[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IuK-Workshop Elektronische Zeitschriften Februar in Berlin
Lieber Herr Marloth
Liebe InetbiblerInnen,
Ich moechte zu den Kommentaren von Herrn Marloth Stellung
nehmen, die den IuK-Workshop "Wege in die Zukunft -
Elektronische Zeitschriften II - International Symposium on Electronic
Journals" betreffen
>Die initiative der berliner kollegInnen in allen ehren ...
Ich moechte das hier richtig stellen: Es handelt sich hier nicht um eine
Initiative mit Berliner Lokalkolorit, sondern um eine Veranstaltung der
gemeinsamen IuK-Kooperation wissenschaftlicher Fachgesellschaften.
Die Idee des Workshops war, das Thema Zeitschriftenversorgung in den
Wissenschaften aus der Sicht der Wissenschaftler gemeinsame mit den
Bibliotheken und Verlegern zu diskutieren und nach Loesungen zu suchen, die
zu einer Verbesserung der Zeitschriftenversorgung beitragen.
Am 1.12. fand an der SUB Goettingen ein erster, aus meiner Sicht sehr
interessanter Workshop zu diesem Thema statt. Dazu finden Sie im Anhang
einige weitere Informationen. Der zweite Workshop im Februar wird die in
Goettingen begonnene Diskussion vertiefen und fortfuehren. Der erste
Workshop hat eine Reihe von Fragen aufgeworfen, die in Berlin naeher
vorgestellt und eroertert werden sollen.
Die Veranstaltung wird einen etwas anderen Charakter als das Kolloqium in
Bielefeld haben. Der Workshop-Charakter soll in Berlin ausgepraegter sein
und es wird nach gemeinsamen Ansaetzen und Konzepte von Bibliotheken,
Verlegern und Fachgesellschaftendiskutiert (und gestritten) (die
Fachgesellschaften sind ja auf dem Bielefelder Kolloqium nicht so stark
vertreten, zumindest nicht vom Titel und den Referenten her). Die beiden
Veranstaltungen naehern sich derselben Problematik, aber jeweils von etwas
anderen Ausgangspositionen.
Ein Resultat des Berliner Workshops soll die Gruendung einer Arbeitsgruppe
der Fachgesellschaften zu diesem Thema sein, das dann die Ansaetze weiter
verfolgen wird.
Das Thema wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften ist aktuell und wird weltweit
diskutiert (ich kopiere unten auch zwei Beitraege aus der IuK-Newsletter).
Ich denke und hoffe, dass sich beide Workshops gut inhaltlich ergaenzen und
beide Interesse verdienen.
Durch die sehr kurze Vorbereitungszeit sind wir im Moment noch in
Verhandlungen mit vielen der Referenten. Deshalb haben wir in dem von Herrn
Marloth kritisierten ersten Programmentwurf auf die Nennung der Namen der
Referenten bewusst verzichtet. Wir werden das sobald wie moeglich
nachholen, und hoffen, Sie recht zahlreich in Berlin begruessen zu koennen.
MfG
Diann Rusch-Feja
_________________________________________________________________________
Anhang Goettinger Workshop
Das Programm des Workshop und einige Adressen der Vortraege sind zu finden
unter:
<http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/f_aktkon.htm>,
der Vortrag von Prof. Groetschel (ZIB Berlin) ist unter dem URL
<http://elib.zib.de:88/edu/e-journals/workshop/sld038.htm> zu finden
der Vortrag von Herrn Dierig (SWB Konstanz) ist unter den URL's
Version 1: Aufloesung 800*600
<http://www.swbv.uni-konstanz.de/wwwroot/metadata/vort_972.vers1/sld001.htm>
Version 2: Aufloesung 1024*768
<http://www.swbv.uni-konstanz.de/wwwroot/metadata/vort_972.vers2/sld001.htm>
_____________________________________________
Aus der IuK-Newsletter (1/98) zitiert:
Zwei Beitraege aus der Liste: slapam-l _at__ lists.yale.edu
a. Meeting with President of Elsevier
> Hi everyone,
>
> Here is a forwarded message from Emily Mobley at Purdue that had met with
> the President of Elsevier Publishing. Long but very interesting.
