-----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] List-Post: [email protected] Date: Saturday, May 08, 1999 8:03 AM Subject: Re: 2.0K vs. 0.2K
<snip> >The minor differences have to do with a way of thinking that Arthur >repeatedly lapses into despite himself. (It has happened in this >discussion before.) I can't think of a better name for it than S/L/P >thinking, or reader-end thinking. He just doesn't seem able to sustain >the concept of selling a product to readers instead of a service >to authors, no matter how ardently he tries! > From my point of view, Arthur is just being realistic. I have some knowledge of journal expenses from my recently-ended 3-year term as Treasurer of the Society for Applied Spectroscopy, publisher of the journal "Applied Spectroscopy". We keep our costs as low as we can, and the journal prices are also low. There are 12 issues each year, and a total of about 2000 pages. Membership in the U.S. includes the journal subscription, and costs $26 for students and $76 for regular members; slightly more outside the U.S. to reflect mailing costs. We lose money on student members. Members can subscribe to the online journal for $20. Library subscriptions cost $410 in the U.S. and no more than $495 elsewhere, and they include a site license for the online version. We don't make big profits; in fact, SAS operated at a deficit in two of the last three years. If we gave the journal away free, we'd be out of business as a scientific society very soon. Page charges have been tried, and were abandoned for good reason. When those reasons are mentioned in this discussion, some people seem ready to ignore them. I'm not one who opposes change; I've pushed for it often enough. One must be aware of the unintended, but foreseeable, consequences of change. Are we ready to discard the scientific societies?
