the
Internet, helping to encourage scholars to maintain ftp archives of
important papers and other information (1.8. gigabytes available for
this on Sheffield's ftp server), liaising with computer
hardware/software manufacturers to promote their awarenes of
InterPsych and our members' awareness of their work, and generally
doing everything possible to ensure that all possiblilities are fully
explored and exploited.
 
Needless to say this work is unpaid but you will have the opportunity
to work with some outstanding individuals and to play a real part in
helping to nurture the Internet towards its maturity, to increase
human understanding, and to bring some light to this dark corner of
the universe. How could mere money compete!
 
Applications to; Ian Pitchford 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Pitchford, c/o Department of Biomedical Science, University of
Sheffield, Western Bank, SHEFFIELD, S10 2TN, United Kingdom.
E-mail: I.Pitchford@Sheffield.ac.uk, md932481@silver.shef.ac.uk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the psychiatry database telnet bubl.bath.ac.uk, login bubl. Search
the subject tree for 616.89 Psychiatry. Contributions welcome.
http://www.bubl.bath.ac.uk/BUBL/home.html (BUBL)
http://mailbase.ac.uk/welcome.html (MAILBASE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Aug 1994 08:36:37 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Is Peer Review Necessary at All in the Electronic Medium?
 
Here are two short follow-ups. The first contains some useful
background citations, the second an often-repeated proposal (that we
dispense with peer review in the electronic medium) with which I
strongly disagree. As I have replied to this kind of suggestion many
times before I will not reply again here. The interested reader is
referred to prior discussion of the "Invisible Hand" effect, quality
control, and quality tagging. -- SH.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: AJ Meadows 
Subject: Electronic Journal Costs
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 94 13:38:25 BST
 
I have been following with interest your discussion of this topic. Just
one or two minor comments:
 
(1) The best source I know for data on journal use and economics is:
D.W.King et al  Scientific Journals in the United States (Hutchinson
Ross Pub Co;1981). It refers to print journals only and is a little out
of date, of course.
 
(2) Comparative data on journal rejection rates was published a good
many years ago by R. K. Merton at Columbia. My colleagues and I have
looked at these from time to time and they still seem to give
comparative rates fairly well.
 
(3) We are experimenting with an electronic journal that assumes
distribution via a library. From this viewpoint, you have to add on the
costs of the library getting ready to receive such journals. We
estimate that, for the first such journal, the cost is of the order of
#3,500.
 
Jack Meadows
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:57:37 EDT
From: David Stodolsky 
 
Stevan Harnad  writes:
> field by field is the ULTIMATE (cross-journal) acceptance rate: It is
> my belief that in one form or other, just about EVERYTHING gets
> published eventually, if the author is persistent enough, even if it's
> in the unrefereed vanity press. Having approximately the same
> manuscript refereed repeatedly for different journals is a drain on
> resources, but I'm not sure how to get around it: the prestige
> hierarchy is based in part on (intellectual) competition.
 
Moving the arena of competition from publication rates to citation
rates is one way. Since almost everything gets published, why not just
abandon this competition? There is no economic justification for prior
review in electronic publication. Various preprint archives have already
demonstrated that direct publication is viable.
 
Even with traditional publication, citation rates are given more weight
than publication rates. Trying to move the old mechanisms of accreditation
on-line is domed to failure, in the long run. We need more powerful
methods of evaluating citations. The old system of just counting them
has always been recognized as inadequate. Networking tools allow us
to see whether a citation supports or opposes a given publication.
 
This can reflect back upon the "publication rate". If an author sees
that his/her article is being devalued by numerous bad reviews, then
it would be wise to take it "out of circulation".
 
David S. Stodolsky, PhD      Internet: stodolsk@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Peder Lykkes Vej 8, 4. tv.               Internet: david@arch.ping.dk
DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark           Voice + Fax: + 45 32 97 66 74
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 15 Aug 1994 08:37:16 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Odlyzko on Net Capacity and Citation Frequency
 
From: amo@research.att.com (Andrew Odlyzko)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 94 06:57 EDT
To: Bernard Naylor B.Naylor@soton.ac.uk
Subject: Balance Point and the economics of ejournals/
 
Bernard,
 
Thank you very much for your comments, and please excuse the delay
in responding to them, but I was away on a trip when they arrived.
In the meantime, Stevan Harnad and Paul Ginsparg have responded
to your message.  I agree with what they say, and have only a few
minor comments to add.
 
1.  Inadequacies of present networks:
 
You are right that the present 1.5 Mbps pipe over (or under)
the Atlantic is inadequate for full-scale scholarly communication.
It can carry about 5 TB (tera-bytes) in a year.  In my article
I estimated that just the mathematical literature alone requires
about 1 TB to store (with fax compression).  However, network
speeds are increasing at dramatic rates, and soon we will have
an adequate infrastructure in place.
 
As an aside, we can obtain much higher quality of material and
lower communication burdens by converting the old documents into
TeX, say.  This is not as hard as it might seem.  In mathematics
there are about 20 M pages of printed material.  At the rates
that skilled typists in the US command, it would cost $ 200-400 M
to typeset them into TeX.  By going to the Third World we could
lower this to the $ 50-100 M range.  (Obviously there aren't
enough skilled typists in the Third World or even in the
industrialized world to do this quickly, but the conversion
could be done over 5-10 years, which would offer opportunities
to train the necessary labor force.)  For comparison, the existing
mathematics print journals cost about $ 200 M per year.  Thus
a fraction of the annual cost of today's system would suffice
to convert all the literature to a modern format.   I expect
similar estimates apply to other fields.  The trouble would be
in organizing this conversion effort.
 
2.  Time scales:
 
Here are some comments on what you wrote:
 
   4.3     I recently asked a group of about twenty chief
   university librarians (that is, about 20 per cent of the
   total UK cohort) "by what date do you expect your present
   number of current subscriptions to print-on-paper journals
   will have been reduced by 80 per cent".  The extremes were
   "1995" and "2050" with 2010 by far the favourite prediction
   (2010 was mine as well - honestly).  (I said I thought that
   might be a way, for some of them, of saying "after I've
   retired".)  There is some belief out there that the present
   system will collapse and change suddenly quite soon but
   it's not very widespread - though it may be right.
   Otherwise, it implies that Southampton University Library
   must shed 300 print journals every year from now till
   2010.  At present, that does not look very likely and this
   means the process will have to accelerate substantially
   (and I expect it will) later in the period.
 
I am rather surprised that so many of these librarians picked 2010
as the date for a major change.  I would have expected them to
be much more conservative.
 
I agree fully with you and Stevan that the drop in paper journal
subscriptions will be very nonlinear.  The most dramatic part
of the drop is likely to occur between 2000 and 2010.  I would
be surprised if it occurred this decade, since networks and
computer capacities are not adequate yet, and there is tremendous
inertia in the system.  On the other hand, it's hard for me to
imagine print journals surviving more than 15 years in large
numbers, as by 2010 the world will be fully "wired."
 
   4.4     Rereading some of what you and Andrew have written
   makes me wonder whether we are really that far apart.  My
   job is to cope with today's reality (which is largely, like
   it or not, both papyrocentric and commercial) and try to
   anticipate the next few years' (say, five or at most ten)
   changes reasonably intelligently.  You and Andrew appear to
   be speculating about a revolution which I am satisfied will
   come - though I seriously doubt your present economic
   assumptions - and I sometimes get the impression that
   Andrew might not disagree strongly with my speculation and
   the speculation of my librarian colleagues as to the time
   scale.  I'm less sure, Stevan, about your views as to
   likely time scales.
 
You are right, we are not that far off in our opinions.  My essay
looked at the future about two decades from now, when all the
novel features should be in place.  Its aim was to show people
what will be available then, and why the present system is bound
to collapse.  It dealt hardly at all with how to get there from
here.  That is a thornier issue, and one I now have to devote some
thought to, as I am on some committees that are supposed to
make recommendations for near-term actions.
 
The transition to electronic publishing is likely to be turbulent,
and I do not wish to make it sound too easy.  As just one example,
it is likely that various administrators will cease on the
projections of low-cost electronic publishing of scholarly journals
and decide that this will allow them to save the bulk of their
libraries' costs.  However, while electronic journals can easily
eliminate or at least drastically lower journal subscription
costs, these costs are at most one third of the total cost of
running research libraries.  Since conversion of libraries to
digital formats is going to be a long process, immediate savings
are likely to be considerably smaller than such administrators
might hope for.
 