>
> Joe
> _____________________________________________
> Joseph R. Kraus jkraus3 _at__ osf1.gmu.edu
> Engineering Librarian George Mason University
> 703-993-3715 http://osf1.gmu.edu/~jkraus3
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 14:51:15 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: FW: Meeting with President of Elsevier
>
> -----
> Emily Mobley, the University Librarian at Purdue University, has
> made this available for sharing with liblicense-l. The message has
> been shared with other lists as well.
>
> This matter has been reported in the press, perhaps most visibly in
> the New York Times on December 29th.
>
> Ann Okerson
> ____________
>
> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:25:24 -0500 (EST)
> From: Emily Mobley <mobley _at__ omni.cc.purdue.edu>
> To: arl-directors _at__ arl.org
> Subject: Meeting with President of Elsevier
>
> TO: ARL Directors
>
> I thought you might be interested in a report on a meeting
> which was held at Purdue University two weeks ago with
> Russell White, President of Elsevier, at our invitation.
> Mr. White met separately with our President and Executive
> Vice President of Academic Affairs, and with 14 members of
> the faculty as a group. The genesis of this meeting was a
> report by a faculty committee which recommended that
> university administrators at the highest levels should meet
> with like representatives from the publishing industry to
> express the University s concern about continually
> escalating serials pricing and the effect such actions were
> having on scholarly communications. This recommendation was
> one of several, including one to immediately cancel $600,000
> in serials. We chose to concentrate on Elsevier because in
> the last academic year 27% of Purdue s total serials dollars
> went to this one publisher and in the last six years, our
> Elsevier expenditures increased by 151%.
>
> Mr. White presented the same proposal to all parties
> including me. This was the standard proposal access to
> the electronic versions of all of their titles for 7.5% over
> print costs in the first year; 9% increase in each of the
> next two years with a no cancellation clause; and 10%
> discount for electronic version in lieu of a print
> subscription. He stressed the value of this proposal
> because we would have access to titles we didn t currently
> have (more information for the same price, in his terms) and
> we would avoid the high increases caused by dollar
> devaluation. He stressed that Elsevier was taking a risk
> on currency exchange. He talked a lot about the Ohiolink
> contract and by virtue of his conversation seemed to suggest
> that this was the model of choice for all.
>
> I was not, by choice, in the meeting with the President and
> Executive Vice President, but I understand the message he
> was given was not much different from that which he
> received from the faculty, a meeting that I facilitated. The
> faculty gave him the following points to consider:
>
> The symbiotic relationship which faculty have had with
> commercial publishers is breaking down due to the
> pricing policies of publishers.
>
> Commercial publishers seem to have forgotten that they
> do not produce the content which is sold and the
> content producers can choose to go elsewhere.
>
> Having access to more information (more titles) is not
> that important because if those titles were
> important to us in the first place we would be
> subscribing to the print version (note: our
> interlibrary loan records bear this out).
>
> It is critical that electronic serials be linked at the
> article level to indexing sources, particularly
> Current Contents or Web of Science, INSPEC,
> COMPENDEX, MEDLINE, and Biological Abstracts; an
> index which Elsevier is developing is not
> important and a waste of resources.
>
> The issue of currency exchange, particularly in the
> case of the dollar and the guilder is a crock.
> (One faculty member read him the value of the
> guilder over a seven year period and noted the
> years when there should have been a negative
> increase. It came out during this discussion that
> in essence the dollar was being used to stabilize
> the prices for all currencies meaning U.S.
> subscribers were paying for all currency
> devaluations.)
>
> Prices of titles are unnecessarily high. (One faculty
> member who is an editor of a society journal which
> is priced at $230 without page charges questioned
> why a similar journal covering the same discipline
> with a similar number of annual pages would cost
> four times more.)
>
> Elsevier s experience with Ohiolink is but one model
> and each state has a different culture or
> tradition in university support, so what worked in
> Ohio will not work in Indiana.
>
> To guarantee a 9% annual price increase means that cuts
> must take place elsewhere because this amount
> exceeds general inflation, the amount that the
> University would likely receive from the state.
> The faculty as a group stated that they would
> neither ask nor support a request that such an
> increase be given priority over other needs in the
> University. However, a proposal which had a 3%
> guarantee would be given serious consideration.
> (The faculty had heard rumors that some Ohio
> libraries were having to cancel other publications
> in order to meet the mandated Elsevier increase.)
