Main Index: Trial Testimony June 10, 1997
160
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2 ------------------------------x
3 GORDON & BREACH SCIENCE
PUBLISHERS S.A., STBS., LTD.
4 and HARWOOD ACADEMIC
PUBLISHERS GMBH,
5
Plaintiffs,
6
v. 93 CV 6656 LBS
7
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS
8 and THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL
SOCIETY
9
Defendants.
10
------------------------------x
11
June 10, 1997
12 10:10 a.m.
Before:
13
HON. LEONARD B. SAND
14
District Judge
15
16
17 APPEARANCES
18 ORANS, ELSEN & LUPERT, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
19 BY: LESLIE A. LUPERT
ROBERT L. PLOTZ
20 PETER E. SEIDMAN
21 COVINGTON & BURLING
Attorneys for Defendants
22 BY: RICHARD A. MESERVE
JEFFREY G. HUVELLE
23 SUSAN L. BURKE
24
25
161
1 (Trial resumed)
2 THE COURT: The witness may resume the stand.
3 BRUCE KINGMA, Resumed.
4 THE COURT: I remind you, you are still under
5 oath.
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
7 BY MR. HUVELLE:
8 Q. Dr. Kingma, I would like to start off by just
9 talking briefly about the role of scientific journals.
10 Are you familiar with the history of scientific
11 journals?
12 A. Briefly familiar with the history.
13 Q. You are aware that they have been around for
14 several hundred years?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it your understanding that scientific journals
17 have been the principal means by which advances in science
18 have been communicated within the scientific community?
19 A. Principally, yes. There's obviously a number of
20 other means of communication too, I guess. I would say that
21 they are an important part.
22 Q. But isn't it true that it is widely considered
23 that, in science, the scientific journal has been the
24 principal medium for the transmission of scientific
25 knowledge?
162
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Over the hundreds of years that scientific
3 journals have been in use, there have developed traditions
4 regarding the writing of articles for scientific journals;
5 is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. One of those -- one of the academic traditions
8 relating to articles for scientific journals is that the
9 author cite in connection with his article as references the
10 prior works that have contributed in a significant way to
11 his analysis in his own article; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. It's part of the academic tradition to treat such
14 citations as an important part of a scientific article?
15 A. As an important part of it, yes.
16 Q. And it is true that, for most scientific
17 journals, there is a peer review process that looks over the
18 article and makes sure that it is of sufficient quality; is
19 that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. In that it conforms to the standards of academic
22 scholarship?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Including the citation of prior works that have
25 contributed to the author's own analysis?
163
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. These academic traditions apply to the field of
3 economics, too, your own field?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. When you write an article, you exercise care and
6 responsibility in citing those prior articles that have
7 contributed in a significant way to your own analysis?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And other scientists and academicians with whom
10 you are familiar have likewise exercised the same care and
11 responsibility in citing the prior works, prior articles,
12 that have contributed to their own analysis, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Is it true that numerous citations to a
15 scientific journal tell us that the scientists most engaged
16 in advancing scientific knowledge find that articles in that
17 journal contribute in a significant way to their own work?
18 A. Most citations to a journal show that that
19 particular journal -- is that what you said -- makes a
20 substantial contribution, that would be correct.
21 Q. Do you agree that the total number of citations
22 to a journal is useful information for a librarian to have
23 in connection with the assessment of the effectiveness of
24 journals; is that correct?
25 A. I would say there is better information than
164
1 citations, because you're now taking it from the world of
2 journals down to the world of my library, my patrons, and
3 that's where the analysis starts to crumble in that a
4 particular journal might have a lot of citations but not be
5 particularly useful to the patrons at my particular library.
6 Q. You said there are other better pieces of
7 information, but would you agree that the total number of
8 citations to a journal is useful information for a librarian
9 to have in connection with the assessment of the
10 effectiveness of that journal?
11 A. I would say that there is better information in
12 terms of making collection management decisions. Citations
13 might provide you with -- the total citations might provide
14 you with a piece of information about a set of journals, but
15 those decisions still have to be made in concert with what
16 the faculty at your library want.
17 Q. But do you agree that the piece of information
18 provided by the total number of citations to a journal is
19 useful to a librarian?
20 A. It may be useful to a librarian.
21 Q. You have written a textbook on information
22 science?
23 A. I would call it economics information. I
24 wouldn't call it a textbook on information science.
25 Q. OK. I will accept your characterization of your
165
1 book readily.
2 And this is a book for students?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And it goes over the basics of economics as
5 applied to information sciences?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And one of the issues it addresses is the subject
8 we mentioned yesterday, market failure?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. The failure of the consumer to have appropriate
11 information about the price or quality of a product?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. In your textbook, you identified a number of
14 examples of markets where there might be a problem with the
15 available information, or in terms of the lack of relevant
16 information?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. One of the markets that you identified was the
19 market for journal subscriptions?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. The problem you identified was that the
22 individual subscriber or library cannot determine the
23 quality of a journal until after paying for it and receiving
24 the subscription?
25 A. Correct.
166
1 Q. Do you recall that?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. You suggested a market solution for that absence
4 of information?
5 A. I believe it is a table that you are reading
6 from --
7 Q. Right.
8 A. -- in which a number of market solutions are
9 suggested.
10 Q. Right. Four solutions?
11 A. I believe it's four. I would like to refresh my
12 memory.
13 MR. HUVELLE: I would like to show the witness
14 Defendant's Exhibit DDD.
15 Q. At the bottom of the page, you identify the
16 market for journal subscriptions?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. One of the solutions that you propose for the
19 problem of lack of information regarding quality of journals
20 is the number of citations to published articles?
21 A. The third solution there, correct.
22 Q. Is it also true that, in your writings, you have
23 referred to the problems that have arisen because of the
24 increase in the number of scholarly journals that publish
25 many articles never cited in later research? Do you recall
167
1 that?
2 A. Yes, I -- it's from one of the books that I've
3 written, yes.
4 Q. You said that these articles seem to some people
5 to exist solely for the purpose of padding the author's
6 bibliography; do you recall that?
7 A. Correct, yes.
8 Q. Isn't it true that in writing this article and
9 making that observation, you used the fact that some
10 articles are never cited in later research as an indication
11 of the low quality of the articles; is that true?
12 A. As a signal of this, correct.
13 Q. When did you receive tenure?
14 A. September of 1996.
15 Q. And you had to apply and be reviewed for that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In connection with that, you had the opportunity
18 to submit a short statement of your accomplishments; is that
19 correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You had to specifically outline your achievements
22 in the area of research, teaching, and university services?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Isn't it true as an indication of the quality of
25 your work you included in that submission the number of
168
1 times your journal articles had been cited in subsequent
2 articles?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You referred yesterday to the Bensman article,
5 Bensman being a professor at Louisiana State University, I
6 believe?
7 A. He's a librarian at Louisiana State, actually.
8 Q. Librarian. And you cited that article to support
9 the proposition that faculty perceptions at Louisiana State
10 University in the Chemistry Department do not correlate with
11 rankings based on the impact factor?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Isn't it true that one of the central conclusions
14 of Mr. Bensman was that total citations to a journal highly
15 correlated with those faculty rankings?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. An impact factor normalizes the size of journals;
18 is that correct?
19 A. That's one of the things it does. Obviously it
20 differs from total citations in another way, too.
21 Q. If you had total citations, you might have a huge
22 journal with many articles and thousands of citations?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. Impact factor divides the total citations by the
25 number of articles?
169
1 A. It's -- it divides --
2 Q. In a two-year period.
3 A. In a two-year period, right. So it's a snapshot
4 and then divides by the number of articles, correct.
5 Q. Divides the total citations in a one-year period
6 by the number of articles in the prior two-year period?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And so you get an average number of citations per
9 article?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And so that's helpful, or it's fair to a smaller
12 journal because you're dealing with averages on a per-
13 article basis; is that correct?
14 A. I wouldn't call it fair or helpful. I mean, what
15 you're doing is normalizing in a way that I disagree with.
16 But, nonetheless, you can take a smaller -- your statement,
17 part of your statement is correct: If you take a smaller
18 journal and divide it by the number of articles, that might
19 improve the impact factor for that smaller journal.
20 Q. You could have two journals, in each one, each
21 and every article cited five times during a particular year?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Every prior article is cited five times. So the
24 impact factor is going to be five for both journals?
25 A. Correct.
170
1 Q. But if one journal has a thousand articles,
2 they're going to have 5,000 citations, and if the other
3 journal has 20 articles, they'll have 100 citations?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So it's a different analysis?
6 A. It's a different number of citations.
7 Q. It's a different number?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. It's a different number?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Both are true numbers?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. They're both based on objective facts. It's just
14 different ways of looking at the data.
15 A. I don't know if I would agree that it's objective
16 facts. I mean, there are certain other issues going on with
17 citations. But it's -- you're right. It's two -- the
18 mathematics of that are that there are two different bases,
19 two different numbers you are producing out of the impact
20 factor.
21 Q. Well, the objective fact is the number of
22 articles, the number of citations.
23 A. There is a number of citations, number of
24 articles, correct.
25 Q. Isn't it true in Bensman's analysis, that he
171
1 suggested that the reason impact factors did not correlate
2 with faculty rankings is that the faculty gave -- ranked
3 higher the large journals with lots of citations?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And so the faculty rankings tended to disfavor
6 the small niche journals at the expense of the large society
7 journals?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Your criticism of the impact factor is that it is
10 too small of a window?
11 A. That's one of my criticisms of it, correct.
12 Q. Impact factor looks at citations in a particular
13 year to articles in the two prior years?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. You think it would be better to look at the total
16 number of citations, the total number of citations in that
17 year to all prior editions of the journal?
18 A. Citation -- total citations, right, is looking at
19 the total number of citations, and that's certainly better
20 than using a two-year/one-year window.
21 Q. You would look at all the citations in 1986 to
22 articles published prior to 1986, back to 1975, 1974,
23 where --
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And of course that would disadvantage a new
172
1 journal?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Now, if you look just at the two-year articles
4 appearing in the two-year, prior year period -- the prior
5 two-year period, you get information as to what's happening
6 currently, don't you?
7 A. Looking at only a two-year snapshot gives you
8 exactly that, a two-year snapshot.
9 Q. And the reason you're looking at citations or
10 you're talking to the faculty, you're measuring use, is to
11 make a judgment about the future; is that correct?
12 A. If you were -- if we're talking about librarians
13 making collection development decisions, yes. It's a matter
14 of what's going to happen in the future, what's the expected
15 value.
16 Q. Is the past a reliable indication of the future?
17 A. One would hope. It is the only thing you can
18 use -- the past by definition is the only thing you can use
19 to guess at what's going to happen in the future.
20 Q. And certainly there are times when if you look at
21 the 10-year past history or the 20-year past history, that's
22 less reliable than if you look at the prior two years?
23 A. No, you're going to make fewer mistakes looking
24 at a 20 or 20-year past history than only the prior two
25 years.
173
1 Q. You don't know whether that's true in the case of
2 scientific journals, though, do you?
3 A. I don't know if that's true in the case of
4 scientific journals, but the -- when you think about how
5 you're sampling those journals, it's clear that if you're
6 looking at a 20-year history you're going to be better off
7 than only looking at the past two years. You may be
8 ignoring pertinent information by discarding 18 years.
9 Q. You may be misled, as well, by a journal that had
10 a glorious past and a troubled present?
11 A. Hopefully you would be able to pick out that
12 troubled present by their -- the editors of that journal,
13 any kind of knowledge you might have about that journal in
14 its recent history.
15 Q. But isn't it true whether you picked two years or
16 10 years or 20 years, in some cases that past history may
17 not be the best slice to look at?
18 A. In --
19 Q. For some journals.
20 A. For some journals, depending on the slice, yes,
21 correct.
22 Q. Have you read the deposition of Ms. Hunter in
23 this case regarding impact factors?
24 A. No, I have not read the deposition of Ms. Hunter.
25 Q. Do you know whether other publishers use impact
174
1 factors or total citations when they want to know how well
2 their journals are doing?
3 A. Yes.
4 Let me finish what I was about to say, is, I have
5 read the report from Ms. Hunter but not the deposition of
6 Ms. Hunter. And in the report I believe she says that
7 Elsevier uses impact factors.
8 Elsevier is the name of the publisher.
9 Q. Let me turn to the price side of the equation.
10 Do you agree that the librarian must make
11 decisions regarding competing journals based in part on
12 price information?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And librarians must make comparisons between
15 journals in terms of price, among other factors?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Do you agree that the information on price should
18 be in a format that allows the librarian to make wise
19 management decisions about journal acquisitions?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You agree that price information can be presented
22 in a variety of ways?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you recall that Professor Barschall, in both
25 of his articles, displayed the annual subscription price for
175
1 each journal as well as the cost per thousand characters?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. He displayed that information for two years?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. But in addition to the annual price or
6 subscription price, Barschall normalizes the size of the
7 journals to provide a common measure of cost per amount of
8 article information; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, that is what he did.
10 Q. Do you agree that it is a sound approach to
11 normalize the cost in that manner?
12 A. No, I do not.
13 Q. I believe you discussed the reasons for that view
14 yesterday; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were you here during the testimony of Dr. Taylor?
17 A. No, I was not.
18 Q. Did you have an opportunity to read the testimony
19 of Dr. Taylor?
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. Let me --
22 A. Let me --
23 Q. -- pose this as a hypothetical to you.
24 A. All right.
25 Q. The journal editor whose journal price was
176
1 $9,000, compared to $507 for another journal normalized
2 cost, in order to calculate the cost per article, would you
3 say that's a wrong approach?
4 A. Are you saying the publisher did that?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. For the publisher to do it is actually a bit
7 different from the librarian doing it on the purchase
8 decision.
9 Q. Why is that?
10 A. Well, because a publisher is also in some sense
11 selling those articles through document delivery or
12 interlibrary loan and has to set copyright fees on a per-
13 article basis. So for the publisher to divide it up on a
14 per-article basis might give that publisher information
15 about how to set a copyright fee as articles are delivered
16 through this alternative means.
17 Q. But if the editor who did this, the editor of the
18 $9,000 journal, did it in response to complaints that his
19 journal's price was very high, and in order to demonstrate
20 the cost effectiveness of his journal, would you say that's
21 the wrong approach?
22 A. I think it's the wrong approach for a librarian
23 making a decision to tell a publisher what they should or
24 shouldn't do. But as far as librarians go, their
25 responsibility is to purchase the entire subscription or to
177
1 find an alternative access to that information through a
2 system like interlibrary loan.
3 Q. I believe you conceded yesterday that normalizing
4 price on the basis of a common unit of measurement is
5 appropriate in a grocery store?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Is it --
8 THE COURT: We will take a five-minute recess.
9 MR. HUVELLE: Fine.
10 (Recess)
11 THE COURT: Sorry for the interruption. You may
12 be seated.
13 You know, as long as we have interrupted, you
14 made some reference yesterday to a book you had written or a
15 study you had done on comparing ownership to lease access;
16 is that --
17 THE WITNESS: Well, to access. It's called the
18 access-to-ownership comparison, where ownership means buying
19 the journal subscription and access is acquiring articles on
20 an as-needed basis through interlibrary loan. So the
21 faculty member comes in, wants a certain --
22 THE COURT: Acquiring from, what? From other
23 libraries?
24 THE WITNESS: From other libraries, from
25 commercial document delivery sources, other places that have
178
1 the journals you're looking for, essentially. They're
2 photocopying an article on that journal and sending it on to
3 you at your library.
4 THE COURT: Which creates copyright fees?
5 THE WITNESS: Well, there is a copyright fee
6 associated with that, so --
7 THE COURT: I just want sure what the terminology
8 meant. Thank you.
9 BY MR. HUVELLE:
10 Q. If I may just pursue that subject for just a
11 moment.
12 In connection with your study, you worked out a
13 formula by which a library should determine if it is cheaper
14 to borrow an article than to buy the journal?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And you noted that one consequence of using your
17 formula, if libraries did, would be that the smaller
18 journals that were used less, that were more expensive,
19 would be canceled by some libraries?
20 A. I don't know if I said "smaller," but journals
21 that were used less, more expensive, clearly both these
22 things factor into the formula, the price of the journal and
23 the amount to which it's used. So, low-use, high-cost means
24 you're more likely as a library to cancel that particular
25 subscription.
