---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:56:39 -0500
From: Albert Henderson <NobleStation@COMPUSERVE.COM>
Subject: Re: Cost of the Journal of Molecular Structure & others (Frieda Rosenberg)
on Thu, 9 Dec 1999 Frieda Rosenberg <friedat@EMAIL.UNC.EDU> wrote:
> Mr. Henderson,
> Do you think you're winning favor with us by pitting us against our
> employers?
The most valued employees are those who can convince
their bosses to change their minds, saving them from
making huge errors.
When NIH Director Harold Varmus announced his E-Biomed
proposal, most of the bioscience community supplied him
with detailed objections. I was one of the first. Some of
the news accounts noted that some editors feared that
Varmus might retaliate to criticism through his power to
influence grants. I do not believe that he did this. He
had planned to step down after 6 years, and step down he
did. Perhaps E-Biomed fulfilled some dark campaign promise.
It didn't fly of course. What's left is a runtish shadow
of the utopian dream he offered.
> You seem to think that your money is in our pocket and that we are not
> doing enough to fill our pocket. You will give us the daggers and robe of
> holiness to go out and get the money. For this service you see yourself
> as a savvy fairy godmother with a rather slow Cinderella. You shout at us
> "Don't you GET it?"
I am waiting to hear a good reason why university profits
should rise at the expense of effectiveness in the classroom
and the laboratory. The dramatic shift in policy was done in
secret, or it would have been challenged by others, as I am
doing now, 30 years ago. Eventually, the error will be
widely recognized and many universities will suffer a loss of
confidence and respect in R&D as they have already in
the quality of education.
The major error of the policy was its anticipation of savings
by fiat rather than basing policy on studies of communications.
To compound the error, NSF, PCST, and OSTP abandoned interest in
dissemination in defiance of the law. I believe they did this
because they knew that further studies would expose the policy
defects that I often cite.
> The value of the Mellon report to you is that it cost $12m, *and* proves
> your point. Otherwise it would have been a gigantic waste of money.
The report has value because it demonstrates the error
of, "the dogma -- that IT will substantially raise
productivity," meaning reducing costs. The value of the
prior Mellon report, which embraced "the dogma" was in its
release of previously unpublished data on the downward
spiral of library funding.
The major failure of both reports was to ignore the evidence
of information science already published. If I had been a
referee in their proposal review, I might have saved quite a
lot. But then, maybe it is good they learned the hard way
and are now possibly convinced of the error of "the dogma."
> Your market is telling you that your added value is
> overpriced--particularly in science, where the major proof of scientific
> validity is not peer review, but the replication of the finds by other
> researchers. Fast, the way the e-archives allow it to be done.
Peer review never purported to prove scientific validity,
only to provide constructive criticism and recognition of
appropriate methods, materials, and so on. The more
important role of peer review is in the evaluation of grant
proposals. Publication is part of a social ritual that
acknowledges credible workmanship, even if the hypothosis
is tentative and is eventually proven wrong. What's more
important about peer review, perhaps, is the assignment of
referees as a part of their training, participation, and
recognition. R K Merton has written about evaluation processes
extensively in THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE.[U Chicago Press. 1973]
Apologists for library impoverishment supplied lots of rhetoric,
including blaming publishers and researchers and promising
financial savings from IT. They failed in the area of solid
evidence which indicates, for instance, databases cutting their
coverage in order to meet demands for "affordable prices." In
contrast, the research literature on science communications
demonstrates how rich information resouces contributes to
productivity by eliminating duplication and error.
The mistake made by "the dogma" was to confuse IT with mechanical
technology that reduces human labor and cost. Productivity with
information comes in better output, rather than reduced input. IT
encourages more labor-time, not less, to take advantage of new
features not possible before! It's not just about making copies. IT
also requires a considerable investment in hardware, software,
upgrades, administration, training, and so on. You have obsolescence,
which was never a factor in print and paper. The simple renewal of a
subscription now requires expensive legal advice. Good HTML requires
technical professionals in addition to the author and editor. Readers
must all buy or have access to connectivity, workstations and printers
that are far more expensive than 4 years' worth of textbooks.
The "productivity paradox," the failure of IT to save money, is most
evident in administrative spending, according to the National
Research Council. [ORGANIZATIONAL LINKAGES. UNDERSTANDING THE
PRODUCTIVITY PARADOX. National Academy Press. 1994] Oddly, university
managers _never_ cut administrative spending, as they did library
spending, in anticipation of the economies of IT!!
> University administrators are finally demanding some quality in published
> research, which trend in previous messages you have repeatedly disparaged.
What do they know of "quality?" The quality of research
starts in "the laboratory" so to speak. Publishers and
librarians bring order out of the chaos of findings.
If dissemination is blocked, quality is compromised by
avoidable duplication and error.
The output of research -- publications -- grows at the same
pace as its basic input, the financial investment (in constant
dollars to remove the effects of inflation). Since 1960 US
Academic R&D grew 7 times while spending on major libraries
grew about 4 times. (JASIS 50:366-379. 1999) "Something,"
as Dr. Henry Lee might testify when Alma Mater goes on trial
for the murder of Minerva, "is wrong."
By blocking dissemination, administrators have contributed more
than anyone to the deterioration of quality in the laboratory
and in published findings. Perhaps universities should be
held accountable and forced to refund grants that were not
productive in terms of discovery. That would clear up the
quality problem, wouldn't it?
> If quality increases while decreasing cost outlay and increasing
> university profits, this is a plus to them as administrators. JUST AS IT
> WOULD BE TO YOU IN YOUR BUSINESS.
Please explain how the decimation of library collections
increased the quality of research and education. The faculty
don't seem to think so. According to Harold Varmus, many
researchers even use their grant money for subscriptions.
"Just in time," turned out to average 16 days, according to
a 1997 ARL study. It should be called, "Far too late."
Referees, for instance, are often asked to report within
two weeks. Obviously, they have no way to check unfamiliar
references and be "just in time."
> Tell us, isn't that the motive for your
> messages as well??
I was provoked to investigate and speak out by the ARL
Serials Prices Project Report in 1989. It was so far off
the mark I got angry. I was further irritated when it
became clear that "libraries" and "dissemination" were
taken off the science policy table without so much as a
word to the press. I have been at it ever since.
I started in learned publishing in 1964 as a reprint editor
under the tutelage of Walter J. Johnson. At the time I worked
with top scholars including Henry Steele Commager, Harry Woolf,
Paul Henry Lang, B.A. Botkin, Weston LaBarre, and others. I
worked with top publishers and booksellers as well. At the time,
there was a sense of close cooperation between publishers and
librarians. I joined ALA and SLA and developed an in-house
library for editorial research. I studied AACR to perfect my
cataloging skills. I was among the first editors to join the
Library of Congress CIP program.
If anything, I seek a restoration of that collegiality. I don't
believe this can be done without a candid dialog. Thanks
for joining in.
Best wishes,
Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>