>
> The next time serials were cut, it would be Elsevier
> titles because publications from
> scholarly/scientific society publishers would be
> protected.
>
> After this meeting, my Associate Dean who is responsible for
> collections, and I met with him. I reiterated the points,
> which I m pleased to say, were consistent at all levels of
> responsibility in the University. I did receive a
> letter from him in which he sated that Elsevier would be
> working with ISI to provide article level linking and that
> he was preparing a proposal for me which takes into account
> the information he learned here. We ll see! One other
> interesting point was made that there s no reason why
> additional print subscriptions for the same title needed to
> be priced at the same rate as the first copy and he would
> look into better pricing. Purdue, even after a $600,000
> serials cancellation, still subscribes to over 30 duplicate
> Elsevier titles.
>
> I m sorry this was so lengthy, but I hope it was of
> interest.
>
> Emily R. Mobley
> Purdue University
>
> ----- End of forwarded message from Susan M Tarr -----
------------------------------------------------------------------
b. A proposal to Elsevier
David Stern wrote:
> Thought we might find this interesting ...
>
> >From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson _at__ yale.edu>
> >Subject: elsevier (fwd)
> >To: rans-paper _at__ hackberry.chem.niu.edu, harnad _at__ ecs.soton.ac.uk
> >(Stevan Harnad)
> >Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 07:07:09 -0500 (EST)
> >Cc: david.e.stern _at__ yale.edu (David Stern),
> > Kimberly.Parker _at__ yale.edu (Kimberly Parker)
> >
> >Of possible interest & with permission: Ann
> >____________________________________________________
> >
> >Forwarded message:
> >From: kirby _at__ math.berkeley.edu (Rob Kirby)
> >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:02:34 -0800 (PST)
> >To: mobley _at__ omni.cc.purdue.edu
> >Subject: elsevier
> >Cc: ann.okerson _at__ yale.edu, dfortner _at__ library.berkeley.edu
> >
> >Dear Ms. Mobley:
> > I much enjoyed reading your letter to the ARL
> >directors, and I certainly agreed with its sentiments.
> >After reading the NYTimes article on Elsevier, I wrote
> >the letter below to their CEO's, with my views on
> >publishing in mathematics. Your are welcome to share
> >my letter with others.
> >Yours,
> >Rob Kirby
> >
> >
> > 30 December, 1997
> > Math Dept.
> > University of California
> > Berkeley, CA 94720-8204
> > kirby _at__ math.berkeley.edu
> >
> >
> >Mr. Nigel Stapleton
> >CEO, Reed Elsevier
> >
> >Mr. Russell White
> >President, Elsevier Science Inc.
> >
> >
> >Dear Mr. Stapleton and Mr. White:
> >
> > I am a mathematician (in particular a topologist) writing to
> >you about scientific publishing (particularly in math, and more
> >particularly about your journal Topology). During the past year I
> >have been gathering information, thinking, and writing about the high
> >cost of commercial math journals and alternative methods of
> >publication. Let me explain my view of the future of math publishing
> >and how it relates to Reed Elsevier.
> >
> > The latest issue of Topology shows that it takes, on the
> >average, about two years from the time a paper is submitted to the
> >time it is published. This is typical in mathematics, and probably
> >hasn't changed much in decades.
> >
> > Thus, in order to disseminate their mathematics quicker and to
> >establish priority, mathematicians send out preprints. Mathematicians
> >want to receive preprints so as to keep up with the field without
> >having to wait for the journal to appear years later. For these
> >reasons the preprints are crucial to our profession. The journals are
> >crucial because of their role in refereeing, vouching for the worth of
> >a paper, and as an archive.
> >
> > By now, almost all mathematicians produce TEX versions of
> >their papers, and distribute an electronic preprint. This makes
> >distribution easy, and it would be still easier if mathematicians were
> >more willing to standardize their personal versions of TEX.
> >
> > What I would like to see happen, and is beginning to happen,
> >is the following: there would exist preprint servers in each subfield
> >of mathematics (a subfield being 2 to 5% of math, defined in a natural
> >way, for example mine would be low dimensional topology). Once an
> >author has produced a suitable TEX version of a paper, s/he would send
> >it to one or more preprint servers which would list the paper on-line
> >for eternity. I could go to a server that interested me and ask for
> >a specific paper, or all papers by a certain author, or all papers in
> >a certain subject since a certain date, or all papers with certain
> >code words; I might have a subscription which sends me an abstract
> >each time a paper is listed.