179
1 Q. And one of the macro effects that you did not
2 address in your cost/benefit analysis was the consequence
3 that, as a result of canceling journals that are high-cost,
4 low-use, the cost of those journals would actually go up, or
5 the price of the journals would go up even further?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Which would then lead to more libraries
8 canceling?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And your position was, well, an individual
11 library can't worry about that?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Back to the grocery store.
14 A. OK.
15 Q. The appropriateness of unit costs in a grocery
16 store, in your judgment does that apply to all products in
17 the grocery store? We focused a little bit on pasta, but I
18 want to know if it has more general application.
19 A. In each product, there is going to be a container
20 of a certain size, but also quality differences. Now,
21 clearly unit pricing on pasta doesn't allow me to compare it
22 to -- and there's unit pricing down a few aisles on beans,
23 but I'm not really making a comparison between pasta and
24 beans. There are quality differences. There are, you know,
25 significant differences between those products; that the
180
1 unit pricing is for a different reason than comparing the
2 cost per ounce for beans to the cost per ounce of pasta.
3 Q. But do you agree with the appropriateness of
4 displaying unit cost data for beans and fruit juice and ice
5 cream, different products?
6 A. Many of the different products in the grocery
7 store, yes. I mean, there are clearly examples in the
8 grocery store where you don't have unit pricing, you don't
9 have a price per ounce of a broom, because we're not
10 interested in the price per ounce of a broom. You just want
11 to know how much you're going to pay for the broom.
12 Q. As I understood it, the reason you gave why a
13 common unit price is not appropriate for scientific journals
14 is that scientific journals are more like a car than they
15 are like pasta?
16 A. Yes, it's tough to draw that comparison, but,
17 yes, I would agree with that. They're more like a car in
18 that there's information, there's something else embedded
19 within the product than they are like pasta. Yes, I would
20 agree with that, although it's -- it's tough to think about
21 it.
22 Q. You don't agree with my statement. I'm simply
23 reciting yours.
24 A. OK.
25 Q. What is the difference between a car and pasta
181
1 that is pertinent to the distinction you're making?
2 A. A car you're purchasing as a single unit, and
3 within that there are many quality characteristics of a car
4 that are influencing your decision to buy, depending on how
5 many people you want to fit in the car, how fast you want
6 the car to go, what color it is, etc. There are many
7 characteristics to the car, and you purchase it as a car.
8 Whereas with pasta you're looking at it and
9 within the grocery store setting making the comparison
10 perhaps between two different sized boxes of pasta. Within
11 each box is relatively the same quality good -- relatively
12 the same quality good for the decision you're making, but
13 you want to know the price per ounce of those two boxes,
14 which might be of different size.
15 Q. So are you telling us that the operative
16 distinction is whether there is variation in quality among
17 the products?
18 A. It's variation in quality, yes, along with the
19 amount you're purchasing.
20 Q. Do you say it's inappropriate as to cars because
21 when you buy a car you consider quality?
22 A. When you buy a car you consider quality, and
23 you're also, you know, purchasing a car as one solid good.
24 You could, even in theory, if you had two cars of the exact
25 same quality, I still don't think you would want to
182
1 normalize it on a price per pound basis.
2 Q. The cost basis -- a cost comparison is a cost
3 efficiency analysis?
4 A. Right, correct.
5 Q. Which compares cost, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. It has nothing to do with quality?
8 A. Correct. Doing a cost efficiency analysis makes
9 the assumption that the quality is very similar, not
10 identical.
11 Q. Is it your testimony that there are no
12 differences in the quality of pasta or other goods you see
13 in a grocery store?
14 A. There are certainly differences in the quality of
15 pasta.
16 Q. Isn't the whole point of unit pricing in a
17 grocery store that you see the brand name, the Proctor &
18 Gamble Tide, and then you see the Safeway detergent X, and
19 you go in with some assumption as to the differences in
20 quality, and then the price data on a unit basis allows you
21 to see whether for one you are paying $1.50 per ounce and
22 the other you're paying 5 cents an ounce. It just gives you
23 the cost comparison, and then you use that in making a
24 decision; is that correct?
25 A. Correct. And that's actually a very good
183
1 example, because as you're using detergent, you're obviously
2 using it by the ounce, not by the unit you're purchasing.
3 Q. So that's a factor in whether or not the unit
4 cost is appropriate?
5 A. In the sense that you're using it by the scoop,
6 by the ounce.
7 Q. If I have these journals and I know the annual
8 subscription price of these journals, I know the annual
9 subscription price of these journals, and I know the annual
10 subscription price of the green journals, and those are all
11 one year of that journal, and then the orange and white is
12 another journal, one year. The librarian knew the price of
13 all four journals. Is there any cost price information
14 about these journals that in your judgment would be helpful
15 in making acquisition decisions?
16 A. Well, just the subscription price, simply that.
17 Q. That's the only information?
18 A. Well, the only information about price, cost.
19 You want to know --
20 Q. What about --
21 MR. PLOTZ: Please let him answer.
22 MR. HUVELLE: I'm sorry.
23 A. You want to know to what degree these journals
24 are going to be used by your patrons. That's the other side
25 of the coin.
184
1 Q. Let's focus on price.
2 A. OK.
3 Q. What about telling the librarian what the cost
4 price per page is of the journals?
5 A. I don't think that's useful information.
6 Q. Isn't it true that if a librarian knew the price
7 of this journal and he knew the price of this journal and he
8 knew the price of those journals, that he wouldn't think
9 about that, or that what he would do is, he would take into
10 account the differences in the amount of information he's
11 getting; isn't that right? He would normalize in his own
12 mind?
13 A. One would hope that he or she would not do that,
14 that they would look at the usefulness of what they're
15 purchasing rather than simply the size of it. The example I
16 gave in my deposition earlier is this, you know, these
17 places that sell books by the foot, for aesthetic reasons.
18 The cheapest way to fill your library shelves is to purchase
19 books by the foot, but that doesn't mean that your patrons
20 are going to be using those materials, and it would be a
21 poor collection management decision to simply buy books by
22 the foot which are sold for aesthetic reasons of filling up
23 people's shelves in houses.
24 Q. Suppose we had four journals, they're all good
25 enough to get in the ISI database. In each case there's one
185
1 faculty member who says, I'm on the board of that particular
2 journal so I'd like to have it. It's embarrassing me for me
3 to go to board meetings and not have it.
4 So we know something about the quality. But the
5 librarian needs to justify to his boss, we're using the
6 money wisely, we're getting a good bang for the buck.
7 Right?
8 Isn't that what unit pricing is about? Bang for
9 the buck? What you're getting for your money?
10 A. I don't know if I'd call it "bang for the buck."
11 I just strongly disagree with normalizing pricing for
12 journals on a per-page or per-character basis.
13 Q. You're saying that if this journal is a little
14 bit less expensive than most journals, that the librarian
15 ought to, in making the decision, just consider this as less
16 expensive without regard to the fact that that journal
17 provides, or those journals provide perhaps ten times as
18 many articles?
19 A. I think your question is putting the librarian in
20 a vacuum without any information about use or possible use
21 of those journals. If you only have price and you have
22 nothing else, boy, that -- I mean, that would be an
23 impossible decision to make.
24 Q. I'm not --
25 A. OK.
186
1 Q. The librarian has lots of other information. Is
2 it appropriate for the librarian, in addition, in addition
3 to knowing the annual subscription price, and in addition to
4 knowing things about quality, to know what the cost per
5 character is, or the cost per page, or the cost per article,
6 or some other common measurement that allows a comparison on
7 a common basis?
8 A. No. The normalization that should occur is the
9 cost per subscription, how much I'm paying for a
10 subscription. That's really the only normalization that
11 should occur under these circumstances.
12 Q. Isn't it true that in the case of the green
13 journals over there, it's not like a car in either you get
14 the whole thing or not, that contains several thousand
15 articles; is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. No one is going to read all the articles?
18 A. I don't know if there's anybody that would read
19 all the articles. The editor would read all the articles.
20 Q. Well, we can even wonder about that.
21 In the pasta example, it's divisible into meals,
22 correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. The university cafeteria can buy pasta on a
25 per-unit basis and then students come in and they take a
187
1 large portion or a small portion, but they do that, right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And in the case of the journal, the 2,000, 3,000
4 articles, the librarian buys it, and different students come
5 in, read one article, two articles. They treat it not as an
6 entity but as a divisible product; is that correct?
7 A. The students treat it as a divisible product.
8 Q. True.
9 A. Divisible in the sense that it's their use,
10 right? It's a student coming into the library and using
11 that journal. You could have 50 students all using the same
12 article from that journal.
13 Q. So in your view, the only -- the only -- price
14 information is the annual subscription price?
15 A. The annual subscription price, yes. There is
16 the -- these fixed costs associated with buying a journal,
17 too, that involve shelving and cataloging, etc., so --
18 Q. You mentioned yesterday that Dr. Barschall did
19 not take that into account?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Should he have?
22 A. It's relatively the same for all these journals.
23 Q. So there's no reason to?
24 A. There's really no reason to, under these
25 circumstances. Those costs are about $60 to $70 per journal
188
1 subscription, so when you're talking about prices and in the
2 early '80's when you did this, they were probably less than
3 $60 or $70.
4 Q. But it washes out?
5 A. It probably washes out as a small percentage of
6 the whole.
7 Q. If you were a librarian and you looked at this
8 set of journals, this set of journals and those two sets,
9 would you make any assumptions about what the subscription
10 price would be?
11 A. I am not a librarian, but, no, I wouldn't make
12 any assumptions.
13 Q. You have no way of telling which one would be
14 more expensive?
15 A. No. Hopefully you would be able to find that
16 price information.
17 Q. So it would not be surprising to you if this
18 journal cost more than both of those journals combined?
19 A. It wouldn't be particularly surprising, no.
20 Q. And it would not be surprising to you if the
21 price per page of this journal was 67 cents and the price
22 per page of those journals was 5 cents?
23 A. I wouldn't be --
24 Q. The same with this? It wouldn't surprise you?
25 A. No.
189
1 Q. But that's not something a librarian ought to
2 think about in deciding whether or not to subscribe to this
3 journal or that journal?
4 A. They should not think about the price per page,
5 no.
6 Q. But it certainly allows us to say this journal is
7 much more expensive?
8 A. The subscription price might allow us to say that
9 that journal is much more expensive, yes.
10 Q. And this one, which has the same per-page price
11 as this one, can we say that this journal is more expensive
12 than those two when the total price is less than those?
13 A. I'm sorry. I'm getting a little confused. The
14 per-page price --
15 Q. The per-page price is the same?
16 A. Same.
17 Q. Total price is less of this than this and less
18 than those?
19 A. How can the per page price be the same and the
20 total price when that's a smaller stack? I don't
21 understand.
22 Q. The per-page price is the same.
23 A. Right.
24 Q. The total price of the smaller stack is therefore
25 less.
190
1 A. Oh, is less, OK. Yes.
2 Q. Would you agree that this journal also is more
3 expensive than those journals?
4 A. I don't know that -- you're asking me to make a
5 mathematical calculation of multiplying the number of pages,
6 so --
7 Q. If the total subscription price of this journal
8 is less than those journals --
9 THE COURT: You know, I think if somebody reads
10 this record, it might be helpful to know that what you are
11 referring to are stacks of blue-covered --
12 MR. HUVELLE: Your Honor, that's an excellent
13 point, and I can try to clarify it, although it would have
14 been helpful, I guess, if I would tried earlier, but I will
15 do my best now.
16 THE COURT: Sometimes you read a record and --
17 MR. HUVELLE: I can imagine.
18 THE COURT: It hurts me here, Doctor.
19 Q. The journals with the 67-cent-per-page price that
20 I have been referring to, one is an orange journal; is that
21 correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And that bears the title Ferroelectrics?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And then the other journal that's small in number
191
1 but high in price is a white-and-black journal called
2 Physics and Chemistry of Liquids?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And let me represent that the two larger stacks
5 are a green stack, which is Physical Review B, and a black-
6 and-orange stack, which is Journal of Applied Physics.
7 MR. HUVELLE: I will represent that for the
8 record. And thank you, your Honor, for --
9 THE COURT: And the relative heights of the
10 stacks I think are part of what you can do to make your
11 question meaningful.
12 Q. Would you estimate for us the size of the orange
13 Ferroelectrics stack?
14 A. It looks to be about ten inches high.
15 Q. Or a little less?
16 A. That's --
17 Q. And the Physics and Chemistry of Liquids?
18 A. It looks to be two inches high.
19 Q. And the green Physical Review B?
20 A. That's those two stacks, right?
21 Q. The two stacks, each about a foot and a half.
22 A. Yes, so about three feet high together.
23 Q. And the Journal of Applied Physics is --
24 A. Is just that one stack?
25 Q. Yes.
192
1 A. So about a foot and a half.
2 Q. Do you have any of the exhibits up there from
3 yesterday?
4 A. I have Physics Today, Bulletin of the Physics
5 Society, a table from my book, and the impact numbers from
6 the Science Citation Index for '86.
7 Q. I would like you to look at Plaintiff's Exhibit
8 2.
9 MR. HUVELLE: Your Honor, I have an extra copy if
10 you need one.
11 THE COURT: I think I have it up here. Yes.
12 Q. Do you have Plaintiff's Exhibit 2?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you turn to Table 3. Is this a ranking of
15 journals by cost per character?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And it's a three-page list?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, in the first page, the journals run from
20 39 -- .39 to 3.4 cents?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, on page 2, they run from 3.4 to 7.4 cents?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is that correct?
25 And these are ranked in order of increasing cost?
193
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the total on the three pages is about 200
3 journals that Barschall studied?
4 A. Yes, about.
5 Q. And then on page 3, you go halfway down the page
6 and you get to the first journal that has a cost of 10 cents
7 per thousand characters. Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And then you go down a little further and there's
10 a journal with a cost of 11.9 cents per thousand characters?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then you jump up to 14 cents per thousand
13 characters; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. One journal.
16 Then you jump again to 16 cents per thousand
17 characters?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then we have the bottom 14 journals, the most
20 expensive -- 14 most expensive journals on a cost per
21 thousand character?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And of those 14 most expensive journals on a
24 cost-per-thousand-character basis, 11 are Gordon & Breach
25 journals; is that correct?
194
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And so the least expensive of the Gordon & Breach
3 journals ranks 187 out of the 200?
4 A. If there's 200 here, yes.
5 Q. Can you turn to Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do you have that? Can you look at Table 1.
8 A. Yes.
9 THE COURT: Bear with me just a moment.
10 MR. HUVELLE: I have an extra copy.
11 THE COURT: I will take your extra copy. Thank
12 you.
13 Exhibit 3, what are you looking at?
14 MR. HUVELLE: We are looking at Plaintiff's
15 Exhibit 3, Table 1.
16 Q. You looked at this yesterday, Dr. Kingma; is that
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you looked at the categories listed on the
20 left on Table 1?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Dr. Barschall has grouped the journals included
23 on this page under eight categories?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you have no reason to dispute that those are
195
1 reasonable and appropriate categories?
2 A. I have no reason to dispute these categories.
3 I'm not a physicist, so --
4 Q. Do you agree that the top-ranked journal in the
5 Letters Journals category is an AIP journal?
6 A. Ranked by ratio of cost to impact? Yes.
7 Q. The top two are AIP and APS; is that correct?
8 Under Letters Journals?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And under Review Journals, the top-ranked journal
11 is an APS journal?
12 A. These are actually ranked by cost per thousand
13 characters. Yes, correct.
14 Q. The top-ranked -- but it's true as to cost, ratio
15 of cost to impact factor as well, is it not?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And in the Atomics Physics category, the
18 top-ranked journal by ratio of cost to impact is an APS
19 journal?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. The same is true in the Condensed Matter Physics
22 category?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. The same is true in the Nuclear Physics category?
25 A. Correct.
196
1 Q. The same is true in the Particle Physics
2 category?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. The same is -- well, in the case of Applied
5 Physics, it's an AIP journal that is the top ranked?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And in the Instrumentation category, it's an
8 AIP-APS journal that is top-ranked?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And the number two and number three journals in
11 that category are also AIP journals; is that correct?
12 A. In instrumentation?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. It says IOP.
15 Q. Well, if you look at the ratio of cost to
16 impact --
17 A. Oh.
18 Q. Is it --
19 A. Yes, correct.
20 Q. The top three are all AIP journals in that
21 category?