Best regards,
Andrew Odlyzko
 
Ginsparg, P. (1994) First Steps Towards Electronic Research
Communication. Computers in Physics. (August, American Institute of
Physics). http://xxx.lanl.gov/blurb/
 
Odlyzko, A.M. (1995) Tragic loss or good riddance? The impending
demise of traditional scholarly journals, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies (formerly International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies), to appear. Condensed version to appear in Notices of the
Amercan Mathematical Society, January 1995.
ftp://netlib.att.com/netlib/att/math/odlyzko/tragic.loss.Z
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: amo@research.att.com (Andrew Odlyzko)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 94 08:40 EDT
Subject: citation frequency
 
Stevan,
 
In your comments on Bernard Naylor's "A SMALL CONTRIBUTION TO THE
SUBVERSIVE DISCUSSION," one passage caught my eye, namely
 
   Let's be more specific. Though it's risky to resort to figures from
   hearsay (and that is all I must confess I have so far), I am confident
   enough in what I am about to point out that even if I am wrong by one or
   two orders of magnitude, the upshot is the same: The average published
   scientific article has fewer than 10 readers and no citers; I'll bet the
   same is true for the average piece of scholarship in the humanities.
 
I expect that your figure for no citers for the average scientific article
is ultimately derived from the same source that I have seen quoted on
many other occasions, namely the Science Citation Index (SCI).  As I recall,
the SCI figures indicated that only a couple of mathematics journals
achieved an average of more than one citation to one of their articles,
and most were well under one.  Now if the average number of citations
per article is below 0.5, then it certainly follows that most articles
are not cited at all.
 
I have long been suspicious of the SCI figures, based on my own experience
with them.  It seemed that only a small selection of mathematics journals
was covered, since often references that I knew existed would not be
included in the SCI listings.  However, your comment stimulated me to
do some more thinking and research, and I believe I can show by a simple
argument that the SCI estimates are bogus.
 
I have just picked up the latest issues of three mathematics journals
that have accumulated on my stack of correspondence during my recent
trip.  They were from several areas of mathematics, and all were primary
research journals, not survey ones.  They contained 35 articles, and
these 35 articles had a total of about 630 references, for an average
of 18 references per article.  (The range of number of references
was from 3 to 51, and 18 seemed to be close to the median as well.)
It seemed that of those typical 18 references, about 4 were to books,
so there were usually about 14 references to research papers.  This
is a small sample, but it seems to me to be typical of the papers
I see in mathematics, and so I did not bother to collect more data.
It would be interesting to obtain similar estimates for other fields.
 
The figure of 14 backward references in a research paper is sufficient
all by itself to show that the SCI figures are far from the truth.
Since the scholarly literature is growing, the average number of references
to a paper MUST BE IN EXCESS OF 14.  To see this, consider a
simple model in which papers published in a given decade reference
only papers from the previous decade.  In mathematics, about
250,000 papers were published during the 70s.  Had there been only
250,000 papers published during the 80s, and each one referenced
an average of 14 papers, each of the papers from the 70s would on
average be referenced 14 times.  However, the 80s saw the
publication of 500,000 research articles in mathematics.  Had they
referenced an average of 14 papers from the 70s each, it would
necessarily follow that the average number of citations per paper
from the 70s would be 28.  Thus it seems reasonable to estimate
that the average number of citations to a mathematics paper is
in the 15-30 range.
 
Comments:
 
1.  This argument does not have much bearing on the discussion of
    electronic journals.  However, it might be important in terms
    of general policy issues.  If the typical scholarly paper
    does get cited 30 times, as opposed to disappearing without
    a trace in the vast scholarly literature, then it is much
    easier to argue that public support for the original research
    and subsequent publication is warranted.
 
2.  The above argument can be used only to estimate the mean number
    of citations of a paper.  For many purposes the median is a
    more useful figure, and it would be nice to obtain the complete
    distribution.
 
3.  As long as only the mean number of citations is of interest,
    it is possible to obtain a much better estimate than that
    presented above with only a little more work.  It would suffice
    to take the 35 papers that I used and note the year of publication
    of each of the 630 references.  Since we do have good data for
    the total number of mathematics papers published each year (from
    the reviewing journals Math. Rev. and Zentralblatt), we could
    then obtain a much better estimate for the total number of
    citations that a paper attracts, as well as the distribution
    of the time after publication that a paper is cited most often.
    This would provide much better data than that of SCI at a
    tiny fraction of the cost.
 
4.  The procedure suggested above, of sampling backward references,
    would not provide information on the variation in the impact that
    individual papers have, at least not without large sample sizes
    that would provide information about repeated references to a
    particular paper.
 
5.  In my article I used the figure of 20 serious readers per article.
    I don't think this is inconsistent with the estimates above, since
    scholars often reference papers that they are do not know in detail.
    In mathematics, for example, a specialist in one area will often
    cite a result from another area without verifying it.  By a serious
    reader in mathematics, I mean one who actually checks the techynical
    details of the proofs at least to some extent.  Clearly there are
    many more readers who just glance at papers to see what is in them.
 
6.  The SCI figures might be useful for gauging the relative merits
    of various journals within a given field.
 
Have you seen any arguments like this, debunking the SCI estimates?
 
Best regards,
Andrew
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stevan Harnad (harnad@clarity.princeton.edu)
To: Andrew Odlyzko
 
Dear Andrew,
 
Very interesting analysis, and we certainly need a lot more like this.
I don't know of further literature, but perhaps those who read this
posting will. Three comments:
 
(1) I don't think we need to prove that the average article has many
readers or citers to justify esoteric research. First, some important
contibutions may be based on the work of very few people, who read and
cite only one another. And second, as in all areas of human endeavor,
there will always be the usual Gaussian cream-to-milk ratio: To skim of
the top .01% cream, you need to allow the full volume of milk. Let 1000
flowers bloom...
 
(2) It is not clear whether your sample of articles was a random sample
(i.e., whether they were average articles). This may not matter much,
but what certainly matters is the point you note: Are they mostly
citing one another or the cream of the crop (the rare "citation
classics")? If so, the latter, this would still leave the average
article (i.e., most) uncited and unread.
 
(3) There will no doubt be great variability in the answers to these
questions from field to field (and subfield). What I think you don't
contest is that, give or take an order or two of magnitude above and
below 10, the vast bulk of the scholarly corpus is still ESOTERIC: It
is a no-market literature. That's the key to the rationale for
abandoning the trade model.
 
Stevan Harnad
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Aug 1994 08:23:27 EDT
Reply-To:     Fytton Rowland 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Fytton Rowland 
Subject:      MUSE papers
 
I have identified two papers about project MUSE:
Project MUSE: A New Venture in Electronic Scholarly Communication, by Todd
Kelley and Susan Lewis, in Newletter on Serials Pricing Issues, no. 109,
paper 2, 1994; and
Electronic Publication at Johns Hopkins: Project MUSE, by Susanna Pathak,
in EJournal, volume 4, number 2, lines 542-606, June 1994.
 
The interesting thing about these two papers is that apart from the titles
and the authors' names they are identical!
 
I appreciate that these are news items, not refereed papers; I also accept
that duplicate publication occurs in printed journals too.  But we have all
had fears about bibliographic control problems with  Internet publications.
I'd be interested in hearing Johns Hopkins University Press's comments
about their little contribution to the Internet chaos....
 
Fytton Rowland.
 
Fytton Rowland, Research Fellow,                    Phone +44 (0)1509 223057
Department of Information and Library Studies,      Fax   +44 (0)1509 223053
Loughborough University of Technology,              Internet:
Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK           J.F.Rowland@lut.ac.uk
 
"There isn't a train I wouldn't take, no matter where it's going"
                                         (Edna St Vincent Millay)
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Aug 1994 08:23:54 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Esotericity and Citation Frequency
 
>Date:  Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:27:28 -0400
>From: quinn@math.vt.edu (Frank Quinn)
 
A few comments on Andrew's "citation frequency" message:
 
It is certainly true that there are big gaps in the coverage in the Science
Citation Index. It used to be that they skipped all monographs and
textbooks, as well as quite a number of journals. There are also "lost"
citations to preprint versions or with flawed bibliographic information.
They may have improved in the several years since I looked into this, but I
expect there are still major omissions.
 
Nontheless I do believe there are a substantial number of papers which
receive essentially no citations. Several years ago I did spot-checks on
papers published by our faculty, and found many more of these than I wanted
to see. This was a highly nonrandom sample, so I have no quantitative
information. Still on the basis of this I would support Stevan's assertion
that we should not tie the support of "esoteric" (I guess Math is esoteric)
publication to individual use.
 
While the mathematics reviewing journals are more careful than the Citation
Index they also present problems in the extraction of quality data. For
instance Math Reviews has been reducing its coverage of "fringe" areas to
keep the total number of reviews roughly constant (for economic reasons).
 
Some comments on "citation analysis":
 
1)   It is relatively inexpensive to semi-automatically identify the
intended  target of most citations. This is satisfactory for tracing out
the major flows of information (which was the original motivation for the
Citation Index) even though it does reduce the utility for the typical
working scholar. In contrast  Mathematical Reviews has the policy of
checking and correcting ALL citations in the reviews, and finds this quite
expensive even though it is a much smaller volume.
 