> >
> > Such a system has the following advantages: (1) assuming
> >almost all mathematicians join this system, I have quick and efficient
> >access to papers that interest me, which I can peruse on my computer
> >screen and print if I wish (contrast this with waiting for publication
> >and then hoping my library subscribes so that I can laboriously xerox
> >page by page); (2) I can easily distribute my own papers to any
> >interested reader (contrast this with duplicating a paper preprint,
> >stuffing envelopes and addressing, and then missing part of my
> >interested audience).
> >
> > Such preprint servers already exist. One in high energy
> >physics is working splendidly, run by Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos
> >National Lab. Some servers exist in math, and we are in the midst of
> >organizing a more coherent system to cover all of math, done through
> >Ginsparg's operation. I think we are off to a good start in
> >"Geometric Topology" (see http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ ).
> >
> > These preprint servers are only meant to be a better way of
> >maintaining the old preprint system. It is still vitally important,
> >in my opinion, that we mathematicians retain our tradition of having
> >papers refereed and accepted (or rejected) by journals of varying
> >reputation. This should continue, and can also be done
> >electronically. We have started an electronic journal, Geometry &
> >Topology, based at the University of Warwick (see
> >http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/gt/ ). It is free, at least in the
> >foreseeable future. It is off to an excellent start with a large
> >distinguished board of editors and standards at least that of
> >Topology. We expect to offer a paper subscription at a very low
> >price, determined by the cost of a commercial printer using our TEX
> >files. Of course, there are the hidden subsidies to G&T by Warwick,
> >such as supporting the computers that G&T uses and some time by the
> >editors.
> >
> > Where do the commercial publishers come into this picture? We
> >mathematicians write and TEX our papers, we referee and edit for the
> >journals, and we are well paid by our universities for these tasks.
> >We then turn over the papers, with copyright, to the publishers who
> >add relatively little value in producing the paper volume from our TEX
> >files, and who then turn around and sell the journal to the university
> >libraries at what is, in some cases at least, an exorbitant price.
> >
> > Last spring, I collected some data on prices of journals which
> >can be found at http://math.berkeley.edu/~kirbyjournals.html in the
> >appendices. The data is given in price per page and price per 10,000
> >characters. The latter is more accurate, but the former is easier to
> >understand. Briefly, an efficient and cost conscious journal like the
> >Pacific Journal of Math can be sold at about 13 cents/page. It is a
> >non-profit company, with only minor subsidies from a few universities,
> >and a 40+ year history of low costs and good mathematics.
> >
> > Perhaps the three most prestigious math journals are the
> >Annals of Math (Princeton Univ Press) published at 15 cents/page, the
> >Journal of the American Math Society at 15 cents/page also, and
> >Inventiones Mathematicae (Springer) at 110 cents/page.
> >
> > Your journal Topology costs us 81 cents/page. Berkeley
> >subscribes to 13 of your math journals, and the average cost is 73
> >cents/page, ranging from a high of 135 cents/page for Nonlinear
> >Analysis to a low of 47 cents/page for Linear Algebra and its
> >Applications. Wolters Kluwer averages 67 cents/page for 5 journals.
> >
> > Springer averages 82 cents/page, Academic Press 40 cents/page,
> >and Birkhauser 68 cents/page, for comparison. The non-profits are
> >usually less.
> >
> > So this brings me to the main point of this letter. I read in
> >yesterday's New York Times about Reed Elsevier expanding dramatically
> >and having high margins in its scientific publishing. Yet it looks to
> >me as though you are on your way out in scientific publishing, at
> >least in math. How can you stay in business offering a topology
> >journal at 81 cents/page when you have competitors offering roughly
> >the same product at under 20 cents/page? What's going on here?
> >
> > I know part of the answer. There is a time lag. Your prices
> >have been going up steeply in recent years. Mathematicians pay little
> >attention to these things for we subscribe to few journals as
> >individuals and in those cases get much lower prices if our libraries
> >also subscribe. Our librarians have noticed the higher prices, but it
> >has taken a while for them to get our attention. But many of us have
> >woken up by now. (Furthermore, publishers added much more value in
> >the old days of typesetters and galley proofs.)
