Quinn, Frank (Mathematics, Virginia Tech)
A ROLE FOR LIBRARIES IN ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION. [June 1994, EJournal]
Taken from --
_______ _______ __
/ _____/ /__ __/ / /
/ /__ / / ____ __ __ __ ___ __ __ ____ / /
/ ___/ __ / / / __ \ / / / / / //__/ / //_ \ / __ \ / /
/ /____ / /_/ / / /_/ / / /_/ / / / / / / / / /_/ / / /
\_____/ \____/ \____/ \____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \__/_/ /_/
June, 1994 _EJournal_ Volume 4 Number 2 ISSN 1054-1055
There are 886 lines in this issue.
An Electronic Journal concerned with the
implications of electronic networks and texts.
2879 Subscribers in 37 Countries
University at Albany, State University of New York
EJOURNAL@ALBANY.bitnet
*******************************************************************************
* This electronic publication and its contents are (c) copyright 1994 by *
* _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give away the journal and its *
* contents, but no one may "own" it. Any and all financial interest is hereby*
* assigned to the acknowledged authors of individual texts. This notification*
* must accompany all distribution of _EJournal_. *
*******************************************************************************
A ROLE FOR LIBRARIES IN ELECTRONIC PUBLICATION
Frank Quinn
Mathematics, Virginia Tech
quinn@math.vt.edu
ABSTRACT: This is a proposal for direct involvement of libraries in
the publication of scholarly journals. The issues discussed are money,
standards, copyright and access, and the roles of individuals. The
goal is a managed transition to electronic publication which does not
sacrifice quality and is within current budgetary constraints.
THE PROBLEMS
Journal subscription costs have been rising rapidly and have absorbed
all movable resources in many libraries. Subscriptions are being
cancelled, and access to scholars has been reduced. Even so, shelves
are filling rapidly. Knowledge continues to grow, and more outlets are
needed, not fewer. Miraculously, a solution seems at hand: electronic
communication is cheap, fast, and accessible. Electronic journals seem
a wonderful solution: pay less, get more. Unfortunately serious
problems with access, quality control, and financing have held up
development of this medium. The first experimental offerings by
commercial publishers are unattractive in several ways: they restrict
access; some of them shift traditional library functions (e.g.,
archiving) to the publishers; and there are no indications that they
will be much cheaper. At the other extreme, preprint data bases and
homebrew journals have sprung up on the network. These are free, but
have problems with stability, quality control, visibility, and
acceptance. It is not at all obvious how these disparate interests and
forces will eventually come together.
One approach to electronic journals is to simply wait and see what
happens. No doubt a satisfactory system will eventually evolve, much
as paper journals evolved. But there are strong motivations for
implementing a consciously designed system, if a satisfactory one can
be found. First, evolution is slow and expensive, and the library
crisis is here now. Second, there are serious concerns that pressures
from preprint databases and electronic journals, on top of financial
problems, will cause a collapse of paper publication before a
replacement is ready. Third, evolution involves trying different
systems and weeding out the ones which don't work. But the failures
will pollute the literature and impose a burden on the scholarly
enterprise at a time when efficiency and effectiveness are more
important than ever. [line 113]
Finally, important features of the current system are simplicity,
credibility, and inertia. Scholars write to high standards and submit
to a relatively rigorous editing and refereeing process because the
options are simple: do that or don't get published; they are used to
the system; and they accept this discipline because they believe
everyone else does, and everybody gains from it. An unmanaged
transition will lose much of this. It will be complex, will have to
earn its own credibility, and will have widely accessible outlets for
substandard work. No doubt some areas will manage to keep high
standards, but many will not, and there will be a net decline in
quality. A key goal in a managed transition is not just to find a
system that works, but also transfer the credibility and acceptance of
the current system to the new one.
THE IDEA
The basic idea is that every research library should publish electronic
scholarly journals. However the terms "publish" and "journal" need
clarification, and "why libraries?" needs an answer. We give a first
pass here, and add detail in the following sections.
First, "publish": this would mean permanently maintaining a file of
reviewed and edited papers, freely accessible over the electronic
network. It would also mean managing the editorial structure (see
"Standards") to maintain standards. It need not involve editorial
work, keyboarding, file formatting, etc. These, to the extent they are
done, could be the responsibility of editors and authors.
Next, "journal": this is a repository for primary scholarly work. In
the beginning it should look like a paper journal, except for format.
Some additions might be made, for instance attaching to each paper a
list of errata, and forward citations approved by the editor. But at
present real experiments with the electronic medium should be left to
the secondary literature, to preserve the credibility of the process.
This scenario does not address the secondary literature: texts, review
and survey books, encyclopedias, many monographs, etc. The basic
structure for dealing with these does not seem to be in immediate
trouble, so we can afford to let them evolve. Technical issues such as
file standards, formats, and access modes are also not addressed here.
These vary from field to field, and information should be available
from professional societies. [line 157]
Finally, "why libraries?": first, to maintain standards (and
credibility) editors must be accountable to someone. Now they are
usually directly accountable to publishers, and indirectly to
librarians who decide whether or not to subscribe to the journal.