2)   One concern about citations is that they vary widely in their
significance. In the spot checks I did I actually _looked up_ all the
papers doing the citing. I did see a great variety, but in fact there was a
good correlation between large total numbers and "high-quality" citations
reflecting impact. I was reassured by this, but beware this is in
mathematics and may not apply in other fields.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Aug 1994 11:30:36 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      ftp vs. gopher vs. www
 
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 94 10:59:24 -0600
From: Paul Ginsparg  505-667-7353 
 
> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 94 18:25:38 EDT
> From: "Stevan Harnad" 
 
> The generality and adaptiveness of the www superset is impressive!
> But ftp/gopher also has a PROVIDER-side argument: In text-only,
> non-tech (non-Tex) disciplines the probablity of a successful
> subversion knocking down the paper house of cards is MUCH higher
> if authors need merely store their ascii texts rather than convert
> them or learn html (trivial as it is). -- S.H.
 
i wasn't clear enough, and this is an important point:  of course, OF
COURSE, www can be used to transmit plain text (this is a trivial
corollary of my statement that it is a superset of gopher). after all,
i'm using it to transmit .tex, .dvi, .ps, etc. -- it can transmit
anything, bytes are bytes. more specifically, if an http server sees a
file with e.g. a .txt (or other unrecognized extension), it tells the
client that plain text is on the way and the client presents it
unformatted (i'm surprised you haven't encountered this before). that
is why gopher is dying out worldwide (indeed it is only naive confusion
and misinformation on the above issues responsible for keeping it
afloat even this long). everything gopher does, www does just as well
or better (including automatic indexing of pre-existing directories).
anyway, just a matter of time -- makes little difference to worry about
it on way or another.
 
sh> Once the subversion has
sh> had its effect, we can convert them to the virtues of hypertext,
sh> etc. (But you point on the generality of www is taken!).
 
and now the point of the hypertex project becomes clear -- we do
transmit all this non-html via www, but these have all been network
dead-ends. so rather than wait forever for some group of ncsa
undergrads or whomever to reproduce a satisfactory typesetting
environment within these primitive html browsers, we've taken the
shortcut of adding html capabilities to our preferred medium and its
browsers. (in particular that means i've been able to reprocess all
pre-existing tex source in the new mode, and internal linkages are
produced automatically, with no modification of the underlying
.tex )
 
Paul Ginsparg
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Aug 1994 08:26:11 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Author-Side Electronic Page-Cost Subsidy for Esoteric Publication
 
Date:         Mon, 22 Aug 94 08:45:39 EDT
From: Janet Fisher 
Subject: Odlyzko on Net Capacity and Citation Frequency
 
It has been interesting to read Bernard Naylor's responses to the
"Esoteric Publication" discussion, as well as the comments on his
comments.  They triggered some questions in my mind which I would
like to pose.
 
If authors were to be charged for access to the eyes of the audience
rather than readers for subscriptions, where would this money come
from?  The university's research budget?  The library's materials
budget?  The government?  If the university, how much publication
would the available money allow for the university's faculty members?
Would it be enough?  It would be interesting to take some sample
universities of various sizes, look at the relevant budget areas
that might be applied to publication of "esoteric" research and
determine if that amount would cover the amount of publication
being done by that faculty.  How much per page would that allow?
 
Regarding the lack of information about number of times an article
is cited, I wonder if there is information from Paul Ginsparg about
how many times articles in HEPnet are looked at, and how many times
they are downloaded?  What are the typical numbers?  What is the
pattern of usage?  What percentage occurs in the first year of
publciation, and what percentage occurs in the second and third
years after "publication"?  What do we know about long-term usage?
 
I believe that the number of times cited is not entirely a measure
of the article's usefulness or interest to the community.  It seems
like often researchers would review an article but not cite it in
their own research because it is not exactly on point to the current
argument.  That doesn't mean the article is of no usefull to
that researcher.  Maybe I'm being naive...
 
I think it would be helpful to get as much concrete data as possible.
Especially about where the money for these author charges is likely
to come from if subscription charges are done away with for "esoteric"
publications.  Is that money there?  If not, will authors pay out of
their own pockets?
 
Janet Fisher MIT Press
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
From: Stevan Harnad (harnad@princeton.edu)
 
Reliable estimates will certainly have to made in all these categories,
exactly as Fisher Janet suggests. Andrew Odlyzko has made some matchbox
calculations that I believe are in the right ballpark. If I'm right
that the true per-page charges for electronic-only publication will be
less (perhaps much less) than 25% of those of paper publication, then
one can already calculate the annual page costs for an average
publishing esoteric scholar/scientist. Let someone do this calculation,
but not leaving out the restructuring benefits this would have for
Universities' Library budgets!
 
My guess is that it will amount to peanuts per person/institution
annually, particularly relative to the overall costs of research and
the importance (to the author's career, to the institution's prestige
[and library budget], and to the research support agency's investment
in the research) that the results of a scholar/scientist's research be
published and accessible to all fellow-scholar/scientists to whose own
further work it might contribute.
 
Research grants will include a portion (as many do already) for
publication costs, perhaps with a certain formula for the proportion of
these much-reduced electronic-only page-charges to be paid for by the
funding agency and the proportion to be paid by the author's
institution. (The figures may differ for the humanities, with their
lower research support, and the various branches of the better-funded
sciences, but the per-page costs will also differ, with the former,
mostly plain text, a lot cheaper than the TeX and graphics of the
latter.)
 
My prediction is that the per-person figures will speak for themselves,
particularly in the context of the relief for library budgets and the
incalculable benefits of free global accessibility of the -- S.H.
 
This full discussion is archived in URL:
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/Subversive.Proposal/
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Aug 1994 08:27:14 EDT
Reply-To:     Rich Wiggins 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Rich Wiggins 
Subject:      Re: ftp vs. gopher vs. www
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Mon, 22 Aug 1994 11:30:36 EDT
 
>... that is why gopher is dying out worldwide (indeed it is only naive
>confusion and misinformation on the above issues responsible for
>keeping it afloat even this long). everything gopher does, www does
>just as well or better (including automatic indexing of pre-existing
>directories).
 
This claim is not quite true. The Web does not embrace the Gopher+
extensions. These extensions have never been popular among HTTP/HTML
aficionados, and are not implemented in Mosaic and its descendants.
 
Gopher+ provides a mechanism for alternate typing of documents. The
theory is that information providers might offer documents in a variety
of ways, and intelligent clients might help users select among those
alternatives. Web folks feel that multiple document types are handled
just fine "their way" and that alternate views can be coded as part of
the HTML.
 
But Gopher+ also provides a mechanism for named attributes of documents
-- the sort of stuff like the date of the last update, author's e-mail
address, etc. This is the sort of "meta-information" that is talked
about interminably in IETF and Web discussion groups. Gopher+ included a
mechanism for adding such attributes as of early 1993. Even in the
Gopher community, though, it seems it isn't widely exploited. There are
conventions for some meta-information in HTML, and no doubt discussions
will lead to real standards.
 
The "yes there is Gopher+ but it is useless" discussion has been carried
out elsewhere, and probably wouldn't be helpful here. Most new
announcements of online services seem to be coming from the Web side. In
general I view Gopher as part of a progression from FTP to hierarchical
menus with nice titles to Web-style hypermedia. Mosaic paved the way for
the Web; now all we need is bandwidth to deliver all those inline logos.
 
/Rich Wiggins, CWIS Coordinator, Michigan State U
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Aug 1994 08:27:40 EDT
Reply-To:     RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         RUSSELLB@ext23.oes.orst.edu
Subject:      Re: ftp vs. gopher vs. www
 
Excuse my intrusion, but this affects me too!
 
Stevan sez:
 
> is why gopher is dying out worldwide (indeed it is only naive confusion
> and misinformation on the above issues responsible for keeping it
> afloat even this long). everything gopher does, www does just as well
 
Yes, but is it available to e-mail users?  Can it be accessed by
Gophermail or a functional equivalent?  The long standing tradition
of "backward compatibility" deserves to be preserved.
 
> or better (including automatic indexing of pre-existing directories).
 
Except communicating with the majority of Internet users.
 
> anyway, just a matter of time -- makes little difference to worry about
> it on way or another.
 
You may not need to worry about meaningful access with old fashioned
tools; but I assure you that e-mail access is better than no access.
You do seem to have some good ideas; I'd like to meet you when you
grow up.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
William P. (Bill) Russell
internet:  russellb@ext23.oes.orst.edu
vox: 503-347-3683   fax:  503-347-6303
snail mail:     775 Tenth St. S.E.
                Bandon, OR 97411-9108
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Aug 1994 08:30:49 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Usage statistics: Physics E-Print Archive, Los Alamos
 
Here is another long-distance reply from Paul Ginsparg at Les Houches.
Henceforth I will refer to his archive as the "Los Alamos Physics
E-Print Archive," because, as he indicates, "HEP" (high energy physics)
is now far too narrow a descriptor for the scale it has reached
in physics. Below, Paul replies to Janet Fisher's questions about usage
levels. One VERY important point to note is that these statistics are
for what readership levels in esoteric research WOULD be if they were
not constrained by the admission price imposed by paper publication and
its associated costs and practices. It would be to COMPLETELY
misunderstand these statistics to come back and say: "Ha, you see it's
not really esoteric after all! There IS a good-size market out there
for such papers, hence the trade model stands vindicated!" Quite the
contrary (and that's the POINT)...              -- Stevan Harnad
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 16:37:25 -0600
From: Paul Ginsparg  505-667-7353 
Subject: Re: Author-Side Electronic Page-Cost Subsidy for Esoteric Publication
 
> Date:         Mon, 22 Aug 94 08:45:39 EDT
> From: Janet Fisher 
> Subject: Odlyzko on Net Capacity and Citation Frequency
 
> Regarding the lack of information about number of times an article
> is cited, I wonder if there is information from Paul Ginsparg about
> how many times articles in HEPnet are looked at, and how many times
> they are downloaded?
 
what is the difference between "look at" and "download"?
(in any politically correct client/server environment, one must download
in order to peruse -- note that one does not do remote logins, that's
why these servers have no problem handling large amounts of traffic)
 
> What are the typical numbers?  What is the
> pattern of usage?  What percentage occurs in the first year of
> publciation, and what percentage occurs in the second and third
> years after "publication"?  What do we know about long-term usage?
 
indeed i have statistics going back to aug '91 when the original hep-th
started (by the way HEPnet is a misnomer [not my terminology], since
the e-print archives cover far more than just high energy physics;
and moreover HEPnet is the name of the [completely unrelated]
high energy physics DECnet that started in the early 80's.)
 
these statistics are subtle to assess for a variety of reasons.
for example, there are places that simply download everything
either for local printing or local caching; so there's an automatic
lower bound on the number of times these things are accessed, which
is not necessarily a measure of readership.  but on the other hand
this distributed access (including remote photocopying) means that
many papers are significantly undercounted. then there are papers
whose initial submission may have had some technical processing problem,
corrected by a quick replacement, and hence had many 2nd requests
for a viewable version. and many people tend to use these papers as
a substitute for memory -- i.e. they know a paper with a particular
equation so get it just for that equation then delete it (does that
count as reading?). and so on.
 
nonetheless some trends emerge. the bottom line paper gets
about 50 requests -- we can call that the noise level. then there are the
typical popular papers which get a few hundred requests, and finally
there is the extremely popular ("delta function" papers that appear
once every month or so, i.e. at the < .5% level, typically review
or other submissions of broad cross-disciplinary interest) that instantly
get a few hundred requests (i.e. in the first day after submission)
and asymptote in the many hundreds or near a thousand.
 
finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, is that papers back to '91
(i.e. long since published) remain frequently accessed (i.e. roughly 75%
of the submissions dating to '91 were accessed at least once in '94 --
and a quick check just indicated that many of these were accessed in the
past two months), another indication that people find the electronic
format an easier means of access than physical access to a library.
(and why the vilification of high energy physicists as interested
in papers at most a few nanoseconds old is so absurd).
 
but for the aforementioned reasons, it is dangerous to try to read too
much from this data (in particular as well due to continued growth of
these systems, and attendant change in habits).
finally it is awkward for me to go into much greater detail since i am
accessing from remote (still in french alps) til mid-sept.
 
Paul Ginsparg
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Aug 1994 08:37:31 EDT
Reply-To:     Brian Denehy 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Brian Denehy 
Subject:      Electronic Publishing initiative
 
 
 An Electronic Publishing Working Group has just been established under the
auspices of the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee.  Arising
from an initiative of the Council of Australian University
Librarians (CAUL) and supported by a $1 million grant from the Federal
Government's National Priority (Reserve) Fund, The Working Group will
strive to help Australian universities take a leading role in publishing
the results of scholarship using advanced technologies.
 
 The Group will consider supporting various projects that will encourage
the publication of Australian research in electronic format. These efforts
will include  fostering a closer working relationship between the
various sectors engaged in the scholarly publication process (such
as authors, librarians, publishers and information technologists),
and identifying models of 'best practice' in electronic publication that
could serve as a basis for wider adoption.
 
 The Group comprises the following members:
  Professor Bruce Thom, Vice-Chancellor, UNE (Coordinator)
  Mr. Karl Schmude, University Librarian, UNE
  Mr. Earle Gow, University Librarian, LaTrobe University
  Dr. Brian Denehy, Director, Computer Centre, ADFA
  Dr. Bob Jansen, Division of Information Technology, CSIRO
  Mr. Edward Lim, University Librarian, Monash University
  Dr. Ross McPhedran, School of Physics, University of Sydney
  Ms. Jan Fullerton, National Library of Australia
 
 Any comments or suggestions for action would be welcome, and could
be conveyed to Professor Thom, Vice-Chancellor, University of New
England, Armidale, NSW 2351. Phone: (067) 73 2004. email: Bruce.Thom
@une.edu.au
 
Views may also be expressed on an open mailing list which has been set up to
discuss issues and initiatives in the field of electronic scholarly
publishing in Australia and elsewhere. People wishing to join this list
(aus-epub@adfa.oz.au) should send email to majordomo@adfa.oz.au with
the message body containing
 
subscribe aus-epub
end
 
 
---
Brian Denehy,                      Internet: B-Denehy@adfa.oz.au
Computing Services                 MHSnet:   B-Denehy@cc.adfa.oz.au
Australian Defence Force Academy   UUCP:!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cc.adfa.oz.au!bvd
Northcott Dr. Campbell ACT Australia 2600  +61 6 268 8141  +61 6 268 8150 (Fax)
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Aug 1994 08:20:59 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Quinn on Theoretical Physics E-Print Archive
 
The following essay by Frank Quinn, about the electronic preprint
initiative in theoretical physics, will, as usual, be followed
by further discussion. Please note that the full archive of
all these discussions has now been edited, partitioned and
classified. It is retrievable from:
 
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/Subversive.Proposal/
 
The following are the discussion (sizes and) filenames to date:
 
  4516  e-print.01.harnad.public-e-print-archives-subversive-proposal
  5021  e-print.02.southworth-ginsparg.hep-lanl-cicnet-models
  12151 e-print.03.ginsparg-mallery.www-technical
  14058 e-print.04.southworth-ginsparg.archive-storage
  4243  e-print.05.southworth-harnad.network-distribution
  6712  e-print.06.harnad-okerson.preprint-reprint-eprint
  3704  e-print.07.ginsparg.copyright-ownership
  18206 e-print.08.harnad-garson-ginsparg-burton-laws.publishing-costs
  10447 e-print.09.etheredge-harnad.publishing-policy
  6642  e-print.10.ginsparg.archive-storage
  9567  e-print.11.berners-lee-odlyzko.archive-retrieval
  4091  e-print.12.stodolsky-graham.publishers-libraries
  14087 e-print.13.harnad-ginsparg.quality-control
  23741 e-print.14.harnad-garson-ginsparg.publishing-costs
  18042 e-print.15.odlyzko.cost-analysis
  2866  e-print.16.lesk-harnad.esoteric-publishing
  22086 e-print.17.entlich-ginsparg-turner-harnad.electronic-publishing
  4158  e-print.18.harnad.electronic-journals
  38095 who-payspiper.01.naylor-harnad.future-journals
  3169  who-payspiper.02.odlyzko.publishing-profits
  11227 who-payspiper.03.ginsparg-harnad.internet-usership
  5838  who-payspiper.04.okerson-harnad-bookstein.esoterica-exoterica
  15232 who-payspiper.05.odlyzko-harnad.epublishing-process
  21787 who-payspiper.06.odlyzko-harnad.epublishing-costs
  7098  who-payspiper.07.fisher-monty-hailman.editorial-costs
  7420  who-payspiper.08.harnad-odlyzko-okerson.acceptance-rate
  46912 who-payspiper.09.naylor-harnad.esoteric-publishing
  14573 who-payspiper.10.ginsparg-odlyzko.network-possibilities
  10986 who-payspiper.11.meadows-stodolsky-harnad-odlyzko.citation-frequency
  6288  who-payspiper.12.ginsparg-harnad-wiggins.network-possibilities
  6949  who-payspiper.13.fisher-harnad-ginsparg.citation-frequency
 
 
>Date:  Thu, 25 Aug 1994 11:46:16 -0400
>To: cpub@math.ams.org
>From: quinn@math.vt.edu (Frank Quinn)
>Subject: electronic pub. in physics
 
Consequences of Electronic Publication in Theoretical Physics
 
Frank Quinn
quinn@math.vt.edu
 
The development of electronic scholarly communication as a whole is still
impossible to forecast. Theoretical physics, however, is further along in
this development and definite trends are taking shape. The purpose of this
note is to describe some of the trends, and some things to watch for in the
future. Some of the changes, and some of the mechanisms, are special to
physics. Nonetheless this is an illuminating "natural experiment" with
important lessons for science and scholarship in general.
 
=== The collapse of traditional journals ===
 
It is widely expected that by 2010 the bulk of scholarly communication will
be electronic. The wild success of new access tools suggests it may happen
sooner (note 1). But in any case it will definitely happen much sooner in
physics: a powerful mechanism is set to act. There is steady erosion of
journal subscriptions due to pressure on library budgets. Cuts have to be
made, and librarians are very concerned that they cause as little damage as
possible. They are aware of the physics preprint databases, and at the
first sign of weakness in the defense of physics journals they will
beginning cutting them preferentially. The argument will be: "you really
don't use the paper versions, and you have other, easier, access to the
information. It is appropriate that we cut physics in order to protect
backward areas which would really be disadvantaged by the loss of paper."
(note 2)
 
This argument suggests a sudden decline in subscriptions in the next two to
five years (depending largely on library financial problems). Some journals
may reconfigure in electronic form, but the termination of the revenue
stream will mean most of them will just die. After this happens most
transactions in physics will take place through the preprint databases.
These databases should remain essentially the same as they are now, except
for advances in access tools. (note 3).
 
=== The advent of hypertext ===
 
A very significant new development is the addition of hypertext
capabilities. Paul Ginsparg and others have developed tools which, with
very little additional effort for authors, allow active references:
selecting the reference on screen immediately calls up a copy of the other
paper (note 4). For this the paper being referred to must reside in an
electronic database, and the URL must be added to the reference. This is a
dramatic and very attractive increase in functionality (note 1), and will
have many consequences.
 
The first consequence of the new functionality is that papers not in the
database will be cited less frequently, and citations will obviously result
in less-frequent retrieval of the paper. This reinforces the motivation to
put papers into the database, so use will become more universal. There may
also be a "filling out" of the archive as authors add older papers to
encourage citation and to use self-citation as a way to lead readers to
them. Both of these trends will accelerate the collapse of the paper
journals.
 
Another consequence of hypertext citation is that readers will access
papers without knowing where they are, or whether or not they have been
published. Even if they have been published the hypertext link will
frequently be to preprints, and any modifications made to final printed
versions will be lost. In particular the prestige and quality filtering
aspects of the traditional publication process will be hidden or lost.
These factors will certainly reduce interest in, and benefits of, the
traditional process.
 
A final consequence of hypertext citations has not yet arrived, but will
provide another big advance in functionality. This is automatic forward
referencing. It will be trivial to invert citations, and for each paper
maintain a list of the papers which cite it. This will be a powerful tool
for exploring the literature. To some extent this can be done now with the
Science Citation Index. But it will be far superior to SCI in many ways:
data will be available faster; it will give instant access to the citing
papers (by hypertext links, if they are in the database); and it will be
higher quality since citations containing a URL will not be "lost" because
the cited paper cannot be located.
 
=== Sociological consequences ===
 
So far there is only anecdotal information about sociological fallout, so
the following discussion is more forecast than observation.  But it is
important to watch this development very closely. It will give us the first
glimpse of upheavals soon to be visited on all of science.
 
The first thing to watch for is a decline in average quality of papers.
There already seems to be a trend in this direction (in theoretical
physics). It should accelerate as writers no longer worry about being
subjected to a refereeing process (note 5). Inevitably, also, cranks and
"flamers" will find the databases. Some filtering may be instituted to
eliminate the worst offenders, but it will have to be minimal since there
is no mechanism to pay for careful review.
 
The reactions to the decline in quality will be very revealing. With the
loss of peer review as the first line of defense, the main literature-level
opportunities for quality control will be selective citations and review
articles. At present the custom is to cite all (known) previous work on a
subject. Will this change? Will authors refuse to dignify defective papers
with a citation? Or will they give a "dead" reference which does not link
to the defective work, and does not show up in citation data? Review
articles which sift and consolidate the primary literature are likely to
become more important for quality control. "Acceptance" for citation in a
major review article may serve as a replacement for acceptance in a
journal.
 
The next thing to watch is the impact on the "reward structure." Currently
there are still plenty of submissions to physics journals, presumably
because "credit" is still attached to formal publication. Candidates for
promotion are certainly still concerned about this. What will happen when
the journals have thinned out enough so that fewer than 50% of physics
papers can be published? Probably new "impact indicators" will emerge (note
6). The best candidates for such indicators are citation data, though this
will bring a new set of problems (note 7).
 
Other adaptations to watch for are changes in work habits. Some of this is
specialized to theoretical physics, and lessons from it will not be
universal. Many theoretical physicists think of themselves more in terms of
analytical skills than a specific subject. They are not anchored to a
specific topic (by equipment, for instance), and from time to time change
to different topics accessible to their skills (note 8). On a social level
this shows up as "fads" in which areas are tremendously popular for a while
and then are abandoned. Will lower quality mean that fads pass more quickly
(note 9)? Or will the overhead of having to sort through more trash slow
down the process?
 
=== Conclusion ===
 
Bernard Naylor has written:
 
[in ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/Subversive.Proposal/
who-payspiper.09.naylor-harnad.esoteric-publishing
"A SMALL CONTRIBUTION TO THE SUBVERSIVE DISCUSSION" para. 4.2]
 
    "We are now seriously contemplating the most dramatic change in the
    working habits of scholars for some centuries, but I look in vain
    for convincing signs that our sector appreciates this and is
    collectively bending its mind to preparing for the consequences."
 
These words may haunt us in the next decade. It seems to be too late for
theoretical physics to "bend minds and prepare", and this is somewhat
foreign to the physics mind-set anyway. But the rest of the scholarly
enterprise has much to learn by watching these bold pioneers, and may yet
be able to prepare for the consequences.
 
 
NOTES
 
1) The new tools, particularly http and Mosaic, seem to be dramatically
more attractive to users, and usage is exploding. See Science v.265 (12
August 1994) pp.895-901.
 
2) Bernard Naylor (Univ. Librarian, U. Southampton) has noted that so far
physics journals are still being defended against cuts. (He is obviously
watching, though). Paul Ginsparg (LANL) replied that it is still a bit
early, but he expects a shift in the next few years. It may also be that
Naylor is not distinguishing between theoretical and experimental physics:
the change of attitude will come first in the theoretical areas.
 
3) Naylor has suggested that the impending demise of journals may trigger
changes in the Net to "level the playing field" and allow commercial
journals to compete "on an equal footing". This is unlikely to make any
difference. Ginsparg has already demonstrated that it is politically
impossible to close down the preprint database. The argument against
closure will strengthen as journal numbers and access declines. Access
charges might conceivably be instituted, but since there are no processing
expenses in a preprint database, the charges would be far below what would
be required to support a traditional journal. In fact access charges would
accelerate the process. Subscriptions to the database would certainly be
necessary, and this would make it even less attractive to also pay for
journals containing essentially the same information.
 
4) For information about the hypertext tools see
http://xxx.lanl.gov/hypertex/
 
5) Stevan Harnad refers to good-quality writing resulting from the
anticipation of being reviewed as the "invisible hand" of the reviewing
process. In other words, reviewing is a "pump" as well as a "filter".
 
6) Theoretical computer scientists seem to have had some success in
convincing Deans and employers to accept non-traditional indicators of
impact. In particular an abstract in the right conference proceedings is
more prestigious than a refereed paper in a journal.
 
7) We may see promotion documents offering "245 total citations, including
33 from the Institute for Advanced Study, and two in a review article
written by a Harvard professor" as evidence of quality. Unfortunately there
are enormous and obvious opportunities for abuse of any such system.
 
8) There is concrete evidence that this characterization by skills rather
than subject is correct: financial institutions have found that PhD
training in theoretical physics is very effective preparation for
sophisticated economic analysis.
 
9) Quality problems probably play a role in the "fad" phenomenon. As errors
and guesses accumulate in theoretical analysis a point is reached where
further work is pointless. The area is then abandoned by theorists until it
can be cleaned up by more compulsive life-forms like experimentalists,
mathematicians, and "distillers" (see Herring, "Distill or drown: the need
for reviews", Physics Today 21 No.9 (1968) pp. 27-33).
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Aug 1994 08:21:16 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      The "Invisible Hand" of Peer Review
 
My comments on Frank Quinn's "Consequences of Electronic Publication in
Theoretical Physics" are followed by some comments by Paul Ginsparg.  SH.
 