> >
> > But now that we are awake, we also notice the alternatives.
> >In my field, we have a free electronic journal and are on the way to
> >having a preprint server. By the time our library decides on which
> >journals to subscribe to this summer, I expect that much (most?)
> >topology will be on the preprint server, some good topology papers
> >will have shifted away from Topology to lower cost journals, and I
> >will be able to recommend to my library that they drop Topology (and I
> >will, alas, drop my personal subscription). Perhaps this will be
> >delayed a year. When Berkeley drops Topology, and editors, referees
> >and authors begin to desert Topology, how long will it continue to
> >exist?
> >
> > An interesting issue here is copyright. I understand that, at
> >the moment, you allow authors to list their paper on their web site,
> >but do not allow (once the copyright form has been signed) authors to
> >put their papers on preprint servers. I'm not surprised at this
> >restriction, given what I wrote in the last paragraph. But why should
> >authors give up the right to use a preprint server when it is
> >obviously so much in their interest that everyone use preprint
> >servers? You might win that battle if Topology were unique enough,
> >but if you demand a restrictive copyright, authors are likely to go to
> >your competitors.
> >
> > So you see boom and I see bust. Your markets in other areas
> >such as law may be in good shape; things vary widely between academic
> >disciplines. But I think I know math pretty well, and I don't see
> >much of a future for high cost commercial publishers.
> >
> > But I would be sorry to see Topology disappear. It's an old
> >friend. I published my thesis there in 1967. From my desk I see all
> >the back issues, and know many papers therein. The editors at Oxford
> >are friends and have worked hard from the beginning to make Topology a
> >journal of stature. But all that sentiment can't overcome a price
> >that's too large by a factor of 4.
> >
> > It is presumptuous of me to tell you how to run your business,
> >but here are a few possibilities anyway.
> >
> > I'd guess that you could cut the price of Topology in half,
> >and probably more, and still make a profit. After all, there are
> >economies of scale and you have much experience and a tradition to
> >help. American automobile manufacturers who thought they were pretty
> >efficient in the 70's found they could double their efficiency when
> >they ran into Japanese competition. Also, you apparently have high
> >profit margins in scientific publishing which could come down some.
> >
> > Announcing a price cut to 40 cents/page, with promised cuts in
> >the future, would probably save Topology, at least for quite a while.
> >But this doesn't seem too likely when I read about 3 to 5 year
> >contracts with 9.5% increases locked in, and only some electronic
> >enhancements to offer us (those electronic enhancements look modest
> >compared to what we are doing ourselves with preprint servers and
> >electronic journals that are free).
> >
> > Best for us would be for you to simply give the journal
> >Topology to its editors in Oxford, to run as a non-profit as the
> >Pacific Journal is. All you'd get is some good will from
> >topologists.
> >
> > I think that proceeding as you are will just run journals like
> >Topology into the ground. There may be profits there for another few
> >years. But then all that remains is ill will from some academics who
> >didn't want a favorite journal to die.
> >
> > I'd also encourage you to talk to us. We mathematicians
> >produce the math for your journals, and we urge (so far) our libraries
> >to buy your journals. Of course it is costly in time to talk to us.
> >I will circulate this letter to other mathematicians, and will be
> >happy to circulate your reply in the same way. That is one way to
> >reach us.
> >
> >Yours,
> >
> >Rob Kirby
> >
> >
> >
> David Stern
> Director of Science Libraries and Information Services
> Kline Science Library
> 219 Prospect Street
> P.O. Box 208111
> New Haven, CT 06520-8111
>
> phone: 203 432-3447
> fax: 203 432-3441
> email: david.e.stern _at__ yale.edu
Dr. Diann Rusch-Feja
Director, Library and Research Documentation
Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education
Lentzeallee 94, D-14195 Berlin (Germany)
Tel. +49 30-824 06-230
FAX +49 30-824 99 39
email: ruschfeja _at__ mpib-berlin.mpg.de
http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/DOK/ehomee.htm (Library Server)
http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/DOK/ech.htm (Clearinghouse)
http://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/DOK/metatagd.htm (Dublin Core Vers. 1.0 in
German)
Listeninformationen unter http://www.inetbib.de.