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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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]
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.