This discussion is fully archived in:
 
ftp://princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/Subversive.Proposal/
http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/psyc.html
 
> Date:         Thu, 25 Aug 1994 11:46:16 -0400
> To: cpub@math.ams.org
> From: quinn@math.vt.edu (Frank Quinn)
>
> Some [paper] journals may reconfigure in electronic form, but the
> termination of the revenue stream will mean most of them will just die.
> After this happens most transactions in physics will take place through
> the preprint databases. These databases should remain essentially the
> same as they are now, except for advances in access tools. (note 3).
 
I must unfortunately disagree entirely with both of these predictions.
The termination of paper publication need NOT mean the death of many or
most refereed paper journals. They need only reconfigure (at much lower
cost, and on the author-side subsidy model, rather than the trade
model) as refereed electronic journals. There are already many ab ovo
refereed electronic journals starting up currently; there is no reason
to believe that taking to the skies will not be a preferable option to
being interred for paper journals that can no longer make ends meet
in paper. It is hard to imagine, in this era of information explosion
in science and scholarship, that information-sources will prefer to
implode rather than simply switch media!
 
the second point is related to this (and "peer review" is the key word
linking the two): I am an enormous admirer of the electronic
preprinting initiative in physics (mostly arising from the efforts of
Paul Ginsparg), but I have to keep reminding everyone that this
initiative is COMPLETELY PARASITIC at the present time on the (so far
intact) paper flotilla, for which all these prepublication goods are
all intended. It is what I have called the "Invisible Hand" of that
flotilla, namely, peer review, for which virtually all of these papers
are destined, that ensures the quality of what appears in the archives
-- and not just AFTER it has been refereed (when the authors of course
quietly swap the refereed reprint for the preprint in the e-print
archive) but even BEFORE, for all these papers are written with the
expectation and intention (and necessity) of being submitted to
peer-reviewed journals.
 
Human nature is such that if you were to pull that peer-control
mechanism out from under this system, quality would drop radically
(just as Quinn predicts it would), but Quinn is simply wrong that peer
review will be absent from the Net: Why on earth should it be? It is a
completely medium-independent means of controlling the quality of human
output. Just as the papers themselves migrate to the Net, so will peer
review.
 
Having now challenged these two predictions (that the literature will
simply shrink as paper journals die, rather than migrating to the Net,
and that papers on the Net will just constitute a vast, unrefereed
preprint archive, rather than the usual hierarchy of refereed
journals, as in paper), let us see how the rest of the analysis fares.
 
> There may also be a "filling out" of the archive as authors add older
> papers to encourage citation and to use self-citation as a way to lead
> readers to them. Both of these trends will accelerate the collapse of
> the paper journals.
 
The electronic archive will indeed "fill out" with the rest of the
retrospective paper corpus that is worth recreating electronically, but
not because of citation and self-citation motives but for
scholarly/scientific reasons: I want and need the prior literature at
my beck and call on the Net just as I want and need  the current
literature. All those incommensurable "value-added" features that the
speed, scope, interactivity and global interwebbing that the Net
provides for preprints, it can also provide for reprints, and offprints
(and out-of-prints) of paper provenance.
 
> Another consequence of hypertext citation is that readers will access
> papers without knowing where they are, or whether or not they have been
> published. Even if they have been published the hypertext link will
> frequently be to preprints, and any modifications made to final printed
> versions will be lost. In particular the prestige and quality filtering
> aspects of the traditional publication process will be hidden or lost.
> These factors will certainly reduce interest in, and benefits of, the
> traditional process.
 
This, if I might be permitted to point it out, is a rather circular
prophecy: Once one has prophesied that peer review will not migrate to
the Net (without giving any reason why not) it quite safely follows
that quality and discriminability will decline. But is it not much more
reasonable to suppose that peer review WILL migrate to the Net along
with the journals themselves, and that it is trivially easy to devise a
CODING system that will not only distinguish whether a paper is a
preprint or a refereed reprint, but exactly where in the journal prestige
hierarchy (corresponding to the rigor of the peer review it can be
counted on to provide) a particular article is located? Such a prestige
hierarchy currently exists in paper: Is there any reason it cannot take
to the skies too?
 
> The first thing to watch for is a decline in average quality of papers.
> There already seems to be a trend in this direction (in theoretical
> physics). It should accelerate as writers no longer worry about being
> subjected to a refereeing process (note 5). Inevitably, also, cranks and
> "flamers" will find the databases. Some filtering may be instituted to
> eliminate the worst offenders, but it will have to be minimal since there
> is no mechanism to pay for careful review.
 
These are excellent Darwinian reasons why, if the Divine Hand of peer
review does not (for some reason) see fit to rise with it as the paper
flotilla takes to the skies, then It will simply have to be re-invented
up there.
 
> The reactions to the decline in quality will be very revealing. With
> the loss of peer review as the first line of defense, the main
> literature-level opportunities for quality control will be selective
> citations and review articles... "Acceptance" for citation in a major
> review article may serve as a replacement for acceptance in a journal.
 
I do not believe for a minute, even in our absurdly populist age, that a
popularity contest and box scores can or will replace the systematic
scrutiny administered by editors and referees (imperfect as that is;
see bibliography appended to these comments).
 
> The next thing to watch is the impact on the "reward structure." Currently
> there are still plenty of submissions to physics journals, presumably
> because "credit" is still attached to formal publication. Candidates for
> promotion are certainly still concerned about this. What will happen when
> the journals have thinned out enough so that fewer than 50% of physics
> papers can be published? Probably new "impact indicators" will emerge (note
> 6). The best candidates for such indicators are citation data, though this
> will bring a new set of problems (note 7).
 
The present "impact indicators" are certainly insufficient, and the Net
will indeed provide many valuable and informative supplements, including
dynamic citation analysis, forward and backward, and probably even more
sophisticated bibliometric measures of "air time" and "mileage" in the
increasingly transparent and measurable embryology of knowledge. But up
there with the other indicators will be the perfectly standard one,
inherited from bygone paper days, namely, the altitude in the prestige
hierarchy of the peer reviewed journal in which the paper was
accepted. And the busy, rational lector will always be able to calibrate
his finite reading time as he always did -- the difference will be that
that that quality-tagged information will now be infinitely more easily
accessible.
 
> 3) Naylor has suggested that the impending demise of journals may trigger
> changes in the Net to "level the playing field" and allow commercial
> journals to compete "on an equal footing". This is unlikely to make any
> difference. Ginsparg has already demonstrated that it is politically
> impossible to close down the preprint database. The argument against
> closure will strengthen as journal numbers and access declines. Access
> charges might conceivably be instituted, but since there are no processing
> expenses in a preprint database, the charges would be far below what would
> be required to support a traditional journal. In fact access charges would
> accelerate the process. Subscriptions to the database would certainly be
> necessary, and this would make it even less attractive to also pay for
> journals containing essentially the same information.
 
I continue to preach, patiently, that the trade model is not, and never
was appropriate for no-market esoteric writing and reading. The true
per-page costs of a fully quality-controlled (edited, peer-reviewed,
copy-edited) ELECTRONIC literature will be so low compared to paper
(less than 25% according to my estimate -- which of course becomes no
more accurate by dint of my repeating it) that it will make much more
sense for the institutions (Universities, Research Funding Agencies,
Research Libraries) that currently support and subsidize scholarly and
scientific research by paying huge research library costs to instead
subsidize these minimal electronic page-charges up front, making the
product -- the esoteric corpus -- free for all. There is absolutely no
reason for many journals, or for peer review itself, to disappear in
this transition. Quality control need only be re-implemented in the
new medium.
 
> 5) Stevan Harnad refers to good-quality writing resulting from the
> anticipation of being reviewed as the "invisible hand" of the reviewing
> process. In other words, reviewing is a "pump" as well as a "filter".
 
Not just good quality writing, but also good quality research, and
reports you know you can trust (or trust as much as you could in
paper).
 
Selected Papers by Stevan Harnad on Peer Review: Paper and Electronic
 
 
Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19: 18 - 20.
 
Harnad, S. (ed.) (1982) Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in
scientific quality control, New York: Cambridge University Press.
 
Harnad, S. (1984) Commentaries, opinions and the growth of scientific
knowledge. American Psychologist 39: 1497 - 1498.
 
Harnad, S. (1985) Rational disagreement in peer review. Science,
Technology and Human Values 10: 55 - 62.
 
Harnad, S. (1986) Policing the Paper Chase. (Review of S. Lock, A
difficult balance: Peer review in biomedical publication.)
Nature 322: 24 - 5.
 
