Re: Reasons for freeing the primary research literature
on Sat, 11 Aug 2001 Jim Till <till_at_UHNRES.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
> There's been much discussion, via this forum, about HOW the primary
> research literature might be freed. (By "primary" research literature, I
> mean original contributions by active and appropriately-qualified
> researchers, where new knowledge, such as novel concepts, novel data, or
> novel interpretations of existing data, are published).
>
> But, what about reasons WHY the primary research literature should be
> freed? Here's my first attempt at a summary of some of the main reasons:
>
> 1. It should be done:
>
> - Information gap: Libraries and researchers in poor countries can't
> afford most of the journals that they need.
>
> - Library crisis: Libraries and researchers in rich countries can't
> afford some of the journals that they need.
>
> - Public property: The results of publicly-funded research should be
> publicly-available.
>
> - Academic freedom: Censorship based on cost rather than quality
> can't be justified.
[snip]
> What other important reasons have I neglected?
The most important motive behind the self-archiving
argument is that universities wish to unload the
profit-sapping burden of conserving knowledge. They
wish to reduce, perhaps eliminate, spending on
libraries.
The vision of "access not ownership" through technology
started in the 1960s with the interlibrary photocopy.
It was supported by a legislative expansion of fair use
in the 1970s. This justified repeated rounds of
subscription cancellations and reductions of other
purchases (leading many university presses to question
the viability of the monograph). Research universities cut
their library share of spending by half or more. They
reduced spending not only on collections but on
services, so an interlibrary photocopy takes an average
of 2 weeks according to an ARL study. In FY1987 total
higher education spending on libraries dropped by $110
million, provoking publishers to raise prices while
giving these institutions a $110 million boost in
profitability. Thus started the "serials crisis" led by
the ARL two years later with its anonymous economists'
report and accusations of publishers' profiteering and
researchers' excessive publishing.
It is very clear that university managers see library
growth generated by R&D as a drag on their gigantic
profitability. As many observers have pointed out,
they have no real concern with excellence in research
or education. The number of "research universities" has
grown incredibly since 1960. Those that cannot continue
to qualify themselves with adequate spending on
resources should probably give up lackluster research
and return to what does not require a huge library
collection.
One of the alarming aspects of this history is the
shutting down of scientific research into dissemination
behavior and economics. In spite of provisions of the
1976 science and technology policy act, my impression is
that secretaries at science agencies are so unfamiliar
with the word "dissemination" that they are unable to
spell it. Instead of scientific studies to support
the misnamed "self-archiving" argument, we are abused
with the rhetoric and nonsense such as attempts to
justify the phrase "virtually all" while citing a
source that provides the statistic "36.87%."
Support for "self-archiving" is made more foolish by
the fact that, as even its most ardent supports in this
forum have pointed out, authors are notoriously difficult
to regulate. Whatever is made public outside peer-reviewed
journals cannot be trusted as a general rule. Moreover,
no one can guarantee that charlatans will not insert
counterfeit claims of research to support their private
commercial interests.
Thus, the self-archiving movement not only promises
to eliminate considerable library spending. It promises
a sort of chaos that will undermine peer review and
authorship. It will slow scientific progress and justify
perpetual renewals of grants for promising research.
No one in management cares how much duplication and
error results from poor preparation as long as cash
flows uninterrupted by the need to prepare new proposals.
This, of course, helps solves the problem of what to do
with (and how to pay for) faculty researchers whose
grants have come to fruitful ends. The cures for cancer,
heart disease, AIDS, etc. loom as nightmares for the
financial managers of academe.
Libraries have been the source of dissemination for
researchers, a class that has not been able to afford
to purchase all books and journals of interest for
at least two hundred years. To blame publishers' prices
for economic barriers is therefore not only false but
silly. Universities have the money to spend as can be
ascertained by their financial reports and statistics.
Public universities usually have the obligation to
provide public access to taxpayers. Private universities
may charge a few hundred dollars to an unaffiliated
investigator. By decimating their collections, these
institutions have already short-changed the public
and their core communities.
A better solution to the researchers' dilemma would
be for research universities to catch up their
collections and stop false claims of poverty. Around
here we call a miser who applies for welfare a "cheat"
and he is subjected to prosecution.
Have a nice weekend.
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>
.
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:13 GMT