Ideally, publishers would continue in this role, but most are unlikely
to adopt policies which would make this possible (see "Money"). So it
makes sense for librarians to move forward a few steps in the
quality-control chain. The other reason is, to quote the bank robber,
"that's where the money is." Most scholarly journals are primarily
supported by library subscriptions, paid from monies earmarked for the
support of scholarly information needs. It is not realistic to expect
new sources of support, nor is it realistic to hope that library
subscription budgets can be shifted elsewhere for this. So research
libraries are nearly the only places professionally managed electronic
journals can be supported.
STANDARDS
The greatest problem is maintenance of standards of correctness and
quality of exposition. Not only to ensure that the material published
is of good quality, but to provide ways for readers, authors, and
librarians to be assured of this.
The key to quality is, of course, the editor or editorial board. But
it is not satisfactory to rely on the reputation of the editor as a
gauge of quality. Librarians and readers often do not have information
about reputations. There are not enough people with appropriate
reputations who are willing to do editorial work. And it is unstable:
a change of editors might significantly change the quality of the
journal.
For a journal to have a reputation (and existence) separate from that
of the editor, the editor must be accountable to someone. In this
proposal that person would be a librarian. Files for the journal would
be maintained in the library. This would address important concerns
about security and permanence, but the main point here is that it
provides a mechanism for accountability. In an extreme situation,
analogous to the firing of an editor by a publisher, the librarian
could deny write access to the file. [line 197]
In most instances librarians do not have the expertise to monitor the
standards of a journal, or even the qualifications of editors.
Further, they would lack the feedback (and discipline) that publishers
get from subscription levels. There are several ways to get expert
advice, and distribute the responsibility for monitoring. One is to
have a "board of trustees" of recognized experts. The editor would
serve "at the pleasure" of the trustees: they appoint new editors and
would have the authority to remove an editor if necessary. Trustees
would meet periodically--say yearly--for a report from the editor and
to review standards and policy. Since trustees would not be directly
involved in editorial work it should be much easier to recruit eminent
trustees than eminent editors. And listing the names of trustees as
well as editors would allow readers to use the trustees' reputations as
guides to quality of the journal.
Another possibility for accountability is that a department could
sponsor a journal: "The Wobegone Journal of Irony, published under the
auspices of the Wobegone University Department of Ironical Studies, G.
Kellor editor." Care should be taken to ensure it is not a vanity
journal for the department. Finally, professional societies might
respond to the electronic confusion by establishing accreditation
boards for journals. This would amount to a partial centralization of
the "trustee" function.
There is actually not much new in this. Editors of commercial journals
are accountable to the publisher, and people often use the publisher as
a guide to quality of the journal. Professional societies usually have
committees of de facto trustees to oversee editors of society
journals. The "trustee" mechanism for ensuring quality and stability
is used by universities and major corporations. And Universities,
physicians, and barbers are subject to accreditation or licensing. The
only novelty is the location of the person to whom the editor would be
accountable.
It should be emphasized that the `standards' issues of concern here are
correctness, reliability, and quality of exposition. Importance or
interest are not involved. The first reason for this is that boring
but correct and well-exposed work does not damage the integrity of the
literature, and may eventually be useful to someone. The other reason
is that we already have a satisfactory way to grade papers according to
interest: a large array of journals with varying degrees of
specialization and standards of importance. Electronic publication
should preserve this diversity, and not be just one huge database.
What we largely do not have now (particularly in the sciences), and
don't want to have, are large numbers of journals which vary
significantly in two dimensions: standards of correctness as well as
significance. [line 246]
MONEY
Electronic journals based in libraries would lack most of the obvious
expenses of paper journals: printing, mailing, bookkeeping costs
associated with subscriptions, and publisher profit. Keyboarding costs
can be shifted to authors by requesting submission in standard file
formats, and assessing page charges otherwise. Copyediting can be
abandoned, or reserved for extreme cases. Most editors and reviewers
of scholarly journals are already unpaid. But some expenses would
remain, and there might be new ones. If a journal has trustees it
would be appropriate to at least help pay their travel expenses to
meetings with the editors. A reasonable guess is that costs could be
held to about 20% of the current levels.
In support of this guess I would like to relate my own experiences as
editor. In 1991-92 expenses charged to my publisher were $1,300 for
postage and some secretarial support. Postage costs have declined
since then due to a nearly complete change to electronic mail. During
this time 154 papers were processed, and about 40 accepted for
publication. Most authors provided useable electronic files.
Keyboarding services for the remainder were readily available locally,
but I expect offering these services to authors at cost would have
increased the number of author-prepared files to near 100%. I would
have wanted to support the keyboarding of a few third-world
submissions. There was essentially no copyediting: most rewriting
involved technical issues and was done by the author. In cases of
linguistic difficulty it was usually effective to suggest seeking help
from a colleague. This experience leads me to believe I could have
delivered complete electronic files for this journal-- lacking
professional polish, to be sure, but completely usable-- for about
$2,000.
Many economies are also available to commercial publishers. We could
stay with publishers and avoid this whole scenario if they would
seriously address the cost and access issues. For example, by offering
scholarly journals electronically, with minimal restrictions on use, at
25% the current price. Less generous terms would just continue a
process which will lead to the collapse of commercial journal
publication. In some fields this collapse is nearly certain within ten
years, and possible within five. [line 288]
Expenses of library publication must be borne by the publishing
institution. Attempts to shift them to users will meet with the same
problems of access and collection which make commercial electronic
publication unattractive. Shifting expenses to other departments in
the institution would create conflicts of interest, and might create
vanity presses. Also the money isn't there. But in research libraries
these expenses would not be new, or unrelated to the mission. These
costs are already borne through subscription charges. It will cost
more to publish an electronic journal than to subscribe to a paper
one. But the proper perspective is that each library-published journal
saves the community of research libraries 80%. If a small fraction of
subscription budgets were diverted to direct publication, the result
would be a huge increase of easily accessible material. And movement
of a small fraction of existing journals into libraries would even
render cancellations unnecessary for such a diversion.
COPYRIGHT AND ACCESS
Copyrights are currently used primarily to protect the revenue stream
of publishers. Library-based journals could be much more relaxed about
this. It would make sense to allow the copying of entire articles,
with the original citation, in any medium for any purpose. Other
libraries might want to load them into their own archives, for instance
to speed up searches. Any user should be able to download and print
them. The local copy store or library could download and print copies
for the electronically disadvantaged. They could be included in
specialized reprint collections, and accessible through commercial
databases. In short they should have all the functionality that
preprint databases do. The only remaining functions of copyrights
would seem to be to provide legal recourse in cases of plagiarism, and
to avoid having individual authors imposing restrictions on access.
Commercial publishers who want to retain a journal presence will also
have to relax about access. For instance, back issues over two or
three years old probably should be freely accessible over networks from
any library. There is really not much benefit to "protecting" back
issues, and it would be onerous to libraries and unattractive to
authors and users. The general principle is that functionality must be
as close as possible to that of preprint databases: they are now the
competition. [line 331]
WHAT YOU CAN DO
If you are a librarian: work toward having someone in the library (with
experience and integrity) designated as the "publisher." Develop (if
you do not have) the ability to access electronic journals and print
out copies as needed. Develop the capacity to securely maintain
on-line journal files. Make known your willingness to take on
electronic journals, but insist on visible quality control through some
mechanism like trustees: do not create a vanity press. Cancel
subscriptions to provide resources for this (this will cause temporary
inconvenience, but is easily justified). And work toward having this
accepted in the library community as a professional responsibility
rather than an option. This is a community problem, and requires a
community response: it will go very slowly if everyone waits for
Harvard to do it all.
If you are a commercial publisher: if you can bring yourself to do it,
slash costs and offer journals electronically with the freest possible
access, at 25% of list price. Offer unprofitable or marginal journals
"free to a good home" in a library. And shift your offerings toward
monographs. The end result of this scenario is that libraries will
service their journal needs with a fraction of the current budget. But
a great deal of this budget was kidnapped from monograph budgets and
would return there if freed. Monograph sales can be expected to
increase substantially, and should be safe well into the next century.
In the short run this scenario offers lower profits than toughing it
out until the collapse. The advantages are control over the transition
and a graceful exit which will minimize damage to the disciplines you
service.
If you are an institutional administrator: encourage your library to
participate vigorously. Encourage your University Press (if you have
one) to transfer its journals to the library. Encourage subscription
cancellations, or provide bridge funding to support these journals
until similar transfers elsewhere generate savings to pay for them.
This transition will help with several very pressing problems
(information access, library budgets and space shortfalls). Vigorous
and concerted action will bring relief rapidly. [line 371]
If you are an editor: encourage your publisher to participate
voluntarily in this transition. Explore the possibility of moving to a
library. You should be prepared to offer a visible accountability
system, for instance by recruiting eminent scholars or previous editors
to serve as trustees. This will substantially increase the confidence
of authors and readers in a smooth transition.
If you are a scholar: seriously consider publishing your work in a
library-based journal, if you are satisfied an appropriate chain of
accountability is in place. Your work will probably appear more
quickly, and may be far more accessible to most of the profession. If
you are thinking about starting a journal, approach your library (or
someone else's library). But be prepared to address the accountability
issue. And be aware that electronic publication does not avoid many of
the problems of starting a journal. In particular, gaining acceptance
and having an impact still requires recruiting outstanding papers for
the first few issues, and establishing high standards.
SUMMARY
Change is coming, forced by rising production of knowledge and falling
library budgets, and enabled by electronic communication. Left to
itself the transition will be chaotic and damaging. A controlled
transition has been described which would serve the needs of
scholarship within current budgets and without sacrificing quality.
The major features are a shift of primary journal publication to
research libraries, and concentration of commercial publishers on texts
and monographs.
Frank Quinn
Mathematics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
quinn@math.vt.edu
[[ This essay in Volume 4 Number 2 of _EJournal_ (June, 1994) is (c)
copyright _EJournal_. Permission is hereby granted to give it away.
_EJournal_ hereby assigns any and all financial interest to Frank Quinn.
This note must accompany all copies of this text. ]]
==============================================================================