22 A. By cost to impact ranking.
23 Q. Right. Dr. Kingma, if you will indulge me in a
24 hypothetical or an assumption, the assumption is that the
25 ratio of cost to impact is an appropriate measure of cost
197
1 effectiveness. Can we proceed with that assumption?
2 Let me ask you, if we accept that assumption, is
3 it true that the data on Table 1 would therefore support the
4 conclusion that the journals of APS and AIP are the best
5 bargain?
6 A. Obviously I don't agree with the assumption.
7 Q. I appreciate that.
8 A. If you assume that that's the ranking, then
9 that's what the numbers say.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 Let me go back now to where we were when we ended
12 at the conclusion of yesterday. You had identified five
13 possible criteria that one might use in measuring the
14 effectiveness of journals. Do you recall that?
15 A. Yes. I think we talked about them as proxies,
16 numbers that could serve as proxies for use value of a
17 journal.
18 Q. I would like you to focus on effectiveness.
19 A. OK.
20 Q. Isn't it true that those are five possible
21 measures for the effectiveness of journals?
22 A. Some good measures, some bad measures, yes; by
23 definition they are measures.
24 Q. But they are all ones that you have identified,
25 whether good or bad?
198
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And we discussed readership, one of the possible
3 measures, yesterday. I would like to go on to the second
4 one, use. OK?
5 A. OK.
6 Q. And can you tell us what you mean by "use"?
7 A. "Use" is the number of times somebody is going to
8 pull it off the shelf, pull a journal, an issue of that
9 journal off the shelf and use it. Now, they may use it and
10 photocopy an article from it and ultimately read that
11 article several times, but use is simply the pulls off the
12 shelf.
13 Q. And as you used the term, all uses are treated
14 the same?
15 A. You can treat all uses the same. You can weight
16 them by who uses it, if a faculty member pulls it off the
17 shelf versus a student pulling it off the shelf.
18 Q. One difficulty of use as a measure is that it is
19 difficult to tell, or difficult to differentiate between
20 uses; isn't that true?
21 A. It would be possible to construct a use survey
22 where you are differentiating between uses. That would
23 clearly be a more expensive use survey than one in which you
24 were not differentiating between uses.
25 Q. Typically, if a library tries to study use, it
199
1 tries to determine the number of times the journal is pulled
2 off the shelf, correct?
3 A. Typically -- can you repeat the question?
4 Q. Typically when a library does a use study, it
5 determines how many times the journal is pulled off the
6 shelf?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. When you do that kind of study, you don't know
9 whether the person glanced at the article, read two
10 sentences, and then put it back?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. You don't know whether the user reshelved it
13 before it could be counted?
14 A. Correct. Hopefully in designing your use study
15 you have taken care to try and prevent users from doing
16 that.
17 Q. And you don't know if, after the journal has been
18 pulled off the shelf, it has been used by multiple people?
19 A. Correct. Again, hopefully you have designed your
20 study such that you are reshelving it as quickly as possible
21 so that there is limited multiple use possible.
22 Q. And you don't know whether it is use by a
23 first-year physics student, who reads the article, becomes
24 discouraged by the complexity, and switches majors, or
25 whether it's use by a Nobel laureate who finds that the
200
1 article contributes importantly to his own research, do you?
2 A. Again, it would depend on your design of the
3 survey.
4 Q. But it would be legitimate for a library to
5 differentiate between different uses?
6 A. If they could, yes.
7 Q. It would be legitimate for a library to focus
8 entirely on uses by the faculty?
9 A. I don't think it would be legitimate to focus
10 entirely on uses by the faculty. Clearly students use that
11 library, and their concerns as patrons should be addressed.
12 Q. But might it be the case that the library would
13 decide that, by determining the uses of the faculty, that
14 that was a reliable basis for making decisions about what
15 journals to acquire?
16 A. The library might have a use study -- again, if
17 the library is having a use study and it's determining the
18 use of faculty and students, separating it, differentiating
19 it by that, then one would want to use both pieces of
20 information, and I believe any librarian would say that you
21 would not want to throw out the use of the students in
22 making a determination.
23 Q. But you could devise a study that only gathered
24 information as to faculty uses?
25 A. Possible.
201
1 Q. And if you did so, that would provide helpful
2 information to the librarian?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And a third measure that you have suggested is
5 faculty rankings?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that, by nature, focuses entirely on the
8 faculty?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And it focuses on their views as to the journals
11 that contribute most significantly to their work?
12 A. The journals they find most useful, correct.
13 Q. And do you think that's an appropriate measure?
14 A. Yes. Falling short of having use statistics, I
15 think use statistics are actually better than that
16 particular measure.
17 Q. But it's appropriate in the sense that it
18 provides a reliable basis for management decisions by
19 librarians, faculty rankings?
20 A. Correct. It's not -- again, it's not the first,
21 best choice, but it's a useful number, falling short of
22 having use numbers.
23 Q. Citation data is a comprehensive faculty ranking,
24 is it not?
25 A. It's a list of how many times each journal is
202
1 getting cited by the entire universe of faculty, clearly not
2 by just the faculty within your library or that are served
3 by your library.
4 Q. It reflects the considered judgment of the most
5 productive members of the faculty as to the journals and
6 articles that contribute most significantly to their own
7 research?
8 A. Well, its citations include everyone's citations;
9 not only the most productive we are talking, but the
10 faculty.
11 Q. I was using it for the faculty members who
12 actually write articles.
13 A. Oh, OK.
14 Q. With that clarification, can you respond to the
15 question?
16 A. That for all the -- the faculty that are writing
17 articles and citing all the entire body of faculty citations
18 show how many times they are citing things.
19 Q. With respect to the five possible measures of
20 effectiveness, you have stated that different people have
21 different views as to which of the five measures is the
22 best, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And indeed, you noted that Professor Barschall
25 believed that the impact factor was the best measure of
203
1 effectiveness; is that correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. And are you familiar with Professor Barschall's
4 career?
5 A. As a physicist? No.
6 Q. As a physicist.
7 A. I am not.
8 Q. You know that he had a long and distinguished
9 career as a physicist?
10 A. My understanding is that he did.
11 Q. Received many honors for his contributions to the
12 field of physics?
13 A. That's my understanding.
14 Q. Would you be inclined to give some deference to
15 his views as a physicist to what is a reasonable measure of
16 effectiveness of journals?
17 A. No. If he received those same honors in
18 economics and information science, I would give deference;
19 and to the same degree that I don't think he would respect
20 my opinion on physics too much, or should he.
21 Q. You have never cited a physics article, have you?
22 A. Not that I can recall.
23 Q. Dr. Barschall did that many times, did he not?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. He knew what was involved in that process?
204
1 A. In citing a physics article, yes.
2 Q. And do you know that he had examined the
3 relationship -- he had examined citation data, had he not?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And he concluded that it was a reliable measure;
6 is that true?
7 A. He concluded that, yes.
8 Q. Is it true that you do not know very much about
9 impact factors?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Not true?
12 A. No.
13 Q. In what connections have you worked with impact
14 factors?
15 A. In the connection, obviously, of this case, prior
16 to this, with my work on the economics of information, that
17 it would be simply part of the entire universe of
18 information science that one is aware of.
19 Q. Have you ever used impact factors in one of your
20 own analyses?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Have you ever had occasion to study impact
23 factors and how the data is presented and examine it for
24 different journals?
25 A. Have I looked at the impact factor numbers?
205
1 Q. Apart from in connection with this case, have you
2 had occasion to work with impact factor data?
3 A. I've seen the impact factor numbers in the
4 Science Citation Index prior to this case, but I have not
5 worked with those numbers.
6 Q. What about citation data? Have you worked with
7 citation data?
8 A. Again, I have seen the citation numbers, but I
9 have not worked with them in research. I have also -- am
10 familiar with research that used citation numbers and impact
11 factors, but I have not used citation numbers myself or
12 impact factor numbers.
13 Q. You mean the articles relating to citation data?
14 Is that what you're referring to, what you are familiar
15 with?
16 A. Articles relating to citation data.
17 Q. And you looked at those articles in connection
18 with this case?
19 A. Well, I looked at some of those articles prior to
20 this case, too.
21 Q. It's true that even when you collected the
22 citation data to present to the Tenure Review Committee, you
23 didn't gather that data yourself, did you?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. You sent someone else to do it?
206
1 A. I had a graduate student do it.
2 Q. Could you look at Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 again,
3 the Physics Today article.
4 In the first paragraph, do you see the statement
5 at the end of the first paragraph, after Professor Barschall
6 refers to the cost per thousand characters and then to the
7 impact factor? He then states as follows: "The ratio of
8 these two measures is perhaps the best indicator of a
9 journal's cost effectiveness." Do you see that statement?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you disagree with that statement?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Apart from that statement -- strike that.
14 Does a similar statement appear in the Bulletin
15 of the American Physical Society?
16 A. Yes. On the top of page 1438, under "Cost per
17 Impact," the second sentence.
18 Q. And there it's just slightly different. It
19 reads, "This ratio is perhaps the most significant measure
20 of the cost effectiveness of the journal"?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Referring again to the same ratio?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you disagree with that statement?
25 A. Yes.
207
1 Q. Am I correct that, apart from those two
2 statements, there are no statements in either PX 2 or PX 3,
3 whether express or implied, that in your judgment are false?
4 A. I would say that the implication of these
5 articles is that this information can be used for collection
6 development, which I think is a false implication.
7 Q. Apart from that, there is no statement in either
8 article that in your judgment is false; is that correct?
9 A. (Pause) I would say that that implication,
10 actually, was borne out in the last paragraph of the Physics
11 Today article.
12 Q. I'm not sure if you're addressing my question.
13 A. Oh, the implication -- I said that the
14 implication of this having influence on collection
15 management, it's false that one should use this kind of
16 procedure for collection development in a library, and
17 you're saying is there any other statement --
18 Q. Any other statement, express or implied, in
19 either article that in your judgment is false.
20 MR. PLOTZ: With respect, I think Dr. Kingma was
21 answering the question.
22 A. I guess what I'm -- in trying to narrow down
23 that, in turning to the last paragraph here, there are a
24 couple of statements that I would disagree with Professor
25 Barschall on.
208
1 Q. What document are we on?
2 A. We are in Physics Today, the last paragraph.
3 It's really just --
4 Q. Can we -- you'll have an opportunity --
5 MR. PLOTZ: He's in the middle of an answer,
6 Judge.
7 MR. HUVELLE: He's not answering my question,
8 though.
9 THE COURT: Let him complete his answer. The
10 question was that, apart from those two statements and the
11 implications derived from those two statements, is there
12 anything else in these two articles that you regard as being
13 false?
14 THE WITNESS: I think the implications of Table
15 2, that one that should compare publishers on this measure,
16 again, is a false comparison more making collection
17 development decisions.
18 Q. Anything else?
19 A. No. I believe that's it.
20 Q. Do you see -- there are no other statements,
21 express or implied, in either article that in your judgment
22 are false? Correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. You were deposed in this case on April 18?
25 A. Correct.
209
1 Q. As of that date, you had spent between 40 and 80
2 hours working on this matter?
3 A. Since April 18?
4 Q. No. Before that.
5 A. Oh, before that date. Correct.
6 Q. How many hours have you spent on this matter
7 since April 18?
8 A. Somewhere between 10 and 20.
9 Q. When did you resume work on this matter?
10 A. Worked briefly on it over the weekend -- it was
11 probably a couple of days before that -- looking at some of
12 these issues, and then obviously within trial right here.
13 Q. Have you done any analysis in connection with
14 this matter since April 18?
15 A. Analysis of the numbers?
16 Q. Any further analysis that goes beyond what you
17 had done as of April 18?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you review any additional articles or other
20 written materials that you had not seen prior to April 18?
21 A. No.
22 Q. With whom have you spoken about this matter since
23 April 18?
24 A. About this matter, the attorneys, Mr. Plotz,
25 Mr. Lupert, the other attorneys. I believe that's it.
210
1 Q. Am I correct, then, that you have not learned
2 anything new regarding this matter except -- since April
3 18 -- except what was told to you by the attorneys?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. I would like to show you a copy of Defendants'
6 Exhibit CCC. Could you identify this document?
7 A. This is a report I prepared for this case.
8 Q. Did you testify on April 18 that it was a full
9 and accurate statement of the opinions to which you expected
10 to testify?
11 A. Yes. I did make a couple of corrections on it.
12 Q. There were two minor corrections that you made?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Those were on page 7?
15 A. Correct, along with a clarification of the
16 benefit effectiveness efficiency issue that we spoke of at
17 the deposition.
18 Q. Apart from those corrections, this report, you
19 testified, was a full and accurate statement of the opinions
20 that you held and about which you expected to testify?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. In your testimony yesterday, you asserted that
23 Professor Barschall erred in comparing journals of different
24 types; namely, review journals, letters journals, and
25 archival journals, and also journals in different physics
211
1 disciplines. Do you recall that testimony?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. That was one of the major criticisms that you
4 articulated yesterday?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Can you refer me to the place in your report
7 where you discuss that major criticism?
8 A. On page 5, No. 6, where it talks about variations
9 in citation rate related to type of publication,
10 nationality, time period, and size and type of specialty.
11 Q. Is there anything about review journals?
12 A. No. It just says "variations in type of
13 publication." It doesn't specific -- you're right, it
14 doesn't specifically mention review journals.
15 Q. And that was subparagraph 6?
16 A. 6 on page 5, right.
17 Q. Now, on page 1 of your report, you refer -- and
18 I'm going back to the correction that you made during your
19 deposition --
20 A. OK.
21 Q. You referred to a cost/benefit ratio. Do you see
22 that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You agree now that Dr. Barschall did not purport
25 to prepare a cost/benefit ratio?
212
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And that that is a different kind of analysis?
3 A. Related but different kind, correct.
4 Q. Different from cost effectiveness, which is what
5 he did?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And so you -- all of your criticisms with regard
8 to the adequacy of the cost/benefit ratio are misplaced; is
9 that correct?
10 A. No. It's, as I said at the deposition, even if
11 you substitute the word "effectiveness" for "benefit" here,
12 all the criticisms remain. It's just a matter of using the
13 word "benefit" instead of "effectiveness."
14 Q. Why did you use the wrong term there?
15 MR. PLOTZ: Objection.
16 A. Well --
17 MR. PLOTZ: Objection to the characterization,
18 your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Overruled.
20 A. Cost/benefit analysis is a term in the common
21 vernacular of economists and those who work with economists,
22 and it's actually sort of the encompassing of all the types
23 of analysis. Cost-effectiveness is a piece. If you think
24 about a Vien diagram with the largest circle on the outside
25 being cost/benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis
213
1 falls within that, and cost-efficiency analysis falls within
2 that circle.
3 Cost/benefit, using that term is really more of a
4 sort of global term, which included many things that it
5 shouldn't have. But it's -- I think it's one that's
6 throughout the sort of economics vernacular. You know, this
7 is "echo-speak" in some sense that people understand, using
8 the term cost/benefit.
9 Q. Did you analyze, in your report, did you analyze
10 his work with reference to the standards for cost-
11 effectiveness studies or cost/benefit studies?
12 A. As I said, since "effectiveness" falls within the
13 rubric of "benefit," it in some sense would be both,
14 although I didn't analyze it with respect to him estimating
15 the dollar value of a journal subscription.
16 Q. But in some senses it would be different?
17 A. Right. The difference is inserting the term
18 "dollar."
19 Q. The difference is also in terms of the
20 comprehensiveness of the analysis of cost effectiveness?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. My question is, when you judged the article for
23 purposes of the report, did you use the wrong term or the
24 wrong analysis?
25 A. It would have been more correct for me to use the
214
1 effectiveness term, the cost-effectiveness term.
2 Q. But do you agree that you also used the wrong
3 analysis in judging his report?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Can you look at the second paragraph on page 2?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Do the statements in that paragraph apply if
8 you're judging his work in terms of cost-effectiveness?
9 A. No. That statement refers to cost/benefit,
10 right.
11 Q. So that's an indication that in fact you were
12 judging his work by -- in terms of the wrong analysis. You
13 were applying the wrong economic construct to his work.
14 A. Just for that -- those single two senses, you can
15 say that, but for the rest of the report, no.
16 Q. Are you saying that, for most of the report, you
17 analyzed it in terms of the cost effectiveness study, but
18 for those, that one paragraph, you deviated and analyzed it
19 in terms of cost/benefit?
20 A. Well, as I said before, cost-effectiveness --
21 cost/benefit is sort of the big circle and within that is
22 cost effectiveness. So analyzing it by the standards of
23 cost-effectiveness by definition fall within a cost/benefit
24 analysis.
25 Q. But a perfectly proper cost effectiveness
215
1 analysis may -- indeed will -- fall short of a proper
2 cost/benefit analysis --
3 A. Right.
4 Q. -- necessarily?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And there is no doubt in your mind that Professor
7 Barschall had done a cost-effectiveness study?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And also that major components of it were a cost
10 efficiency study?
11 A. By definition, you can't do a cost effectiveness
12 without cost efficiency.
13 Q. So paragraph 2 is a mistake on your part?
14 A. No, it's -- I mean, the -- both sentences in
15 paragraph 2 are correct.
16 Q. If you're talking about a cost/benefit study.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Which we are not.
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Paragraph 3 on that page, am I correct in
21 understanding that the principal concern expressed there
22 with respect to Barschall's cost analysis is that a journal
23 might add pages and pages of meaningless numbers and
24 therefore lower its cost per impact; is that what you're
25 saying?
216
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Do you think that Professor Barschall assumed
3 that his colleagues in the field of physics would not add
4 pages and pages of meaningless data in order to affect the
5 cost-per-impact ratio?
6 A. I don't pretend to know what he assumed.
7 Q. It would have been reasonable of him to make that
8 assumption?
9 A. It's not always his colleagues in the field,
10 though. It's also the publishers that are making that
11 decision about what is included with an article, whether or
12 not data might be included or additional pages might be
13 included.
14 Q. Do you believe that the points you make in this
15 paragraph are a serious criticism of his work?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you look at page 3 of your report, the first
18 full paragraph consisting of two sentences.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do the statements in that paragraph have any
21 relation to a cost effectiveness study?
22 A. It relates to benefit, so in this case you can
23 substitute the word "effectiveness" for "benefit" and the
24 statements are true.
25 Q. But do the statements have any relationship to
217
1 your analysis of Dr. Barschall's cost-effectiveness study?
2 A. Yes, because I believe effectiveness is more
3 appropriately measured by demand or use than by impact or
4 citation.
5 Q. Paragraph 4 -- I'm sorry, page 4. You criticize,
6 starting on page 4, citation data; is that correct?
7 A. Correct. I paraphrased from an article by
8 MacRoberts and MacRoberts.
9 Q. You copied the seven points that MacRoberts and
10 MacRoberts made?
11 A. Right.
12 Q. You didn't add anything new?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Is it true that many of the criticisms that
15 MacRoberts and MacRoberts had suggested pertain only if
16 you're using citation data to evaluate individual authors,
17 not if you're using them to evaluate journals; is that
18 correct?
19 A. I don't know if that's correct, because you can't
20 make statements about the degree to which these problems
21 influence different journals, or at least I'm not familiar
22 with any research that has been done that have looked at the
23 differences in citation or the error rates in citations and
24 the possible differences between different journal titles.
25 Q. Well, one of the identified flaws is that an
218
1 author may not include his middle initial, and therefore in
2 terms of citation data the article may not be attributed to
3 the right person. That doesn't have anything to do with the
4 assessment of journals, does it?
5 A. Can you point to that on this report?
6 Q. Page 6, Subpart B.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. The same is true of A and C?
9 A. Correct.
10 THE COURT: How much longer will you be on
11 cross-examination?
12 MR. HUVELLE: It will be a while.
13 THE COURT: An hour?
14 MR. HUVELLE: Maybe.
15 THE COURT: Half an hour?
16 MR. HUVELLE: Between that.
17 THE COURT: We will take a recess.
18 MR. HUVELLE: Thank you.
19 THE COURT: Off the record.
20 (Discussion off the record)
21 (Recess)
22 BY MR. HUVELLE:
23 Q. Dr. Kingma, just a couple more questions on your
24 report. Can you turn to page 7.
25 At the end of the first paragraph, with regard to
219
1 impact factors, you state, "This truncation of the year of
2 publication and the years of citations biases the measure of
3 impact." Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The use of an impact factor precisely records the
6 data for the period that it purports to cover; is that true?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And in the next paragraph, you make a couple of
9 errors in your description of the impact factor, in the
10 same -- in the following paragraph. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes. That's with my corrections, when my
12 corrections came up.
13 Q. Did you misunderstand how the impact factor was
14 calculated when you wrote this?
15 A. No.
16 Q. The changes would be in the first sentence, the
17 year 1986 should read 1984 and 1985?
18 A. Right. It's correctly described in the paragraph
19 above that.
20 Q. And then the next sentence, again, the year 1986
21 should read 1984 and 1985?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And in the next sentence, "a single year" should
24 be "two years?"
25 I'm sorry. "Two years" should be "one year."
220
1 A. Right.
2 Q. And "one year" should be "two years."
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Page 9, you talk about the problems in counting
5 pages.
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Let me just ask you to look at a copy of Physical
8 Review B.
9 This has been marked as Exhibit XXXXX, is that
10 correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And this is a journal published by the American
13 Physical Society? I will represent that to you. And it
14 says so on the front page. And it's one of the journals
15 included in Dr. Barschall's study.
16 The concern you had about blank pages does not
17 apply to this journal, does it?
18 A. It would appear with the issue in my hand that
19 there aren't any completely blank pages that carry page
20 numbers. There are obviously half-blank pages, where one
21 article ends and the next article begins on the next page.
22 For example, on page 4699, half the page is blank, whereas
23 half the page carries the end of the article.
24 Q. But it's not the case that there are full blank
25 pages?
221
1 A. That are numbered. There is a blank page but
2 it's not numbered, near the end.
3 Q. Let me show you, for example, Ferroelectrics,
4 Exhibit VVV, just one example there. There's a blank page
5 that's numbered.
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. So the journals that would be advantaged by this
8 methodology would be one such as Ferroelectrics that number
9 blank pages, correct?
10 A. The journal -- it's correct that the journals
11 that would be advantaged by this methodology are ones that
12 carry blank pages. I don't know if these two issues are
13 representative of Ferroelectrics and Physical Review B.
14 Q. Well, I'm not going to ask you to -- we'll let it
15 stand there.
16 But in any event, no matter whose advantage, it's
17 not a very important point in terms of the scope of
18 Dr. Barschall's study, is it?
19 A. It depends on how many pages were blank or how
20 many pages were recognized. It's also how many pages carry
21 Roman numerals.
22 Q. Can you turn to page 10 of your report, Character
23 Counting Bias.
24 You refer to Dr. Barschall's methodology of
25 counting a page which contains figures or tables as if it
222
1 were completely filled with text. Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you state that this methodology inherently
4 discounts the value of figures, tables, and display
5 mathematics; is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. But your statement is not correct, is it?
8 A. Pardon me?
9 Q. Your statement is not correct?
10 A. That this bias is the cost per impact measure
11 against journals?
12 Q. That it inherently discounts the value of
13 figures, tables and displays. What it does is treat a page
14 containing figures, tables and displays as equivalent to a
15 page of text?
16 A. It treats them as equivalent in size, even though
17 they might have different production costs.
18 Q. But production costs should have nothing to do
19 with Dr. Barschall's analysis?
20 A. Well, the price is part of his analysis.
21 Q. And the price is the price and it doesn't matter
22 what the production cost is, does it?
23 A. Oh, it -- part of his analysis, he separated out
24 translation journals for those production costs, so --
25 Q. Isn't it true that translation journals are
223
1 journals that rarely have impact factors?
2 A. To my knowledge that's true.
3 Q. So he could not have done a cost-to-impact factor
4 ratio for translation journals, or he would have to do it
5 for such a limited sample that it wouldn't do much good?
6 A. I'm not sure that's the reason he gave for
7 separating out translation journals.
8 Q. But it is a fact that he -- he did not have the
9 data to do the full analysis with respect to translation
10 journals?
11 A. I don't know if he had the data or not for
12 translation journals or how many translation journals he had
13 data on.
14 Q. But in any event, for purposes of Dr. Barschall's
15 analysis, what's important to the librarian is the price,
16 not how much it costs the publisher to compile certain
17 pages?
18 A. The price is an important component of the
19 analysis for a librarian.
20 Q. It's price and effectiveness?
21 MR. PLOTZ: He hadn't finished, your Honor.
22 A. The tables and display mathematics, one would
23 assume, have bearing on the effectiveness, have some
24 influence on the quality of information within there. Now,
25 if you remove it -- as we said before, this is any cost
224
1 effectiveness, cost/benefit, cost efficiency analysis -- not
2 cost efficiency. Cost effectiveness, cost/benefit analysis
3 has two parts to it, the cost part and the effectiveness
4 part, and while you can take table and display mathematics
5 and pull it out of the cost part, it winds up in the
6 effectiveness part.
7 Q. This is not pulling it out of the cost side, is
8 it?
9 A. His methodology is, by making an equivalence
10 between characters and a table of the same size.
11 Q. It's assigning a value to mathematical tables?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Now, you may think mathematical tables have a
14 value that's higher than text or lower than text, but I
15 don't know -- do you have a way of assigning a value to
16 mathematical tables in comparison to text?
17 A. He used a formula of one to one, basically.
18 Q. Right.
19 A. And he could have used a formula of 100 to 1
20 or --
21 Q. 1.2 to one.
22 A. -- 1.2 to one. It's just an arbitrary pick.
23 Q. But you don't know if he discounts the value of
24 tables. All you know is he treats it as equivalent to text.
25 A. He treats it as equivalent to text, correct.
225
1 Q. And can you look at Phys. Rev. B. Isn't it true
2 that that journal, for example, has many tables, display
3 mathematics, and figures?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. You haven't looked at the journals in the study
6 so you don't know whether or not it's true that all of them
7 have such figures?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. With regard to the including of journals, physics
10 journals in different disciplines, review journals and
11 letters journals, did you say that that is like comparing
12 apples to oranges?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. What did you mean by that?
15 A. Well, there are different -- they are different
16 types of journals and carry with them different citations
17 based on the type of journal it is.
18 Q. And you know that because you have compared them?
19 A. Because I have seen the numbers on them in
20 reading the literature, correct.
21 Q. Not all the --
22 A. I think -- I think -- I'm sorry. But I think
23 that even Professor Barschall points to this in one of his
24 articles.
25 Q. In fact, that's where you learned it?
226
1 A. No, I wouldn't say that I learned it from there,
2 but it's one source of --
3 Q. Have you ever read a review journal in physics?
4 A. No, I have never read physics journals.
5 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge as to the
6 citation rates for these different kinds of journals?
7 A. From economics, not from physics.
8 Q. In your readings of economics, they discussed the
9 citation rates of review journals in physics?
10 A. No. My readings of the citation rates of letters
11 journals and economics and original research journals and
12 economics.
13 Q. Which you have done in connection with this case?
14 A. No, which was prior to this case.
15 Q. Is it true that not all review journals listed by
16 Dr. Barschall have higher impact factors than archival
17 journals?
18 A. I don't know. I would have to look at the table.
19 Do you want me to look at the tables?
20 Q. Yes. Table 1 of PX 3.
21 A. Correct. There are some review journals with
22 lower impact numbers than some original research journals.
23 I do not know -- I have to admit I do not know, under the
24 review journals, what specialty or subspecialty these
25 particular review journals might be reviewing.
227
1 Q. I believe you noted yesterday that Review of
2 Modern Physics has an impact ratio of -- impact factor of
3 27; is that correct?
4 A. For 1986, correct.
5 Q. Right. And that's more than three times higher
6 than any other review journal?
7 A. I believe so, correct.
8 Q. Do you think that's a fact that a librarian ought
9 to know in connection with acquisition decisions, that
10 Review of Modern Physics has a very high impact factor?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Doesn't that number tell the librarian that the
13 articles in the Review of Modern Physics are relied upon
14 with extremely high frequency by scientists?
15 A. It tells the librarian something about how
16 physicists as a whole cite articles in the past two years
17 from Review of Modern Physics, but that librarian has to be
18 more concerned about how her or his particular set of
19 patrons might use the Review of Modern Physics, and it might
20 be that they use it a lot, but it also might be that they
21 have better use of another journal.
22 Q. It suggests that if they -- even if they are
23 reading other articles, that an article -- a journal that
24 will be frequently cited in other journals is Review of
25 Modern Physics; it tells you that, doesn't it?
228
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. It tells you that Review of Modern Physics is the
3 Michael Jordan of physical journals, doesn't it?
4 A. I don't know if I would make that comparison.
5 Q. Well, 27 impact factor, the next one 7 in the
6 same category; isn't that like scoring 63 points in a
7 playoff game?
8 A. It certainly is more than three times higher than
9 the next journal.
10 Q. You can say you can't compare Michael Jordan to
11 other basketball players, can't you? People say that, but
12 you can?
13 A. They are using it in a different context,
14 obviously.
15 Q. You can make a comparison. The comparison is,
16 he's better. Right?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And that's what this data tells you, as to
19 physical -- Review of Modern Physics, that, as compared to
20 other physical -- physics journals, it is cited much more
21 frequently, and a librarian might want to know that; is that
22 correct?
23 A. I guess that's where the analysis sort of
24 crumbles, and that we can say Michael Jordan is better in
25 terms of all basketball players and we can say the Review of
229
1 Modern Physics is more cited in terms of all these physics
2 journals. But can we say that the Review of Modern Physics
3 is the best journal for our patrons in our library? That's
4 a different question. Can we say that Michael Jordan is the
5 best basketball player for our basketball team? I don't
6 know. The length of magic might be might be very broad
7 compared to any other player.
8 THE COURT: You said that the impact factor of 27
9 was not relevant to the librarian whose concern should be
10 the needs of the patrons of the --
11 THE WITNESS: Their library.
12 THE COURT: -- particular library.
13 THE WITNESS: Right.
14 THE COURT: Well, if we are dealing, for example,
15 with a large university, isn't it reasonable to assume that
16 the interests of the users of that library will bear some
17 relationship to the world of physicists as a whole?
18 THE WITNESS: It depends on what specialties that
19 university might support.
20 THE COURT: If you are dealing with a library for
21 a commercial entity which is engaged in some very refined
22 form of physical research, that might not be relevant, but
23 for let's just say university libraries, would it not be
24 relevant for a librarian in a university library to know
25 that the Review of Modern Physics is more cited than any
230
1 other such review?
2 THE WITNESS: Let me go back to the article by
3 Bensman which showed that there wasn't a correlation or a
4 very low correlation between impact factor and faculty
5 ranking of journals. And clearly within any discipline,
6 there might be some large general journals that are
7 important, but even universities are becoming very
8 specialized, each and every department, and with those
9 specialties there is typically a core of niche journals that
10 support each specialty.
11 THE COURT: Without meaning to disparage
12 academia, for which I have great respect, isn't one of the
13 needs which a researcher has to have sources that can be
14 cited for the particular propositions which are discussed in
15 the article? So isn't the citation itself a form of use of
16 the publication?
17 THE WITNESS: Right. You would have to use it in
18 some sense to cite it, although sometimes people might cite
19 things just because they read them in other things.
20 THE COURT: Sometimes you pad citations, like --
21 THE WITNESS: Right.
22 THE COURT: -- law clerks do when they do draft
23 opinions.
24 THE WITNESS: The trick -- the trick is, though,
25 that --
231
1 THE COURT: But you seem to be making a
2 distinction between citation and use.
3 THE WITNESS: They are two different things.
4 THE COURT: Well, use is the greater, but isn't
5 citation a form of use?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. What citations recognize,
7 too, is a global measure of how much everybody cites it.
8 Use within your library is a local measure of how much
9 people -- the patrons you support are going to use a
10 particular journal.
11 THE COURT: Let me just -- with respect to
12 general libraries such as in universities, is it reasonable
13 to assume that the interests or needs of a person who is to
14 utilize the library will bear a relationship to the
15 interests and needs of physicists at large?
16 THE WITNESS: Actually, universities over the
17 last two decades have become more and more specialized, so,
18 no, it's not -- you can't make that comparison anymore.
19 Universities' libraries just simply can't buy everything
20 that they want, and universities can't support all
21 specialties that exist. So many of them tend to limit that
22 and decide to collect a set of faculty that have a certain
23 niche themselves.
24 At the university at Albany, for example, the
25 Economics Department has a handful of faculty that
232
1 specialize in public finance and a handful of faculty that
2 specialize in econometrics, but we don't have -- we don't
3 have a lot of economists that do agricultural economics or
4 consumer economics. We have one that does labor economics
5 but not more than one.
6 So we -- university departments are becoming more
7 and more specialized.
8 THE COURT: But how about at the undergraduate
9 level? Is the nature of these publications such that the
10 undergraduate level is not so relevant?
11 THE WITNESS: The undergraduate level is not as
12 relevant because of -- you know, the journal publications
13 themselves report research that is digestible to faculty and
14 graduate students. Some undergraduates certainly use those
15 journals. But it's, you know, it's -- I would say
16 undergraduates don't go off and do research and do research
17 to the degree necessary to have academic journals constantly
18 at their disposal.
19 THE COURT: But they write papers?
20 THE WITNESS: They do write papers. They do
21 write papers, yes.
22 THE COURT: Which gets them in the library, one
23 hopes?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes, one hopes.
25 MR. HUVELLE: I just have a couple of minutes.
233
1 BY MR. HUVELLE:
2 Q. The point at which you took issue with me, I
3 believe once again, is you said that the librarian is going
4 to look at it differently.
5 A. Look at the impact number differently, correct.
6 Q. And am I correct in understanding from your
7 testimony that you have emphasized the need of the librarian
8 to look at the local community?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And I'm going to use a word that's sometimes used
11 pejoratively, but I think it's the precise word. Your
12 perspective, or the perspective you advocate for the
13 librarian, is a parochial one?
14 A. Meaning --
15 Q. Local.
16 A. -- a local one, yes.
17 Q. And of course libraries, even public libraries,
18 often buy books based upon The New York Times best seller
19 lists or a more global perspective of what's developing in
20 the world of literature or whatnot, correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And Dr. Barschall was a respected physicist at
23 the University of Wisconsin, which is a major center for
24 studies in physics? He was a member of the National Academy
25 of Sciences, correct?
234
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And he thought it was important that librarians
3 know the global perspective of what journals were important
4 to the scientists who are writing articles and developing
5 knowledge in the sciences; is that correct?
6 A. He thought that was important, correct.
7 Q. And journals historically have played the key
8 role in transmitting new knowledge from generation to
9 generation in terms of science?
10 A. Correct.
11 MR. HUVELLE: No further questions.
12 THE COURT: Redirect?
13 MR. PLOTZ: Yes, your Honor.
14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. PLOTZ:
16 Q. Dr. Kingma, you have been asked a lot of
17 questions about impact factor, a lot of questions about
18 cost.
19 With respect to the market for library journals,
20 you were asked whether this was an example of an imperfect
21 market or market with imperfect information?
22 A. Correct. I was asked.
23 Q. What does it mean for a market to have imperfect
24 information?
25 A. Imperfect information means that either the
235
1 seller or buyer does not have complete information about the
2 transaction or good. Usually we talk about it as the
3 consumer not having complete information about the product
4 that a seller is offering.
5 Q. And just speaking generically, what is a solution
6 for a market which has imperfect information?
7 A. Generically, to provide accurate information
8 about the quality, typically the quality of the product.
9 Q. Is it your view that the ratio of cost per
10 character over impact factor provides additional information
11 that helps solve the problem of an imperfect market?
12 A. No. The appropriate term here is having correct
13 information. Adding correct information to a market
14 improves the efficiency of that market. Likewise, adding
15 misinformation to that market may actually push that market
16 away from efficiency, in economic terms. I don't consider
17 this cost per character per impact measure to be correct
18 information for managing -- making collection development
19 decisions within libraries.
20 THE COURT: I take it that applies as well to the
21 decision by the author, at least in Exhibit 3, the Physics
22 Today, the pitch, if I may use that colloquial term, is to
23 authors rather than librarians. In the last -- I don't have
24 it. Isn't the last paragraph an exhortation to authors
25 rather than librarians?
236
1 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2 Q. Do you know, by the way, whether the journals
3 which have lower ratios of cost per impact have the capacity
4 to publish additional articles that authors might submit?
5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. Do you know whether anyone before Dr. Barschall
7 performed a cost comparison survey based on a ratio of cost
8 per character over impact factor?
9 MR. HUVELLE: Your Honor, I think we are outside
10 the scope of the cross.
11 THE COURT: No, I will allow it.
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. You are not aware of --
14 A. I am not aware of other articles, prior to this.
15 Q. You testified on cross, with respect to the cost
16 side of the ratio, that a normalization of cost did not
17 provide useful information, correct?
18 A. A normalization based on cost per page per
19 character per article analysis, correct.
20 Q. And why is that?
21 A. It's simply not the purchasing decision that the
22 librarian is making. A librarian has to be concerned about
23 how much they are paying, and that is paying for the
24 subscription as a whole, and how much use their patrons are
25 going to receive from that. And clearly that's use for the
237
1 subscription as a whole.
2 Q. Now, with respect, for example, to normalizing
3 price per page -- you were asked some questions about
4 that -- why doesn't that provide useful information to a
5 librarian making an acquisition decision?
6 A. I don't think normalizing by price per page
7 provides useful information to a librarian. It's not --
8 it's not the relevant decision for a librarian who is
9 purchasing a subscription as a whole.
10 Q. In terms of the subscription to a journal -- a
11 journal contains information, doesn't it?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And in determining the value of a journal, is one
14 of the things that one must look at the quality of the
15 information that's in the journal?
16 A. Correct.
17 THE COURT: Well, are you assuming that all of
18 the editorial material in all of these journals are subject
19 to a process of peer review?
20 THE WITNESS: No, certainly not -- I mean, the
21 articles typically are subject to peer review but not
22 always. You know, I -- again, I don't know within every
23 physics journal that appears in this which ones were subject
24 to peer review and which were not. And clearly there's some
25 information that was not subject to peer review, like
238
1 editorials and such.
2 THE COURT: Whether a particular journal has peer
3 review or not, is that something which a librarian would
4 consider in making a subscription?
5 THE WITNESS: Personally, I think that those
6 journals with peer review are going to be of higher quality.
7 But, again, a librarian has to be concerned about what their
8 patrons use. And if that means their patrons would rather
9 have a journal that's not peer-reviewed but it's in some
10 specialty that they really need, then they shouldn't make a
11 decision based on the fact that there is another journal
12 that is peer-reviewed.
13 THE COURT: Let's assume that you have two
14 journals, both of which are subject to peer review by
15 referees of comparable knowledge or standing in the field
16 and who apply the same criteria. If you indulge in that
17 assumption, is the number of pages per subscription dollar
18 of greater relevance?
19 THE WITNESS: I don't see in which case they are
20 ever of relevance. I mean, it's how much you're going to
21 pay for the subscription and how much use you're going to
22 get out of it.
23 THE COURT: Isn't --
24 THE WITNESS: There are some --
25 THE COURT: Isn't the use to be made -- doesn't
239
1 it have some relationship to the quality of the editorial
2 matter?
3 THE WITNESS: One could assume that more quality
4 peer review would result in more quality articles and that
5 might result in more use. But again, within, you know,
6 within the local decision making, does that result in more
7 use for my patrons?
8 THE COURT: Similar to the criticism that is made
9 of some political figures who are said not to exercise any
10 leadership but merely to follow popular polls, you are
11 assuming that the librarian's role is simply to cater to an
12 existing demand and that the librarian has no input as to
13 the quality?
14 THE WITNESS: I truly believe that the
15 librarian's role is to cater to, as you say it, existing
16 demand and expected future demand, because they are
17 entrusted with university dollars in order to purchase
18 journal subscriptions that are going to be used by the
19 clientele at that university. And I think that is -- it's
20 important for them in terms of the management decisions.
21 THE COURT: Let me make sure I understand what
22 you're saying. You're saying, if we have two journals
23 subject to the same peer review by equally conscientious and
24 knowledgeable referees, and for the same subscription price
25 one has 50 pages and the other has 500 pages, that that
240
1 price differential is not something which the librarian
2 should consider?
3 THE WITNESS: The price per page, is that what
4 you're saying?
5 THE COURT: Yes, the price per page or
6 subscription price. Yes, price per page.
7 THE WITNESS: Well, the subscription price is
8 important. The subscription price is important. That's
9 key. I just disagree with normalizing it on a per-page,
10 per-character basis. It's the value of the information, and
11 the information can't be divided up.
12 THE COURT: Well, but my hypothetical assumes
13 that there is the same peer review by the same standards in
14 both publications, both journals. Doesn't that give some
15 comfort that the quality level will be comparable?
16 THE WITNESS: If I -- if you can stretch your
17 hypothetical one more assumption and say these are both on
18 the same topic, OK, two journals on the same topic --
19 THE COURT: The same topic.
20 THE WITNESS: Same topic, same everything, same
21 quality of referees. Then I would say, actually, that the
22 economics of that situation means that the one journal won't
23 be sold. I mean, if you're saying that it's the exact same
24 topic, exact same referees, etc., ultimately the market will
25 decide as to which of these journals people will subscribe
241
1 to. And it's a decision in some sense of, you know, how
2 faculty will use -- hopefully how faculty will use those
3 journals.
4 THE COURT: It's also a function of how
5 knowledgeable the market is.
6 THE WITNESS: True. The market needs accurate
7 information to make those decisions.
8 BY MR. PLOTZ:
9 Q. Dr. Kingma, on the cross-examination, there was
10 an analogy of -- the grocery store analogy of pasta and
11 beans. Is considering journals in different topics
12 something like considering a choice between pasta and beans
13 in a grocery store?
14 A. I would say that's analogous. It might even be a
15 stronger difference among the journals, though.
16 Q. Why is that?
17 A. I mean -- well, pasta and beans are both sort of
18 consumable items that, if I'm looking for a side dish that
19 evening, I might eat either pasta or beans. But if I'm a
20 faculty member in one specialty, journals from the other
21 specialty might be of no use or value to me at all, only the
22 journals within my specialty.
23 Q. Would it make sense for a library to buy an
24 inexpensive journal that's seldom used?
25 A. No.
242
1 Q. Would it make sense to buy an expensive journal
2 that's seldom used?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Would it make sense to buy an expensive journal
5 that is frequently used?
6 A. Yes, if there's enough use to justify that
7 subscription price, yes.
8 Q. Just to complete the box, would it make sense to
9 buy an inexpensive journal that's frequently used?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, in terms of, you said, in response to a
12 question from Judge Sand a few minutes ago, that your view
13 is that the librarian's function is to respond to the
14 current needs of its patrons and the expected future needs,
15 correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Who will predict what those expected future needs
18 or trends are?
19 A. Typically the librarian is going to be making the
20 decision about --
21 Q. Based on what information?
22 A. Based on the information they have available.
23 Hopefully they have information on use. Hopefully they have
24 information on requests for different journal titles like
25 interlibrary loan, or hopefully they have talked to the
243
1 faculty to determine what journals would be the best buys
2 for their library.
3 THE COURT: Wouldn't the key factor be to see
4 what the curriculum will be for the near future?
5 THE WITNESS: I think that would be -- yes, I
6 mean, that's extremely important. Hopefully that will come
7 out in the expressed wishes of the faculty.
8 THE COURT: My limited contact with academia in
9 law school is that there is an inquiry made by the librarian
10 with respect to what material the faculty members would like
11 to see in the library in the light of what it is that they
12 will be teaching.
13 THE WITNESS: Right.
14 THE COURT: Isn't that standard?
15 THE WITNESS: I don't know if that's standard at
16 every library. That's an important thing that should be
17 done, correct.
18 BY MR. PLOTZ:
19 Q. I want to turn for the moment to the denominator
20 of the ratio impact factor.
21 Citation analysis -- rather, citation count is
22 not the same thing as impact factor, right?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. In assessing whether or not either citation count
25 or impact factor reliably measures the effectiveness or the
244
1 benefit of a journal, one must consider what citations
2 measure, right?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. And if there are flaws in terms of what it is --
5 or the value of what a citation measures, would that have an
6 adverse impact on the validity of citation count?
7 MR. HUVELLE: I object to the leading nature of
8 this question.
9 THE COURT: Overruled.
10 A. Errors in citation or impact would affect using
11 it, correct.
12 Q. Is that true in a cost/benefit analysis?
13 A. Correct. I mean, given the errors that are known
14 to exist in citation analysis, those errors will produce
15 errors within subsequent analysis that relies on them,
16 pretty much by definition.
17 Q. So they would produce errors in a cost
18 effectiveness analysis?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Now, one of the -- I want to direct your
21 attention to one of the articles that you cited in your
22 report, an article by Moed and Vreins. What did Moed and
23 Vreins --
24 THE COURT: Now, aren't you really going entirely
25 beyond the scope?
245
1 MR. PLOTZ: No. Actually, this is going to be
2 directly relevant to the cross with respect to whether or
3 not the flaws in citation analysis are directed to
4 individual authors or to journals as a whole.
5 THE COURT: You may continue.
6 BY MR. PLOTZ:
7 Q. Just to put it in context, though, what issue
8 were Moed and Vreins looking at?
9 A. Moed and Vreins were looking at clerical errors
10 principally, by authors in citing materials. They took a
11 set of journal titles and then looked for whatever errors
12 might have been produced by the authors in those citations.
13 Q. Were there any differences across the journals
14 they looked at in the types of errors that they found?
15 A. They weren't going to find any errors in terms of
16 journal titles, because of the way they collected the data,
17 by establishing a set of journal titles.
18 Q. What errors were they looking at? What types of
19 errors?
20 A. They were looking at errors such as misspelling
21 of names, misspelling of articles, etc. And they found
22 among those that there was roughly a 9-percent error rate
23 among citations.
24 Q. Were there any differences among the journals
25 they looked at in terms of the types of errors that were
246
1 predominant in each journal?
2 THE COURT: When you say "a 9-percent error
3 rate," do you mean an error of sufficient magnitude so that
4 the correct reference was not credited with the citation?
5 THE WITNESS: In errors -- an error, period,
6 meaning misspelling of a word, misspelling of a name.
7 THE COURT: With the consequence that the
8 citation was not credited in the analysis?
9 THE WITNESS: They weren't looking at the
10 ultimate citation database. They were just looking at a
11 collection of articles. So you can't say it goes to the
12 next step, with the consequence.
13 THE COURT: And they were saying?
14 THE WITNESS: That they were errors in the way
15 authors put their citations together; they make mistakes.
16 THE COURT: For our purposes, the significant
17 question is whether the nature of the errors was such as to
18 skew the analysis?
19 THE WITNESS: Correct.
20 THE COURT: Were these errors of such a nature?
21 If someone misspelled your name, puts an E at the end
22 instead of an A, but in the analysis it's clear that it's
23 your book which is being cited so that they, I guess, would
24 call it a hit in today's language, then the error is of no
25 significance?
247
1 THE WITNESS: Right. I don't know the answer to
2 that, your previous question. That is what it comes down
3 to.
4 BY MR. PLOTZ:
5 Q. Leaving clerical errors aside, is there a
6 subjective component to an author's decision to use a
7 citation?
8 A. Clearly, there is subjectivity based on -- as was
9 mentioned before, positive and negative cites carry the same
10 weight. Even though one is -- might not be favorable and
11 the other is favorable, in the final analysis they both
12 count as a hit. There may be, you know, minor cites of some
13 related research which is counted equally to a major piece
14 of work that had major influence on your research. But
15 those, again, are both counted as equal hits.
16 Q. In connection with the question Judge Sand asked
17 you a few moments ago, the relationship of citations and
18 use, are there uses of journals beyond citation?
19 A. Yes, there are.
20 Q. What kind of uses would there be?
21 A. In reading the literature, knowing what is out
22 there, looking for things that might be related to your
23 research, there are, in the physical sciences, there are
24 clearly a lot of uses within the corporate sector that don't
25 result in citations. This is well known.
248
1 There are, you know, obviously, a body of uses
2 beyond simply those that you are going to cite.
3 THE COURT: How much longer do you think redirect
4 will be?
5 MR. PLOTZ: Longer than five minutes.
6 THE COURT: We are adjourned until 2 o'clock.
7 (Luncheon recess)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
249
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
2 2:05 p.m.
3 BRUCE KINGMA,
4 Resumed, and testified further as follows:
5 THE COURT: Good afternoon. You may be seated.
6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed)
7 BY MR. PLOTZ:
8 Q. Dr. Kingma, on cross you were asked a whole lot
9 of questions concerning five theoretical measures of
10 effectiveness of journals, do you recall that?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And just so we have them in front of us, what are
13 those five theoretical measures?
14 A. The five theoretical measures are readership, or
15 readings; use; survey of faculty opinions; citations; and
16 impact.
17 Q. And is that list you just gave us in any
18 particular order of importance?
19 A. Yes. I regard it to be listed as best to worst,
20 best being readings or use of a journal in terms of
21 measuring effectiveness.
22 Q. Are any of those five measures in your view
23 invalid measures of effectiveness of journals?
24 A. Yes. I consider the impact factor to be an
25 invalid measure of effectiveness. It has serious problems
250
1 inherent in it that don't make it a worthwhile measure.
2 Q. And what, briefly, are those problems?
3 A. The problems that we discussed before, of its
4 dramatic variability from year to year, of it makes it
5 difficult to compare cross subspecialties, the different
6 kinds of types of journals, the inherent problems in
7 citation analysis, and one more, the fact that it's a global
8 measure rather than a local measure.
9 Q. In terms of its year-to-year fluctuations, you
10 were asked some questions on cross relating to the review of
11 modern physics impact factor as reported in the Barschall
12 study, which was 27, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Do you know what happened to that impact factor
15 in the next year, 1987?
16 A. In 1987, actually there was a 40-percent decline
17 in the impact factor down to a little more than 16.
18 Q. Now, what is it about citation count that you
19 rank at above impact factor in your list of theoretical
20 measures?
21 A. Well, citation count gives a more complete
22 picture of a journal. In some sense, if you wanted even
23 more information about the citations for a journal, you
24 would want to take the citation count for every year from
25 the initial existence of the journal until today's date to
251
1 see what the total citation count was, how it varied from
2 year to year, etc. The impact factor just gives you a very
3 small snapshot of those citations, two years publication,
4 one year citation snapshot.
5 Q. Now, you were asked on cross about your statement
6 in your report that you considered the impact factor to be a
7 biased measure, and you were asked whether in fact it wasn't
8 a precise measure; do you recall that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I believe you answered that it was a precise
11 measure.
12 A. It is a precise measure in terms of the
13 mathematics of it; counting up the number of citations,
14 dividing it by the number of source items.
15 Q. What is it about it that you claim is biased?
16 A. It's biased in terms of its use, its use
17 particularly in these articles, for making managed library
18 management decisions.
19 Q. Just to be clear, when you refer to "these
20 articles," you mean the Barschall's?
21 A. The Barschall articles. Developing this cost per
22 character per impact measure leads to -- potentially leads
23 to biased decisions in terms of collection development.
24 Basically in one year you can have a journal with a very
25 high impact factor leading to a very, let's say, good score
252
1 according to the Barschall method. The next year with that
2 impact factor changing all of a sudden you've changed the
3 score of it, the ultimate score of the cost per impact
4 measure.
5 Q. And what is wrong with that?
6 A. Well, potentially in one year a librarian could
7 decide to subscribe to a journal and the next year
8 unsubscribe to a journal, even though the use or value of
9 that journal to the core patrons that they serve remains
10 constant, even though the impact factor on a global scale is
11 changing from year to year.
12 Q. Now, let me turn to use, which is one of the
13 measures that you have placed reliance on. Could you please
14 describe how a library can measure use?
15 A. Yes. Use studies are done in a variety of ways.
16 There was one done at the University at Albany several years
17 ago that involved putting stickers on every volume of every
18 journal on the shelf, telling all the patrons of the
19 library, through letters and through big signs throughout
20 the library, not to reshelf journals had they pulled them
21 down to look at them. It said very explicitly, don't put
22 this back on the shelf. Those journals then were collected
23 throughout the library, a core of undergraduate students
24 were hired to perform this task, and every time it was
25 reshelved a little mark was made on the white sticker. When
253
1 the white sticker collected so many marks -- I don't know if
2 it was 20 or 40 marks -- a new white sticker was put on and
3 that information was recorded by journal title and by year.
4 Q. And then what ultimately was done with the
5 information?
6 A. Well, ultimately you have a database of the use
7 for each year of -- by every journal title. And you can
8 take that information and look at the subscription prices
9 for those journals, and get a cost per use. Now, the reason
10 that's relevant is that when you look at cost per use for
11 journal titles, your alternative in collecting the same
12 information or acquiring the same information for patrons to
13 use is to go through interlibrary loan, and there you are
14 acquiring it out of an article by article basis, and it has
15 also essentially a cost per use. So those cost per use
16 comparisons can be made between the journal on the shelf and
17 the alternative means of collecting the same information.
18 Q. Is conducting a use study such as you described
19 easy or difficult to do?
20 A. It's somewhat straightforward to do, but it can
21 be costly. It can be difficult to put together the core of
22 students that you need and the methods you need to collect
23 this kind of information.
24 Q. Does that make the exercise of conducting a use
25 study invalid?
254
1 A. No, it doesn't make it invalid. It makes it --
2 while there are difficulties in doing it and costs
3 associated in doing it, it is really the best thing to do to
4 make wise management decisions --
5 THE COURT: It gives no indication, does it, of
6 the amount of time spent in consulting that or reading that
7 particular volume?
8 THE WITNESS: No, it doesn't.
9 THE COURT: Then, if you take the wrong book off
10 the shelf by mistake, it distorts the result, doesn't it?
11 THE WITNESS: If you take the wrong book off the
12 shelf by mistake, yes, there are going to be those errors,
13 but note that --
14 THE COURT: Isn't it a fact that any one of these
15 methods is going to be subject to that type of picayune
16 possibility of distortion? You refer to the problem of two
17 authors having identical names, and you don't know how often
18 that happens, two authors with identical names. I don't
19 know how often it happens that somebody takes a book off the
20 shelf by mistake. But don't you have to have a sort of a
21 generous margin of error for all of these pursuits?
22 THE WITNESS: I think with the use study, though,
23 while there may be a margin for error within it, it is still
24 a very nice type measure of what local patrons value within
25 that library. And you have a direct comparison for that.
255
1 Acquiring the same articles through interlibrary loan, and
2 in which case some people might fill out the interlibrary
3 loan form incorrectly or might be interested in an article
4 but find out that it is not particularly useful to them;
5 they are still requesting it and asking that it be delivered
6 to them.
7 I think that's -- in any research that you do
8 that involves collection of numbers, there are almost, you
9 know, automatically there is going to be an error of margin.
10 Q. That's true for citations as well as use studies?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Would it make sense to you, assuming this could
13 be done, for a nationwide use study to be done and then used
14 by librarians in making their acquisition decisions?
15 A. No, you see, that doesn't make any sense because
16 you are concerned with the use that your patrons at your
17 library get from journals that you're thinking about
18 purchasing as an acquisitions librarian.
19 Q. Now, Mr. Huvelle asked you a hypothetical
20 question, and I would like to restate the hypothetical just
21 a little bit differently.
22 He asked you to assume that the cost per impact
23 formula was a valid measure of cost effectiveness, and he
24 asked you whether or not, with that assumption, you agreed
25 that the APS journals listed in table 1 were more cost
256
1 effective. I would like to state it a little bit
2 differently.
3 You believe that the cost per impact formula is
4 not a valid measure of cost effectiveness, correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Do you believe that the fact that the APS
7 journals rank at the top of the various categories in table
8 1 says anything one way or the other about their relative
9 cost effectiveness?
10 A. No, I don't.
11 MR. PLOTZ: I have nothing further, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Anything further of this witness?
13 MR. HUVELLE: No, your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.
15 (Witness excused)
16 MR. LUPERT: Shall we call the next witness, your
17 Honor?
18 THE COURT: Yes, please.
19 MR. LUPERT: The next witness is going to be
20 Dr. Harry Lustig.
21 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I have one housekeeping
22 matter that relates to this witness. You recall yesterday
23 that we had a discussion about a stipulation. I offered a
24 stipulation to Mr. Lupert yesterday and he suggested that I
25 enter it, which I have done, and provided him with a copy.
257
1 This is the stipulation. It is intended to find a way --
2 since we are running late, to find a way to streamline this
3 trial. I believe based on the deposition and on the
4 documents that have been identified as exhibits, that I
5 anticipate that Mr. Lupert intends to spend some time with
6 Mr. Lustig or Dr. Lustig talking about whether the past
7 survey would have been used for commercial advertising or
8 promotion. In an effort to streamline this issue, we have
9 provided the stipulation, which, as you'll see, stipulates
10 that we intend to use surveys employing the Barschall
11 methodology as reflected in the relevant exhibits for
12 commercial advertising or promotion and intend to obviate
13 the need for evidence about the past activities which relate
14 to the 1988 survey.
15 THE COURT: Mr. Lupert, does this stipulation
16 meet the plaintiffs' needs?
17 MR. LUPERT: Well, it is obviously acceptable to
18 the plaintiffs to have the defendants concede a point they
19 have not conceded before, which is that they actually will
20 intend and do intend in the future to use these surveys for
21 commercial purposes, which I think is a significant
22 concession.
23 I had thought about this overnight. It was
24 something proposed unilaterally by Mr. Meserve. I am not
25 quite sure of what it accomplishes, frankly, from a --
258
1 THE COURT: Well, his hope is that it obviates
2 the need for the plaintiffs to introduce evidence to prove
3 this point, and, therefore, saves -- sir, why don't you have
4 a seat and we will call you when we are ready.
5 Does it serve that purpose?
6 MR. LUPERT: It is clearly going to serve the
7 purpose of eliminating certain points that I would otherwise
8 have had to raise. There was considerable testimony, for
9 example, that I would have burdened the Court with, with
10 depositions that dealt with this topic from witnesses who
11 would not otherwise testify here. Certainly, we won't need
12 to burden the Court with that. So, yes, there will be a
13 savings.
14 I had asked Mr. Meserve whether he would
15 stipulate to the next point, which is that, assuming we met
16 the standard under Casterol, as this court will define it,
17 whether he would agree that an injunction would be an
18 appropriate remedy. That he was not willing to agree to and
19 I can't force him to agree to that, obviously.
20 THE COURT: Why don't we accept the stipulation
21 that defendants hereby stipulate that they intend to use
22 surveys employing the Barschall methodology (as reflected in
23 plaintiff's Exhibits 1 to 3) in commercial advertising or
24 promotion as those terms are used in the Lanham Act. And
25 the defendants so stipulate?
259
1 MR. MESERVE: That's correct, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: Very well.
3 HARRY LUSTIG,
4 called as a witness by the plaintiffs,
5 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
6 DIRECT EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. LUPERT:
8 Q. Dr. Lustig, you were the treasurer, were you not,
9 of the American Physical Society until late last year?
10 A. I was the treasurer from 1985 to November 10,
11 1996.
12 Q. And you remain a paid consultant for the
13 organization to date, do you not?
14 A. I am now a one-day-a-week consultant for the
15 organization.
16 Q. You testified at your deposition that among the
17 consulting activities that you do for the defendant APS is
18 to consult on the litigation and the issues pertaining to
19 the case that we are now trying?
20 A. That is one of my duties. I have a certain
21 memory about the case, yes.
22 Q. And you remain active on several committees of
23 the APS?
24 A. No, I'm not on any committees of the APS.
25 Q. In terms of how the APS operates, as I understand
260
1 it, it has three what we call day-to-day operating
2 officials, is that not correct?
3 A. Well, they are called the free operating
4 officers, yes.
5 Q. One of them was the treasurer?
6 A. One of them was the treasurer.
7 Q. When I say "was the treasurer," this remains true
8 today; there is the treasurer, correct?
9 A. To the best of my understanding, that remains
10 true today.
11 Q. And there is an executive secretary, correct?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. And there is a gentleman or a woman who is called
14 editor-in-chief, correct?
15 A. Right now it is a gentleman, yes,
16 editor-in-chief.
17 Q. And each of these, if I call them noneditorial
18 functions, I would be correct?
19 A. No, I don't think so. You wouldn't be correct
20 with respect to the editor-in-chief.
21 Q. Well, the editor-in-chief doesn't spend his time,
22 does he, editing articles?
23 A. Actually he does review appeals, so he has to
24 look at articles.
25 Q. He reviews appeals as one of his functions, and
261
1 his other functions are noneditorial, correct?
2 A. Well, his other functions are help choose,
3 recommend to the counsel, editors for the journals.
4 Q. And among his other functions are what we would
5 call publishing or business functions?
6 A. Actually, that is now not very much the case.
7 Now the treasurer is considered the publisher of the
8 journals.
9 Q. And is it a fair statement to say that APS
10 basically, in terms of its revenue stream, depends upon the
11 sale of its journals?
12 A. Well, it is a little more complicated than that.
13 APS has four different activity groups, if you will:
14 Publications, research publications is one of them.
15 Meetings is another. Membership service is another. And,
16 finally, what we call finally our member activity. Outreach
17 education is another. And by and large we want each of
18 these activities to stand on their own feet.
19 Q. In terms of the revenue stream, I would like you
20 to try to focus on the revenue stream. Do you remember, you
21 were the treasurer focusing on the idea of bringing in
22 money?
23 Am I correct that APS was dependent in terms of
24 bringing money into its operations to sell its journals?
25 A. Well, financially, the journals were the largest
262
1 portion of operations, and so both the expenses and the
2 revenues of the operations were larger than any of the
3 others.
4 Q. In effect, APS could not survive without the sale
5 of its journals, correct?
6 A. No, I don't think that is correct. We are now in
7 a position where we could survive -- if we had no expenses
8 for our journals, we could manage all the other activities
9 now without the journals. Of course, we couldn't tolerate
10 large losses of the journals --
11 Q. Sir --
12 THE COURT: There are other main revenues,
13 sources of membership?
14 THE WITNESS: Membership dues, meetings,
15 registrations, and we do get some grants from foundations
16 for some of our scientific studies on the issue of physics
17 and society.
18 Q. If I did the math correctly -- and I'm more than
19 happy to show you this document. This is the 1996 annual
20 report of the American Physical Society, which indicates, of
21 its revenue stream of about 29 million, 24 million was the
22 result of the sale in a category called reserve
23 publications; is that about what your memory is?
24 A. Well, that is correct, but of course the expenses
25 were mostly in research publications.
263
1 Q. Correct. And the document which perhaps I should
2 show you, if I might, is Exhibit 6D. And it shows, does it
3 not, that 80 percent, approximately a little bit more than
4 80 percent of the revenue stream of APS was from the sale of
5 journals and it had $20 million in expenses due to the sale
6 of journals, leaving a net of 3.2?
7 A. Well, it wasn't all from the sale of journals.
8 There were also page charges and other incomes in connection
9 with journals. It wasn't all sale, but yes, you are
10 basically correct.
11 Q. If the sale of journals, and taking in a page
12 charge revenue about which there has been testimony before
13 you, there was 24 million and there was a net of about 3.2
14 million?
15 A. That is true for that particular year, yes, sir.
16 Q. And it is about the same percentage from year to
17 year?
18 A. No, the net surplus is not the same from year to
19 year.
20 Q. So the net surplus may have decreased but the
21 percentage of revenue stays in the 75 to 80 percent area?
22 A. 75 to 80 percent, yes, sir.
23 Q. That was true from 1986?
24 A. 1985.
25 Q. -- 1985 until you left last year, right?
264
1 A. I believe that was approximately true, yes, sir.
2 Q. For AIP, to your knowledge was it about the same?
3 A. I don't really remember the AIP numbers very
4 well, but I would say probably about the same, yes.
5 Q. And within the revenue stream itself, I am
6 correct, am I not, that the largest portion of the revenue
7 year to year to the APS comes from the sale of journals to
8 academic libraries?
9 A. That's been true in recent times. It wasn't
10 always true.
11 Q. Well, it's been true since the mid-'80s to the
12 mid-'90s, correct?
13 A. It has gone up actually, since, yes.
14 Q. In other words, the percentage of income derived
15 from libraries has actually increased from the time you
16 started as the treasurer?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. That has been true for both AIP and APS?
19 A. I'm not sure about AIP at all.
20 Q. We'll focus on APS.
21 I had asked you a moment before, I mean, given
22 these numbers, do you agree with my statement that without
23 the sale of journals, that APS could not survive?
24 A. No, I do not agree, sir. Because we have now put
25 ourselves into a position where we no longer depend on
265
1 surpluses from journals to help finance any of the other
2 activities. And APS was of course founded as a service
3 society for physics and not as a publisher.
4 Q. Let me rephrase it slightly then.
5 Certainly the journal publication program
6 couldn't survive without the revenue stream from the
7 libraries?
8 A. That's certainly true about the journal program,
9 yes.
10 Q. Now, Physics Today -- you are familiar with the
11 journal Physics Today?
12 A. Yes, I am.
13 Q. Just to get some background, that is the
14 background that AIP sends out to anyone who is a member of
15 AIP, any of the member societies?
16 A. That is correct. There are no members of AIP.
17 Q. Let me bring that out as well. AIP doesn't have
18 individual members. It actually has member societies. Is
19 that correct?
20 A. That is by and large true.
21 Q. And AIP basically has about ten of these member
22 societies, of which APS is one of them?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. APS on the other hand has individual members?
25 A. That is correct, sir.
266
1 Q. And it has about 40,000?
2 A. That is right.
3 Q. And it had about 40,000 back in the mid-'80s. It
4 stayed about the same --
5 A. Roughly the same.
6 Q. The magazine Physics Today, in which of course
7 the Barschall survey appeared both in 1986 and in 1988, am I
8 correct that the distribution was about 100,000 each time?
9 A. Well, I'm not sure exactly, but roughly that.
10 That's a roughly right number, yes.
11 Q. OK. Just as a little bit of additional
12 background information --
13 MR. LUPERT: Will your Honor be able to keep up
14 with me? I see the court clerk has left. If I have
15 documents --
16 MR. MESERVE: I couldn't hear the exhibit number.
17 MR. LUPERT: It is 112.
18 THE COURT: What are we looking at now?
19 MR. LUPERT: I am looking at Plaintiff's Exhibit
20 112.
21 Q. I would like to put this before you. Thank you.
22 There is a language that you use, Dr. Lustig,
23 that differentiates between academic libraries and the
24 40,000 members, if I understand it. In all these documents,
25 when you refer to members, you are referring to the 40,000,
267
1 approximately, physicists?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. When you refer to nonmembers, you are referring
4 to the academic libraries, correct?
5 A. That's correct. Unlike other publishers who
6 distinguish between institutional and individual
7 subscriptions, we distinguish between library, institution
8 and APS member subscriptions.
9 Q. Just for the court to understand this, because
10 there are a lot of documents that use the phrase
11 "nonmembers," we are invariably talking about academic
12 libraries, correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And this document, if you could turn to --
15 THE COURT: What is a nonacademic library?
16 MR. LUPERT: To differentiate it from corporate,
17 basically. It seems to be the rubric that is used by this
18 particular society, judge.
19 THE WITNESS: We don't have corporate members.
20 MR. LUPERT: Right.
21 Q. In fact, when the judge asks about, are there any
22 libraries other than academic libraries, that the words
23 nonmember in fact equate only with academic libraries?
24 A. No, not just academic libraries, any libraries.
25 Q. This document reflects that at least at this
268
1 period of time, in 1991, there were slightly over 2900 APS
2 nonmember accounts representing a little over 10,000
3 subscriptions. It is on page 7.
4 Is that about the right number, as far as you
5 recall?
6 A. Well, I really can't recall what the right number
7 is for 1987 right now, but it sound about right.
8 Q. This was actually 1991. I would show you other
9 documents. But are we in the right ballpark basically --
10 A. You said 10,000?
11 Q. There were 10,000 subscriptions for about 2900
12 libraries.
13 A. 2900 different libraries together accounted for
14 about 10,000 subscriptions, that sounds about right.
15 Q. And that sounds about right during your entire
16 tenure period?
17 A. Pretty much so.
18 Q. If I could ask you to take a look at page 33.
19 Remember, these have numbers at the bottom of them,
20 Dr. Lustig, which are just numbers that were put on by
21 counsel. There is a number that says APS 3321. Do you see
22 that on the bottom right-hand corner?
23 A. I will have to find it.
24 Q. There are two tables there, table 2, table 3, and
25 it says "subscriptions by journal for 1990, 1991." Do you
269
1 see it there?
2 A. Yes, I could.
3 Q. Do you see that there is a column under table 3
4 that says "PRA"? Does that stand for Physical Review A,
5 Physical Review B, etc.?
6 A. It does.
7 Q. And the "PRL" at the bottom is Physical Review
8 Letters?
9 A. It does.
10 Q. And it says "Physical Review '90, '91," and those
11 are the actual subscriptions for those journals, correct?
12 A. These are library subscriptions.
13 Q. Since those dates, there has been, has there not,
14 an annual decline?
15 A. There was an annual decline before these dates,
16 as well, but it was generally not as high as this particular
17 year.
18 Q. Right. Is it not true that there has been an
19 average annual decline, going back to the -- sometime in at
20 least the '80s through the time you left, of about 3 percent
21 per year?
22 A. 2 to 3 percent per year, yes.
23 Q. So these numbers here would have to be modified
24 slightly to account for those adjustments, correct?
25 A. That's correct, sir.
270
1 Q. Now, talking about cancellations for a moment --
2 I can take that document back from you. I am going to have
3 some great number of documents and I don't want to overload
4 you.
5 Am I correct in stating that generally, during
6 your tenure from '85 on, a major problem facing the APS --
7 and I want you just to focus on the APS for a moment -- was
8 cancellation by librarians?
9 A. It was a problem, yes.
10 Q. And, in fact, among the things you wanted to try
11 to accomplish as the treasurer was to stanch the tide of
12 those cancellations?
13 A. Correct. Well, that was one of my goals, but I
14 had a different problem and perhaps a more difficult
15 problem, too, Mr. Lupert. That was because of the
16 tremendous growth of our journals, we had to increase the
17 price every year. We had 9, 10 percent growth and my
18 community, which is composed of academics and librarians, to
19 some extent and the provosts and our readers were very
20 reluctant to allow me to make the proposed price increases
21 that were necessary to keep up with that growth. So that I
22 considered my biggest problem.
23 Q. So you had -- the biggest problem was the
24 increasing prices, and another problem, and I daresay a very
25 important problem, was cancellations, correct?
271
1 A. The biggest problem was my being allowed to make
2 the necessary increases in prices.
3 Q. Right. But let's talk about it in terms of what
4 those actual price increases were.
5 Am I not correct that those price increases in
6 the 1980s period were large?
7 A. Yes. They had reached about 15 percent per year.
8 Q. And, indeed, do you recall that in 1987/88, APS
9 across the board had to increase its prices by 26.9 percent?
10 A. That was a very unfortunate and unusual
11 happening. Because of illness in the family I was unable to
12 attend the council the year before so they did not follow my
13 recommendation for the 15 percent price increases then but
14 made a much lower one, so, yes, we had to compensate that
15 one the next year for the losses.
16 Q. Let me, so that we have the facts straight: In
17 1986-'87, the price increase was 12 percent and in '87-'88,
18 it was 26.9 percent?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If I might show you Exhibit 77 and ask if you
21 would please turn to page 5181, again, one of those numbers
22 that were put on by counsel.
23 Do you see it there?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. There is a chart, "Average Price Increases"?
272
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. That is an accurate chart, as far as you know?
3 A. I prepared that chart, so I have to assume it's
4 accurate.
5 Q. And by the mid -- let's say 1992, 1993, this
6 problem with cancellations was just as great as it had been
7 back in the '87/'88 period?
8 A. My reading is that the main problem was not
9 cancellations. Main problem was continued growth of the
10 journals by 10 percent a year.
11 Q. And the increase in the prices that resulted?
12 A. And the increase in the prices that had to be
13 charged, yes.
14 Q. But nevertheless there were cancellations every
15 year? There was a net cancellation, let's call it a net
16 loss of subscribers, every single year, correct?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. And there were increasing prices every single
19 year?
20 A. Pretty much -- not every year, not for every
21 journal, but every year.
22 Q. For most of the journals between 1986 and the
23 time you left at the end of last year, there were increases
24 in most of the journals and there were net cancellations in
25 terms of the revenue stream for APS every single year,
273
1 right?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. And these were of concern to you, correct?
4 A. Yes, there were.
5 Q. Now, do you recall that there was, on top of
6 these concerns, a concern about what the impact of page
7 charge income -- to be more precise, a concern about what
8 the loss of page charge income might cause in terms of even
9 having to increase prices further?
10 A. There was certainly a tremendous concern about
11 the whole page charge issue, Mr. Lupert. It is a very
12 complex issue, and I will be glad to testify to the -- if
13 you ask me, yes, there was concern about the future of page
14 charges in the --
15 Q. In fact, do you recall that at one point you
16 wrote that if page charge income were eliminated, you
17 would -- that is, the APS -- would have to raise prices over
18 60 percent for one of its major publications, Physical
19 Review C, and over 58 percent for another one of its major
20 publications, Physical Review D?
21 A. Well, that was an estimate that took into account
22 various hypotheticals that didn't happen. It proposed the
23 page charge would be eliminated. It also took into account
24 that there would be continued growth and it was predicated
25 on the fact that we were going to make the same on net
274
1 revenues, wanted to make the same net revenues. None of
2 this happened, of course.
3 Q. But there were analyses that were done from time
4 to time which looked at what would happen if this page
5 charge revenue were eliminated, correct?
6 A. There was such analysis, yes.
7 Q. And in one of the analyses -- and I would be
8 happy to show it to you if you don't remember it -- there
9 was a -- you wrote that the effect would be, as I indicated
10 in my last question, over 60 percent for Physical Review C
11 and over 58 percent for Physical Review D. That is about
12 correct, right?
13 A. This was written to tell people that they simply
14 couldn't eliminate all page charges.
15 Q. This page charge income, to put it back into
16 context, this is where the author is charged by the society
17 for the privilege, if you will, of having his or her article
18 published in the APS journal, right?
19 A. Authors, after the articles are accepted -- long
20 after they are accepted, are asked on a voluntary basis to
21 help defray the cost of the journals to contribute a fee per
22 page, called a page charge, obviously partly from their own
23 pocket, but mostly from their overall research grant, since
24 this was part of research and it was totally voluntary. And
25 that is an institution which American journals have had for
275
1 a long time.
2 Q. Am I not correct about this statement, that the
3 page charges and library subscriptions come ultimately from
4 the same institutions? That is a correct statement?
5 A. Well, if you mean the American taxpayer, yes,
6 that is by and large a correct statement. But they do not
7 come from the same -- certainly do not come from the same
8 sources inside an institution.
9 Q. But the physics department, in this case, is
10 responsible by and large for the page charges that the APS
11 charged the authors?
12 A. No, that is not correct, Mr. Lupert.
13 Q. The money comes from the National Science
14 Foundation in the first instance, does it not?
15 A. And the grant --
16 Q. And the grants come from the NSF to the
17 university and from the university department -- am I wrong
18 that it is not the department, it is the university as a
19 whole?
20 A. You are wrong about that, Mr. Lupert. The grant
21 goes to the individual investigator.
22 Q. In a department?
23 A. In a department. For example, it is portable.
24 If an investigator leaves an institution, he can almost
25 always take that grant with him. It is administered
276
1 technically through the university, which has some fiduciary
2 responsibility, but it is basically an individual
3 investigator who decides how to use his grant money, whether
4 to use it for page charges or for travel or for graduate
5 student support or whoever.
6 Q. You would agree with me that, in concept, the
7 page charges in library subscriptions come ultimately from
8 the same institution and sources, is that correct?
9 A. No, I just explained what I meant by that. It
10 comes ultimately probably from the U.S. taxpayer, in the
11 sense that the libraries are sometimes financed from
12 indirect costs from grants and the grants go directly to
13 investigators. But the impact on who pays is very
14 different. For example, there is no correlation. We have
15 libraries which basically buy journals but have no
16 researchers at all and pay page charges, and we have
17 researchers who pay page charges where the libraries may not
18 even subscribe to the journal.
19 Q. Doctor, let me show you a document that appears
20 to be one that you wrote. It is Plaintiff's Exhibit 153.
21 Would you take a moment and just look at that.
22 (Pause)
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. This is a memo from you to someone named Cindy
25 Rice?
277
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Are those your initials next to the name Harry
3 Lustig?
4 A. Yes, they are.
5 Q. This is actually a discussion about Gordon &
6 Breach's voluntary negative page charge concept, is it not?
7 A. No, it's not. That is mentioned, inter alia, in
8 terms of a much more general discussion.
9 Q. But it contains a discussion about Gordon &
10 Breach's page charge policy, does it not?
11 A. It contains a statement about the Gordon & Breach
12 paying negative page charges to authors, yes.
13 Q. I would point you to the third full paragraph on
14 the first page, as it runs over to the next page, where you
15 wrote, "Of course, the idea that page charges and library
16 subscriptions come ultimately from the same institutions and
17 sources is correct and would lead to the conclusions that a
18 simple funding model should be established." Do you see
19 that?
20 A. You are saying on the first page?
21 Q. It is the third paragraph that runs over to the
22 next page. Indeed, it would be the first full sentence on
23 the second page.
24 Do you see it there?
25 A. Well, as I said, by this I meant, or should be
278
1 more precise, they ultimately come from the federal
2 government generally, from the U.S. taxpayer.
3 Q. But on a global United States basis, I mean every
4 library, every university that has an author that is
5 publishing with an APS journal, that university budget, or
6 that grant from the NSF, is being used to pay some page
7 charges, correct?
8 A. No, that is not correct. Some people pay no page
9 charges whatsoever. Some universities pay no page charges
10 also.
11 Q. Those who pay, those who pay, that is a factor
12 that produces substantial revenue, does it not, for the APS?
13 A. No, not any more. It doesn't produce substantial
14 revenue.
15 Q. Back in the '80s did it produce substantial
16 revenue?
17 A. The last number I remember from the '80s are
18 about 15 percent of the revenues.
19 Q. So about 15 percent --
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. -- of the $24 million in revenue, that would be
22 about $4 million dollars?
23 A. 3.6.
24 Q. Three and a half million dollars, to be precise.
25 Would you say that is a substantial amount?
279
1 A. In dollars it is a lot of money, in percentages
2 it is not.
3 Q. Three and a half million dollars is more than the
4 entire net from publications in that year? And I would
5 refer you back to Exhibit 6, that I showed you earlier.
6 A. You are talking about a different year maybe. As
7 I said, it is roughly the same number, yes.
8 Q. In other words, the amount of page charge revenue
9 was approximately the whole net revenue to the APS?
10 A. It is a lot less now.
11 Q. But back then, when Professor Barschall did his
12 survey, were page charges, let me say, as relevant an issue
13 to our case at that point in time?
14 A. They were certainly a significant part of our
15 revenue, yes.
16 Q. Would you agree with me that, with respect to the
17 price increases that were occurring back in the 1980s, that
18 librarians basically were traumatized?
19 A. I think that's fair, about price increases in the
20 publishing community as a whole, yes.
21 Q. And they were traumatized and they were
22 complaining about price increases, were they not?
23 A. They were complaining more about particular
24 publishers than others.
25 Q. But they were complaining about these price
280
1 increases, and these complaints also dealt with the APS
2 price increases, correct?
3 A. There were rare, if any, complaints about the APS
4 price increases.
5 Q. Did it not come to your attention, sir, during
6 the 1980 time frame, mid to late 1980 time frame, that
7 librarians were deeply concerned and objecting to the price
8 increases of society journals? And they may well have been
9 objecting to commercial journals price increases, too. I
10 don't mean to exclude that. But that they were in fact, and
11 it came to your attention, deeply concerned and objecting to
12 the price increases of APS?
13 A. I don't remember that. I do remember that, with
14 whatever interaction I have had with librarians, they kept
15 telling us, of course, you guys are the good guys, we aren't
16 really concerned about your prices or price increases.
17 Q. Did you not state -- strike that.
18 Was it not stated in your presence, at least on
19 one occasion, at an executive committee meeting of the APS,
20 that nonmember subscription prices have been rising
21 dramatically and for the libraries traumatically in the
22 context of APS price increases?
23 A. I'm not sure if it was in the context of APS
24 price increases, but yes, of course 15 percent increases are
25 a burden on the libraries.
281
1 Q. They were complaining about them. They were
2 finding them not only dramatic but traumatic?
3 A. You can find it traumatic without complaining
4 about it. I don't remember having heard any complaints.
5 Q. Did you attend from time to time publication
6 policy committee meetings?
7 A. I attended almost every publication policy
8 meeting since I am a statutory member.
9 Q. We are talking of the AIP?
10 A. I'm sorry, only APS. A publications committee of
11 the APS.
12 Q. Did you attend from time to time AIP publications
13 policy committee meetings?
14 A. To the best of my knowledge, I have never
15 attended any AIP publications policy committee.