The following are retrievable from:
 
ftp://princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Harnad
http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/intpub.html
gopher://gopher.princeton.edu:9000/1
 
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum
of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in
Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991).
 
Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the
Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review
2 (1): 39 - 53 (also reprinted in PACS Annual Review Volume 2
1992; and in R. D. Mason (ed.) Computer Conferencing: The Last Word. Beach
Holme Publishers, 1992; and in: M. Strangelove & D. Kovacs: Directory of
Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists (A.
Okerson, ed), 2nd edition. Washington, DC, Association of Research
Libraries, Office of Scientific & Academic Publishing, 1992); and
in Hungarian translation in REPLIKA 1994.
 
Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending the
American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic
Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for
Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61.
 
Harnad, S. (1995) Implementing Peer Review on the Net:
Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals. In:
Peek, R. & Newby, G. (Eds.) Electronic Publishing Confronts Academia:
The Agenda for the Year 2000. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Harnad
Professor of Psychology
Director, Cognitive Sciences Centre
 
Department of Psychology
University of Southampton
Highfield, Southampton
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
 
harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk harnad@princeton.edu
phone: +44 703 592582
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp://princeton.edu/pub/harnad/
http://louis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
gopher://gopher.princeton.edu:9000/1
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 16:16:53 -0600
From: Paul Ginsparg  505-667-7353 
 
> From: quinn@calvin.math.vt.edu (Frank Quinn)
> Subject: electronic pub. in physics
 
> A final consequence of hypertext citations has not yet arrived, but will
> provide another big advance in functionality. This is automatic forward
> referencing. It will be trivial to invert citations, and for each paper
> maintain a list of the papers which cite it. This will be a powerful tool
> for exploring the literature.
 
actually this has already been on-line for a while, courtesy of the
spires-hep database maintained by the slac library. if you bring up
the abstract view of an e-print from one of hep-th et al on the www
interface, there is a link to "cited by" which brings up a list of papers
that cite it (and the ones that are available electronically -- typically
almost all for papers submitted in the past two years -- automatically
appear as hyperlinks into the database).
 
> === Sociological consequences ===
> ...
 
my main comment here is that my stance re the utility of peer review
is frequently misunderstood.  we are aiming for a system in which much
*more* stringent standards are applied, so that the truly significant
is easily distinguished from the very good, average, irrelevant, and just
plain wrong. my point has long been that the current journal system with
its all-or-nothing accept or reject does not play that role, and hence
we manifestly lose nothing by abandoning it. (i speak here of course of the
much-maligned theoretical physics literature, and speaking of subversion
many of its practitioners are as critical of its overall quality as is
frank q.)  the ultimate plan is to adopt a much more flexible system,
with far more precise tools for extracting signal from noise.
since this "experiment" is being conducted in a global goldfish bowl,
details will be visible before too long (but not til i'm back from abroad).
 
Paul Ginsparg
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Aug 1994 08:22:04 EDT
Reply-To:     Stevan Harnad 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         Stevan Harnad 
Subject:      Editor needed for paper publication of Subversive Discussion
 
 
Gerald Phillips of Hampton Press has expressed an interest in
publishing the Subversive Discussion (still ongoing) in paper. I have
asked for the contributors' permission, but as we wait for their
replies I would like to invite candidates who would be interested in
editing the volume to contact me. Much of the editorial work has
already been done, partly by me, and partly by the Psycoloquy Assistant
Editor, Colleen Wirth, on the archived electronic transcripts, but work
is still needed to make it pablishable. Those who would be interested
in undertaking this, please let me know (and if we don't know one another
already, please send a CV).
 
Stevan Harnad
Editor, Psycoloquy, Behavioral & Brain Sciences (BBS)
harnad@soton.ac.uk
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 22:55:29 EDT
From: "Stevan Harnad" 
To: GMP@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Subject: Re:  Discussion
 
> Date:    Fri, 26 Aug 94 17:51 EDT
> From: "Gerald M. Phillips, Ph.D." 
> Subject: Discussion
>
> I do not know how I got on your discussion list, but I appreciate being
> there and have enjoyed the conversation immensely.  More than that, I think
> it is useful enough to be more widely disseminated.  I have two proposals:
>
> 1. I would like to disseminate the statements in sequence via IPCT-J.  I do
> not suspect we are the biggest in the world, but we have about 5,000 names
> on our list.
>
> 2. I think someone could edit the conversation and publish it on paper (it
> would be both ironic and useful.)  Once again, our applied communication
> series at Hampton Press could bring it out in short order.
>
> I am assuming, of course, that you have archived this discussion.
>
> Gerald M. Phillips (Professor Emeritus), Speech Communication
>
> Trade and Applied Books Editor, Hampton Press
> Editor, IPCT: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century
> ISSN 1064-4326.  Send submissions to GMP3 at PSUVM.PSU.EDU
> Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
> Manuscripts are being accepted for the 1994 volumes.
 
Dear Gerald:
 
Yes, the full discussion is faithfully archived in:
ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/Subversive.Proposal/
 
The filenames follow below.
 
You have my permission to re-post it electronically on IPCT-J, as well
as to edit and publish it on paper (no irony in endeavoring to reach
the unconverted) -- but for the latter you also need the persmission of
each contributor to the discussion (see CC list of this message: I
hereby ask each contirbutor to reply to Gerald Phillips directly,
perhaps branching the reply to the rest of us).
 
Chrs, Stevan
 
e-print.01.harnad.public-e-print-archives-subversive-proposal
e-print.02.southworth-ginsparg.hep-lanl-cicnet-models
e-print.03.ginsparg-mallery.www-technical
e-print.04.southworth-ginsparg.archive-storage
e-print.05.southworth-harnad.network-distribution
e-print.06.harnad-okerson.preprint-reprint-eprint
e-print.07.ginsparg.copyright-ownership
e-print.08.harnad-garson-ginsparg-burton-laws.publishing-costs
e-print.09.etheredge-harnad.publishing-policy
e-print.10.ginsparg.archive-storage
e-print.11.berners-lee-odlyzko.archive-retrieval
e-print.12.stodolsky-graham.publishers-libraries
e-print.13.harnad-ginsparg.quality-control
e-print.14.harnad-garson-ginsparg.publishing-costs
e-print.15.odlyzko.cost-analysis
e-print.16.lesk-harnad.esoteric-publishing
e-print.17.entlich-ginsparg-turner-harnad.electronic-publishing
e-print.18.harnad.electronic-journals
who-payspiper.01.naylor-harnad.future-journals
who-payspiper.02.odlyzko.publishing-profits
who-payspiper.03.ginsparg-harnad.internet-usership
who-payspiper.04.okerson-harnad-bookstein.esoterica-exoterica
who-payspiper.05.odlyzko-harnad.epublishing-process
who-payspiper.06.odlyzko-harnad.epublishing-costs
who-payspiper.07.fisher-monty-hailman.editorial-costs
who-payspiper.08.harnad-odlyzko-okerson.acceptance-rate
who-payspiper.09.naylor-harnad.esoteric-publishing
who-payspiper.10.ginsparg-odlyzko.network-possibilities
who-payspiper.11.meadows-stodolsky-harnad-odlyzko.citation-frequency
who-payspiper.12.ginsparg-harnad-wiggins.network-possibilities
who-payspiper.13.fisher-harnad-ginsparg.citation-frequency
who-payspiper.14.quinn.peer-review-physics
who-payspiper.15.harnad-ginsparg.peer-review
 
> Date:  Sat, 27 Aug 94 09:25 EDT
> From: "Gerald M. Phillips, Ph.D." 
>
> Some problems with publishing on paper which you may want to discuss
> in general.
>
> First, we need someone to take responsibility for editing. The wide
> variation in quality and style is going to require some work, and the
> contributions need to be arranged. I am not qualified to do that.
> Someone will have to take responsibility, sign a contract, and receive
> the royalties. Since I am an employee of the house, I cannot do that
> either. It would neither be fair nor ethical, though, apparently, it is
> not a violation of the contract. I am sure that I am not sophisticated
> enough in the issues to handle it. Therefore, I would hope that either
> you, or a person designated by you (preferably a vigorous assistant
> professor who needs a major publication to get tenure) would be willing
> to work with me on this. There must be a contract.
 
I will send a message to the list to look for candidates to do the
editing for the paper version (I regret that with my move to Southampton
I will be unable to undertake this, but I will collaborate with the one
who is selected, and a lot of the work has already been done, by me and
Colleen Wirth, in preparing the ftp archive.
 
> I will cull the information and print selectively in IPCT, where I do
> have authority to pick and choose. I will, of course, keep you posted.
 
