[Moderator's Note: Good manners dictate that I give
Albert the last word, so here he has it. No rebuttal
from me. But now let this really be the end of it. S.H.]
on 21 Aug 2001 Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_coglit.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
hoped for the last word:
=
> Albert Henderson's postings are so wide of the mark that they
> tend to answer themselves, by self-caricature. Lately they are
> also eliciting flaming, so I'm afraid I have to re-invoke cloture.
Some university managers can't stand criticism
especially when profits are threatened. However
I have also received some very supportive private
messages from others.
> (Apologies to those on the list who will keep getting the
> rejected postings anyway, because they have been added to Albert's
> blind CC list.)
Stevan would like to preach only to the choir.
But there is another point of view.
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> =
> > I am against self-archiving as a substitute for
> > libraries, library collections, and librarians.
> > Every qualified researcher is (or can be) a member
> > of a major research library.
> =
> There are 2,000,000+ refereed articles published annually in 20,000+
> refereed journals. No library can (nor ever could, while we still
> reserve any resources at all for basic subsistence needs!) afford
> most of the 20K, and most can hardly afford any at all:
> =
> http://www.arl.org/stats/index.html
Let's be realistic. Not every journal in an ARL =
library is refereed. I for one am hard pressed to =
believe figures above, like 2MM refereed articles. =
The National Science Board, for instance, =
recognized about 80 thousand articles published =
annually 1995-97. Whose figure is correct??
Moreover, only if a university supported programs =
in every speciality -- past present and future -- =
would it need all the refereed journals in the =
world. A reasonably comprehensive collection is =
not beyond reach if spending on libraries keeps =
pace with spending on R&D at ARL institutions.
The core group of ARL libraries kept pace with the
growth of R&D spending in the 1960s (and for 200
years before) very nicely. University managers =
stalled library spending growth after they apparently =
convinced themselves that library photocopying could =
replace some subscriptions. [Henderson, A. Journal of =
the American Society for Information Science. =
50:366-379. 1999] Stevan promises that "self-archiving"
will eliminate library subscriptions once and for all.
> Albert Henderson's recommendation is worthy of Marie Antoinette.
The trouble with "self-archiving" is that it =
promises universities can eat cake and have it too. =
Beware of false prophets...
> > Moreover, self-archiving opens the door to
> > a mess of unreviewed articles which many
> > readers are unable to evaluate in terms of
> > poor preparation, error, misconduct, and
> > fraud. Again, quality of research and
> > education will suffer.
> =
> See the earlier subject thread in this Forum on not confusing
> toll-gating with gate-keeping:
> =
> Albert thinks it is toll-gating (Subscription/License/Pay-Per-View,
> S/L/P) that is somehow mysteriously maintaining the quality of
> research, rather than the more obvious candidate: the gate-keeping of
> peer review.
When universities shut the gate on library =
subscriptions via the budget, the students =
and research sponsors who have paid for =
excellent resources are betrayed. The faculty =
is undermined. Authors and referees lack
essential resources.
Publishers have been paid for their journals ever
since Henry Oldenburg founded the Philosophical
Transactions and put profits -- however meager --
in his pocket.
> He also thinks that the Have-Nots who cannot afford the gate-tolls
> should not get the peer-reviewed results of the gate-keeping either,
> even if their authors self-archive them for free, because, who knows,
> some of those authors might have lied! Far better to be denied
> access to it all while Albert keeps campaigning for diverting more
> funds (from somewhere) to pay more tolls.
I really don't know what "Have-Nots" Stevan
has in mind. An impoverished research program
loses its researchers to institutions with
adequate resources. Journal subscriptions are
probably the smallest expense. A university =
that cannot afford a research library should
stop pretending and do whatever it can do well. =
"Diverting more funds" from profits would pay for
decent libraries for U.S. research universities. =
THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION each year =
reports university income and expenditures as =
recorded by the Internal Revenue Service. =
Research university profits average between 20 =
and 25 percent. I posted a table of recent =
profits online along with library spending figures. =
[SCIENCE 289:243 2000] The Chronicles' update on =
profits can be found in the Nov 24, 2000, issue. =
You will also find pretty good coverage of =
Congressional earmarking and the huge financial =
hoards called endowments in various issues of =
the Chronicle.
=
> Meanwhile, "join" a "major research library" that can already afford
> the 20K+ -- except that, alas, not only is there not one such library
> for every "qualified" researcher on the planet to "join" but there
> exists not one such library at all: and there never will be, except
> should the click-through oligopoly dreamt of by some vendor-cartels
> come to pass, with the planet paying a global site-license for the 20K,=
> as dictated by the vendor-cartel, and at the expense of whatever other
> essential goods and services we would have to sacrifice to fund such
> folly.
If a researcher is not connected to a library that =
collects journals in his/her interest (possibly 1000 =
journals, not 20K) then I would question whether that
researcher and his/her program can be "qualified." =
> > Finally, your use of the term "give-away"
> > is mistaken and misleading -- a major
> > fallacy in this forum. Authors give nothing
> > away. Although they are not paid in cash,
> > authors exchange their reports for recognition
> > and dissemination by editors that they value.
> =
> Albert has been many times given the chance to explain what the causal
> connection is between the cash that is paid for the tolls to access the=
> refereed research that the author gives away (sic) for free and the
> recognition (impact) that the author gets from having researchers
> access that research. For the causality looks to be running in the
> exact opposite direction: Limit access to only those who can afford the=
> tolls and you limit recognition (impact) by exactly the same measure.
> Self-archiving can at last remedy this, but Albert is alas too
> committed to the defense of toll-gating to understand the real causal
> connection, and must instead simply repeat incoherent incantations like=
> the above one.
> =
> http://www.neci.nec.com/~lawrence/papers/online-nature01/
If Stevan's "give-away" premise were true, no author =
would bother to submit articles, wait, respond to =
referee comments, resubmit, wait some more, etc. They =
would all simply post their articles in their =
"self-archives" and not bother with editors. =
> This Forum really has to get back to substantive matters. I'm sure
> that, like Charlie Brown and Lucy's annual football, we will get drawn
> into all this yet again, but for the moment, I think we've had
> enough...
I'll be back.
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT