List-Post: [email protected] List-Post: [email protected] Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 10:07:34 -0400 From: "Thomas J. Walker" <[email protected]> To: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]>
Stevan-- Thought you might be interested in this exchange from earlier this year. I was naive to think that Societies would think it win-win to sell at a profit what their authors want. Cheers, Tom ========================================================================= Thomas J. Walker Department of Entomology & Nematology University of Florida, PO Box 110620, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620 E-mail: [email protected] FAX: (352)392-0190 Web: http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/tjwbib/walker.htm ========================================================================= >Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:47:26 -0500 (EST) >From: "Arthur P. Smith" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Should Publishers Offer Free-Access Services? >To: "Thomas J. Walker" <[email protected]> >X-Authentication-warning: lancelot.aps.org: apsmith owned process doing -bs > >On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, Thomas J. Walker wrote: > >> I posted this to the Sept Amer Scientist in November. I am now writing an >> Annual Review article that includes a discussion of the transition from the >> current journal system to an all-e system. Your answers might help me >> understand the reluctance of journals to sell to authors what they want >> (free, convenient access to their archived refereed articles without their >> having to spend time making it happen). > >Hey, I might have changed my mind... > >> Offering e-reprints would not fool authors. It would give authors a way >> easily to make accessible the archived versions of their articles (that is, >> the official, paper-published version with its formatting and pagination). > >Yup - good point. > >> >> Am I correct in my understanding that APS authors are not specifically >> permitted by APS to post the PDF files of their articles on the XXX server? > >I'm not quite clear on that. I believe the answer is no, they are not allowed >to post the final PDF files - on the other hand the current copyright >agreement does seem to specifically allow them to post the final PDF on >their own web pages. It's a little confusing - our associate publisher is >the one with the official answers, if you need an official answer. And >the copyright agreement is under review (a "license" version has been proposed >and discussed extensively) so the answer may well change in the next few >months. > >> If they are so permitted, they will surely soon learn to do it. If they >> are not permitted to do it, should not APS provide them an ethical, >> convenient, contractual way of having it done for them--namely, by selling >> them the service [which would be equivalent to selling them an infinite, >> permanent supply of toll-free, Web-accessible reprints]? > >Yes, that's certainly worth considering. The reluctance on our part >may come from the complexity of keeping both free and non-free articles - >but really it's only an additional 1-bit tag on the article. There may >also be a reluctance in creating two apparent tiers of articles; those >which are free and those which are not. There is certainly a great >sensitivity here to ability to pay on the part of authors - the "page charges" >here have always been voluntary. And the price could be quite high (a >rough guess is an average $2000 per article). And by making the PDF free >based on initial author payment we may be reducing our options for >data migration in the future (we couldn't very well charge for a >new-fangled XYZ format if the old PDF was still available free, so >how do we fund conversion to XYZ?) But I really can't speak for >the organization on this - we're looking at all sorts of new models, >and this is one that has been considered in the past and may well be again. > >> >> If they are not permitted to do it, and APS declines to sell them the >> service, aren't more and more authors likely to think doing it themselves >> is the only way to accomplish what should be done for the greater good (as >> Steven suggests). And won't APS not only lose revenue it could have earned, >> but also miss a chance to get authors accustomed to doing what Steven and I >> say they will need to do in the all-e future--namely, to pay for making >> their referred versions accessible toll-free on the Web? >> > >Well, I think we don't really look at authors as you do, perhaps. >70% of our authors come from outside the U.S., many come from FSU >or even developing countries where there is no way for the forseeable >future they will be able to pay even what Stevan would agree is >a necessary charge. Even in the U.S. we get a substantial number of papers >from grad students or postdocs, or even small college faculty (particularly >theorists) for whom a $200 charge would be a significant >burden, never mind $2000. But their work is definitely worthy of review and >inclusion in the established literature. So how can we be fair? > >> >And why should you delay publication of >> >possibly important results just because the author was unable or refused >> >to pay? >> >> No one is talking delaying publication. Without e-reprints every article >> is potentially already available as > >No comment here... I'm not sure what I was talking about either, except >the two-tier issue which I think really is important. If one >set of articles is accessible to millions and the other to merely >thousands of readers, which set is likely to become higher in prestige >value? > >> >> >And why should not readers pay, in some form at least? >> >> Readers should not pay because authors of research articles would rather >> that their readers not have to pay. And the cost of providing their readers >> free access (so long as paper continues) is negligible. > >Perhaps this is the critical point where we differ. We (or at least I) >don't anticipate paper lasting much longer at all. Look at Encyclopedias - >once CD-ROM's came out, paper encyclopedias have basically become a dead >market. Encyclopedia Britannica almost went under from it. Our utility, >at least from our perspective, is not very far in nature from the >reference utility of an encyclopedia, and will almost surely suffer >the same fate within at most a decade. Probably less. The only reason >it hasn't happened yet is that our content (all of the physics literature, >say) is up to a thousand times bigger than an encyclopedia - once digital >media with that capacity arrive, paper will be totally obsolete. And >the internet means we may not even have to wait for physical media >any more. And that means the electronic version has to recoup all costs, >not just "last-copy". That's where the $2000 estimated charge comes from. > >> >> >> >If >> >authors pay for everything, the economic pressures will almost certainly >> >force publishers into a "vanity press" mode, where quality drops through >> >the floor (authors care little for quality control, it is the reader who >> >cares). Tell me how you will sustain the quality of existing scientific >> >journals against the pressure to cut costs and please the author! >> >> Authors do care about quality, as do tenure and promotion committees. >> > >Yeah - well, I think I had a valid concern but I won't argue further on that. > > Hope this helps - feel free to send more questions/comments. > > Arthur ([email protected])