Well, do as you wish, but it is very easy to bias the discussion by
selective omissions or deletions, and I certainly hope you will not do
that. I have been at pains to get diverse views on these issues.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stevan Harnad
Professor of Psychology
Director, Cognitive Sciences Centre
                              FOR ALL BBS CORRESPONDENCE
Department of Psychology      TILL FURTHER NOTICE, PLEASE CONTINUE TO USE:
University of Southampton     Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Highfield, Southampton        20 Nassau Street, Room 240
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM       Princeton NJ 08542 USA
 
harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk        harnad@princeton.edu
phone: +44 703 592582         phone: 609-921-7771
fax:   +44 703 594597         fax:   609-258-2682
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ftp://princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Harnad/
http://louis.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
gopher://gopher.princeton.edu/1ftp%3aprinceton.edu%40/pub/harnad/Harnad
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Aug 1994 08:22:52 EDT
Reply-To:     L Zeredo 
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         L Zeredo 
Subject:      times cited x times retrieved
 
I would like to submit the following to your consideration.
 
In reply to the message below:
 
>Date:         Mon, 22 Aug 94 08:45:39 EDT
>From: Janet Fisher 
>Subject: Odlyzko on Net Capacity and Citation Frequency
>
>
>Regarding the lack of information about number of times an article
>is cited, I wonder if there is information from Paul Ginsparg about
>how many times articles in HEPnet are looked at, and how many times
>they are downloaded?  What are the typical numbers?  What is the
>pattern of usage?  What percentage occurs in the first year of
>publciation, and what percentage occurs in the second and third
>years after "publication"?  What do we know about long-term usage?
 
If you subscribe SIS-EJOURNAL and send the command statistics sis-
ejournal to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk, you will receive the following:
 
Statistics for the Mailbase list sis-ejournal:
 
 
Total Membership: 271
First mail:  30/04/93 17:36:26
Last mail :  25/08/94 13:51:38
Total over  483 days:     12
Average per day:   0.025
 
 
Retrieval of files associated with this list:
 
Filename:  08-1994
Total number of retrievals = 0
 
Filename:  introduction
First retrieval:  20/09/93
Last retrieval :  10/08/94
Total number of retrievals = 9
 
Filename:  sisejart1.v1n11994
First retrieval:  28/04/94
Last retrieval :  25/08/94
Total number of retrievals = 23
 
Filename:  sisejindex.v1n11994
First retrieval:  11/03/94
Last retrieval :  16/08/94
Total number of retrievals = 9
 
 
>I believe that the number of times cited is not entirely a measure
>of the article's usefulness or interest to the community.  It seems
>like often researchers would review an article but not cite it in
>their own research because it is not exactly on point to the current
>argument.  That doesn't mean the article is of no usefull to
>that researcher.  Maybe I'm being naive...
 
In identical form, the number of times an electronic article is retrieved may
not be a measure of usefulness, once it may not be relevant for the user's
writing.
 
>I think it would be helpful to get as much concrete data as possible.
>Especially about where the money for these author charges is likely
>to come from if subscription charges are done away with for "esoteric"
>publications.  Is that money there?  If not, will authors pay out of
>their own pockets?
>
>Janet Fisher MIT Press
 
I receive my scholarship & salary and I like what I do.
 
Luis Zeredo
SIS & SIS-EJOURNAL
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 29 Aug 1994 08:23:11 EDT
Reply-To:     IAN.WORTHINGTON@classics.utas.edu.au
Sender:       "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
              and Access" 
From:         IAN.WORTHINGTON@classics.utas.edu.au
Subject:      *ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY 2, 2
 
As a subscriber to *Electronic Antiquity* you are now being contacted
to let you know that Volume 2 Issue 2 (August 1994) is now available.
A list of contents and access instructions follow.
 
*ELECTRONIC ANTIQUITY:
COMMUNICATING THE CLASSICS*
 
ISSN 1320-3606
 
Peter Toohey (Founding Editor)
Ian Worthington (Editor)
 
EDITORIAL BOARD
 
Jenny Strauss-Clay (Virginia)
Elaine Fantham (Princeton)
Joseph Farrell (Pennsylvania)
Sallie Goetsch (Michigan)
Mark Golden (Winnipeg)
Peter Green (Austin)
William Harris (Columbia)
Brad Inwood (Toronto)
Barry Powell (Wisconsin)
Harold Tarrant (Newcastle, NSW)
 
VOL. 2 ISSUE 2 - AUGUST 1994
 
(01) LIST OF CONTENTS
 
(02) MUSEUMS AND ETHICS
 
Gill, D., 'Publishing Unprovenanced Artifacts: Further
        Observations'
 
(03) REVIEWS
 
Holtsmark, E., 'L. Pratt, *Lying and Poetry from Homer to Pindar*'
Ketterer, R., 'J. DeRose Evans, *The Art of Persuasion. Political
        Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus*'
Rubarth, Scott, 'F.J. Pelletier, *Parmenides, Plato and the Semantics
        of Non-Being* and N. Denyer, *Language, Thought and
        Falsehood in Ancient Greek Philosophy*'
Treloar, Alan, '*Concordance des textes de Nag Hammadi*'
 
(04) EMPLOYMENT
 
USA:
 
Head of Department of Classics & Ancient Mediterranean Studies
        Pennsylvania State University
 
Professor or Assoc Prof. in Greek Language/Literature
        Yale University
 
(05) KEEPING IN TOUCH
 
Ashmolean Museum: announcement
 
CAC Newsletter: information request
 
Conference:
Australian Society for Classical Studies
        University of New England (call for papers)
 
Conference:
The Pynx in History
        Athens (programme)
 
Electronic Forums & Repositories for the Classics
        by Ian Worthington
 
(06) GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
 
*Electronic Antiquity* Vol. 2 Issue 2 - August 1994
edited by Peter Toohey and Ian Worthington
antiquity-editor@classics.utas.edu.au
ISSN 1320-3606
 
------------------------
 
A general announcement (aimed at non-subscribers) that
the journal is available will be made in approximately 12
hours time over the lists - as a subscriber you will be
automatically contacted in advance when future issues
are available.
 
The editors welcome contributions (all articles will be refereed,
however a section - *Positions* - will exist for those wishing
to take a more controversial stance on things).
 
HOW TO ACCESS
 
Access is via gopher or ftp.
The journal file name of this issue is 2,2-August1994;
Volume 1 Issues 1-8 and Volume 2 Issue 1 may also be accessed
in the same way.
 
GOPHER:
 
-- info.utas.edu.au and through gopher:
-- open top level document called Publications
-- open Electronic Antiquity.
-- open 2,2-August1994
-- open (01)contents first for list of contents, then other files as appropriate
 
FTP:
 
-- FTP.utas.edu.au (or ftp.info.utas.edu.au)
        --> departments --> classics --> antiquity.
-- In Antiquity you will see the files as described above.
 
Since a few people had problems accessing the journal via ftp,
here are the stages in more detail:
 
at your system prompt: FTP
at the subsequent prompt: open FTP.utas.edu.au
at login prompt: anonymous
at password: your username (which won't show)
then: cd departments
then: cd classics
then: cd antiquity
then: ls -l
then: cd 2,2-August1994
then: ls -l
   You will now have a list of the various directories (the 'd'
   beginning each line 'drwx....' indicates you're dealing with
   a directory)
then: cd (into whichever directory you want)
then: ls -l
   If the first character in the line is not 'd', you've got a file.
   Use the 'get' command plus the file name to download.  If you're
   still in a directory, use the 'ls-l' command to list its contents.
        Use 'get' to transfer files.
 
To move back up the directory tree:
 
type: cdup
then: ls -l
 
And repeat the process.
 
If still having trouble, try, once you have the directory list for
the journal:
 
Type (for example)       cd (01)Contents
Your response should be 'CWD command successful', but no list.
Type                     ls-l
Your response should be in a form such as:
-rw-rw-r--1  1689  77030  DATE  TIME contents
Type  get contents
and you should have a copy.
 
A final alternative if a space is magically inserted in the parenthesis
of the file number is to specify:
 
CD ./(01)Contents
 
Please also be very careful when ftping *not* to leave *any* spaces
in file names or make typos.
 
The best way to access the journal (in terms of both ease and
time) is by gopher, and we would urge you to do so.  The
structure of the journal is also more easily recognisable on gopher.
 
Please try to access *here* in Tasmania  either during the night,
very early morning or at weekends, since during the business
day the lines are crammed.  This means you'll need to check
with (e.g.) the international operator for the right time difference.
 
Queries and contributions may be directed to the editors at:
 
antiquity-editor@classics.utas.edu.au
 
Peter Toohey (ptoohey@metz.une.edu.au)
Ian Worthington (ian.worthington@classics.utas.edu.au)
 
(end)
 
---------
Ian Worthington,
Department of Classics,
University of Tasmania,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001,
Australia.
Tel. (002) 20-2294 (direct)
Fax (002) 20-2288
e-mail:  Ian.Worthington@classics.utas.edu.au