16 Q. Did you know a man named Jeffrey Howitt?
17 A. I believe I have met him.
18 Q. Jeffrey Howitt was the director of marketing of
19 AIP, was he not, at some point in the 1980s?
20 A. I only learned that recently.
21 Q. Did you know a man named Robert Baensch?
22 A. Yes, I knew Robert Baensch.
23 Q. Robert Baensch was the director of publications
24 for a time of AIP, was he not?
25 A. He was.
282
1 Q. That was to run the whole publishing arm, the
2 physical publishing of journals and other things, correct?
3 A. Under the direction of the executive director of
4 AIP, yes.
5 Q. That was Baensch's function, correct?
6 A. It was, yes.
7 Q. And did it come to your attention that he was
8 stating that librarians were deeply concerned and objecting
9 to price increases?
10 A. I don't recall such a statement.
11 Q. Did it come to your attention that Jeffrey
12 Howitt, the director of marketing in this 1987 period, was
13 stating that library complaints about raising prices were a
14 real factor?
15 A. I don't recall that either. It may have had, but
16 I just don't recall now what happened in 1987.
17 Q. You don't dispute those points?
18 A. I don't remember. I can't dispute them.
19 Q. The AIP actually publishes mechanical
20 publications function for the APS journals, doesn't it?
21 A. Not all of the journals.
22 Q. But for some?
23 A. For many of the journals. On a contract, of
24 course. We paid them for that, yes.
25 Q. Did you know a man named Ken Ford?
283
1 A. Oh, yes.
2 Q. And Ken Ford was the executive director of the
3 AIP until relatively recently, correct?
4 A. No, Dr. Kenneth Ford was the executive director
5 until 1993, I believe.
6 Q. 1993, I'm sorry.
7 Who replaced him?
8 A. Dr. Marc Brodsky.
9 Q. Dr. Marc Brodsky, who is here in court with us,
10 correct?
11 A. I saw him a little while ago, yes, he is here.
12 Q. You said you didn't know how, but you knew
13 Dr. Kenneth Ford, didn't you?
14 A. I did know Dr. Kenneth Ford.
15 Q. And you knew him very, very well, didn't you?
16 A. I knew him as a physicist. I knew him in many
17 ways, yes. I knew him fairly well, but I wouldn't say we
18 were close friends or colleagues.
19 Q. But you dealt with him on a regular basis in
20 terms of activities that were similar between the two
21 organizations and called for coordination, correct?
22 A. Well --
23 Q. Well, from time to time, yes?
24 A. I also dealt with him on occasions where there
25 was argument and competition between the organizations, yes.
284
1 Q. Did you consider Dr. Kenneth Ford to be an honest
2 man?
3 A. I would, yes.
4 Q. Did it ever come to your attention that he had
5 made any misstatements?
6 A. Oh, I'm not sure about that. He may have been
7 slightly inaccurate, as all of us are, but I can't convict
8 him of any real misstatements.
9 Q. You basically considered him to be a man of
10 integrity?
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. Do you agree with this statement, that, in
13 connection with AIP, that it is a competitor of all other
14 organizations that also publish physics journals?
15 A. That isn't my view of looking at it. It is
16 clearly Dr. Ford's way of looking at it, but it is not my
17 way of looking at it in terms of APS journals.
18 Q. But that is a correct view that Dr. Ford had of
19 AIP?
20 A. I can't say that it is correct. That was his
21 view.
22 Q. But certainly, Dr. Lustig, you considered that
23 APS was in competition with other publishers for authors,
24 did you not?
25 A. For what, sir?
285
1 Q. For authors.
2 A. Yes, but only in a very limited sense. I would
3 be glad to explain that. But only in a very limited
4 sense --
5 Q. You considered, did you not, that there was in
6 fact stiff competition between commercial publishers on the
7 one hand and society publishers on the other hand for the
8 authors, correct?
9 A. No, there wasn't stiff competition in general for
10 the APS journals and those of commercial publishers.
11 Q. I'm sorry, sir?
12 A. There was not stiff competition for most of the
13 APS journals and those of commercial publishers.
14 Q. Well, was there stiff competition as between any
15 journals of the APS on the one hand and other publishers on
16 the other hand?
17 A. There was one journal in which the editors
18 believed there was competition, Physical Review D.
19 Q. Do you recall a publication called the APS News?
20 A. Yes, indeed. That's a membership publication.
21 Q. And this was a publication that was distributed
22 to the members?
23 A. It's only been for a few years that we've had
24 this publication.
25 Q. But it goes to the 40,000-odd members?
286
1 A. Yes, sir, it does.
2 Q. I want to at this point put before you a copy
3 from March of 1992, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 125, and
4 ask you if you would look at what is the fourth page, though
5 it's marked page 2 at the bottom, the paragraph that says
6 "the disadvantages." I would ask you to --
7 MR. MESERVE: Excuse me, counsel. We seem to be
8 missing a copy of the exhibit.
9 MR. LUPERT: 125?
10 (Pause)
11 MR. MESERVE: We found another. Sorry.
12 MR. LUPERT: I wonder if I might ask -- does the
13 Court have it?
14 THE COURT: Yes, I have it.
15 MR. LUPERT: Thank you. I wonder if I might ask
16 you to turn to the page that I designated to you. It is
17 numbered page 2, though it is the fourth page of the
18 document itself, where it says, "However, some of the
19 Physical Review sections face stiff competition from a
20 scientific publishing industry in which page charges are not
21 the standard practice."
22 Do you see that quote?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. Now, when we talk about a publishing industry in
25 which page charges are not standard practice, as of March
287
1 1992, the date of this document, we were talking about the
2 commercial publishing industry, correct?
3 A. No, you are also talking, for example, of the
4 British Institute of Physics, which is a society which
5 doesn't have page charges.
6 Q. What would you include in your definition of
7 "competition" as it is used in this sentence the commercial
8 publishers, or would you say they don't even come into --
9 A. First of all, to the best of my knowledge,
10 Mr. Lupert, I didn't write this article.
11 Q. This statement in the APS News, sir, do you
12 disagree with it or agree with it?
13 A. I agree with one section. I agree that for one
14 section of the Physical Review, Physical Review D, and to a
15 smaller extent for another section, Physical Review C, which
16 publish a lot of theoretical papers, which means the
17 principal investigators, they have rather small budgets.
18 Some of these principal investigators did go to one or two
19 other journals with some of their papers.
20 Q. So you agree with the statement?
21 A. I said what I agreed with, yes.
22 Q. Do you know a man named David Lazarus?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And David Lazarus was the editor-in-chief of the
25 APS during at least part of the time that you were the
288
1 treasurer, correct?
2 A. He was already editor-in-chief before I came on,
3 yes.
4 Q. And he stayed for a number of years. And do you
5 know when he retired?
6 A. I believe it was in 1991, but I'm not totally
7 sure.
8 Q. But he was there during the time that Professor
9 Barschall's studies were developed and published, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the other man who was there during that whole
12 time period, the third member of what I call the
13 triumvirate, but you don't have to adopt that word --
14 A. You are not the only one who called it that.
15 Q. I thought I remembered that from something other
16 than my making it up. In the triumvirate, you were the
17 treasurer and Mr. William Havens was the executive secretary
18 and Mr. David Lazarus -- and they may well be doctors and
19 I'm not trying to say they are not, I don't remember, or
20 professors -- they were the men who ran the day-to-day
21 operations of the APS during the relevant time frame, i.e.,
22 when Professor Barschall was --
23 A. When Dr. Havens was the executive secretary, he
24 was then called the officer for many, many years, yes, and
25 we were the three operating officers.
289
1 Q. Now, I take it David Lazarus, who is a renowned
2 professor at the University of Illinois, if I remember
3 correctly --
4 A. He is retired now.
5 Q. He is retired now but he was a very esteemed
6 individual, you agree with me, right?
7 A. He was a well regarded physicist, yes.
8 Q. He was a man with whom you had very, very
9 frequent contact because of the way this triumvirate ran,
10 correct?
11 A. Not as frequent as I would have wished because
12 Dr. Lazarus was not at headquarters. He have operated from
13 the University of Illinois.
14 Q. OK. But in any event, you were in contact with
15 him on --
16 A. From time to time.
17 Q. -- more than a random basis, correct.
18 A. From time to time, yes.
19 Q. He was a man you considered to be an honest man,
20 too, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. So do you agree with the statement that one of
23 the motivations of the APS was to attempt to persuade
24 authors to submit their papers to AIP, APS journals?
25 A. Yes, and in the same sense for example that
290
1 Harvard wants to get hundreds of thousands of applications
2 so they can be very choosy and reject most of them, yes.
3 Q. But one of the goals was to stipulate, your
4 Honor, prod, convince, potential authors who were good, the
5 good ones, to submit their papers to APS journals?
6 A. Well, we knew we had the best journals in the
7 world and we certainly wanted to get a crack at the best.
8 Q. So, therefore, there was a process that was in
9 place at the APS that had that as a goal, it wasn't a
10 theoretical point, it was a practical, let's go out and
11 accomplish that, correct?
12 A. I don't think there was any process in place to
13 do that. We were just hoping it would happen.
14 Q. Do you say the same thing about librarians, that
15 it was just kind of a hope, or was there, generally
16 speaking, take the period of '86 through the time of
17 Barschall's studies into the late 1980s, was there a process
18 in place for attempting to persuade librarians to either
19 purchase APS journals or at least not cancel them?
20 A. For a very long time there was no such process.
21 As Dr. Lazarus would say, Physical Review sells itself. You
22 can't sell it. You either need it or you don't need it and
23 most people need it.
24 Afterwards, there were some sporadic attempts to
25 let librarians know about the cost effectiveness of the APS
291
1 journals.
2 Q. That was a marketing effort, was it not?
3 A. Well, that is a sore point with me. I don't
4 consider it marketing, but I can see that many people would.
5 Q. When you go out and you try to persuade somebody
6 to buy something from you, because your product in your mind
7 is better or whatever it is that you think makes the
8 purchase decision go your way, don't you consider that to be
9 an attempt to promote your product? Isn't that the right
10 word for it?
11 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MR. MESERVE: I would like to object. We filed a
14 stipulation for the express purpose of trying to avoid
15 getting into this area of the fact that the survey would be
16 used in the future to obtain --
17 THE COURT: I don't think this is going to that
18 point. I take it this is going to the motivation for the
19 Barschall study, which I think is not -- I understood your
20 stipulation to be directed to future use and whether the
21 plaintiff would have the burden of producing evidence of
22 danger of repetition. But that this line of inquiry is
23 going to the motivation for Barschall's study.
24 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, as you recall, from
25 1994, the court issued a decision in which it said that the
292
1 Barschall study was protected speech.
2 THE COURT: Yes.
3 MR. MESERVE: So the issue as to whether -- the
4 whole issue about what the Barschall study is and its
5 motivations is out of this case. We are only dealing with
6 an injunction with regard to secondary uses, the commercial
7 advertising and promotion in the future. I believe the
8 implication of the Court's ruling and your instructions with
9 regard to discovery as to the article itself is that this
10 was protected speech and this is an issue that is no longer
11 in the case.
12 THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that?
13 MR. LUPERT: I really wouldn't say much more than
14 what your Honor has already stated, that I have to prove
15 several elements to obtain an injunction in this case. I
16 have to get into -- and I have to get into the motivation.
17 And that's what this is all about. The history of what
18 happened is so germane to the decisions your Honor is going
19 to have to make.
20 There also hasn't been a stipulation that I can
21 utilize for any purpose as to what the secondary uses are,
22 for that matter, either. I have to prove that, too.
23 THE COURT: I think that this is permissible by
24 way of a background for the secondary uses.
25 BY MR. LUPERT:
293
1 Q. I was asking you whether you recall that,
2 beginning at some point in the mid-1980's, that a decision
3 was made in which you participated and voted yes to
4 distribute a Barschall cost comparison survey to every
5 single subscriber of an APS journal.
6 A. I don't recall such a meeting at all, but I do
7 believe that there is a document which I signed, which
8 agreed to some such distribution --
9 Q. Let me show you the document --
10 A. -- to librarians.
11 Q. Excuse me. Are you finished?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Let me show you what has been marked as
14 Plaintiff's Exhibit 31 and ask you to take a look at it.
15 Is this -- this is a document -- just a moment,
16 Doctor.
17 Have you had a chance to take a look at this
18 document?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. This bears your initials again, the HL?
21 A. Oh, yes, under the signature, yes.
22 Q. I take it when you sign memoranda of this sort,
23 it is because you are authorizing them to be sent, correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you've read it before it was sent and
294
1 approved it, correct?
2 A. I think I did read it, yes.
3 Q. And in this document, you and Dr. Lazarus,
4 editor-in-chief, are talking about the letter to librarians.
5 I would like to put before you what is
6 Plaintiff's Exhibit 33.
7 MR. MESERVE: I would like to note an objection
8 if we are getting into this area, your Honor, for two
9 reasons: First of all, let me note that Exhibit 33 itself
10 is outside the limitations period of this case. But,
11 secondly, as your Honor will recall, we got into the need
12 for this second stipulation that I filed today as a result
13 of an earlier stipulation that I filed where I indicated
14 that, but for this litigation, the litigation by Gordon &
15 Breach, we would have distributed the Barschall article, the
16 1988 article, which would have been within the limitations
17 period, and I just raise the issue of whether, in the
18 interest of streamlining the case, we are spending this time
19 on this ancient are history in light of the stipulations.
20 MR. LUPERT: Your Honor, this is a very, very
21 brief cross and frankly it is really a very important cross.
22 This is actually a mass distribution of what is a purely
23 commercial message.
24 THE COURT: I will allow it.
25 MR. LUPERT: Thank you, judge.
295
1 Q. Have you had a chance to look at Exhibit 33?
2 A. Yes, I've glanced at them, yes.
3 THE COURT: We will take our mid-afternoon
4 recess.
5 MR. LUPERT: Thank you, judge.
6 (Recess)
7 MR. LUPERT: Shall I continue?
8 THE COURT: Yes.
9 MR. LUPERT: Thank you.
10 BY MR. LUPERT:
11 Q. I had meant to put before you -- I think I did
12 put before you -- Exhibits 31 and 33.
13 A. Yes, I have them.
14 Q. 31, the memo you approved, is a memo approving
15 sending the mailing of the Barschall 1986 survey, correct,
16 to librarians, correct?
17 A. To nonmember subscribers, yes, the librarians.
18 Q. That's why I wanted you to give me the definition
19 of nonmembers. That's the library community.
20 And Exhibit 33, which is the August '87 document,
21 that bears your signature and David Lazarus's, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. This is in fact the letter that was sent to the
24 librarian community, correct?
25 A. I believe that is correct.
296
1 Q. Approximately how many of those letters, then,
2 were sent?
3 A. I don't know the answer to that, Mr. Lupert.
4 Q. Do you remember I showed you a document earlier
5 on that reflected that there were in the neighborhood of
6 3,000 library accounts, 2900 I think was the approximate
7 number, is that about the right ballpark?
8 A. That is about the right ballpark.
9 Q. Now, I would like you just to focus, if you
10 would, on the language in Exhibit 31, for the moment.
11 This memo was sent to the members of the council.
12 Is the council, is it analogous to the board of directors of
13 a public company? It runs -- it is ultimately in charge?
14 A. It is the supreme governing organ of volunteers,
15 yes.
16 Q. And it ultimately then would have had the
17 authority to -- strike that.
18 It has the authority make the major decisions at
19 APS, correct?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And obviously, I take it, there was no dissent
22 from members of the council about sending this letter,
23 because the letter went out, right?
24 A. I don't remember that. Whether it was a
25 unanimous vote or not, I don't remember.
297
1 Q. But they certainly approved it, correct?
2 A. It says it was approved by the council in this
3 memo, yes.
4 Q. Exhibit 33, if I can just focus you on the
5 language of it, I would like to focus you on the first
6 sentence to begin with, if I might, where it says, "Soon you
7 will be receiving your 1988 renewal bill." Do you see that?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. And am I not correct that the purpose of this
10 letter, Exhibit 33, was to give the librarian community an
11 explanation for why prices were going up but why,
12 nevertheless, APS journals were a good buy?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And, in fact, it was timed, was it not, to be
15 received by the librarian community with their renewal bills
16 from APS, correct?
17 A. It says that in the first sentence, yes, sir.
18 Q. And, in fact, that's exactly what happened. The
19 renewal bills go out in September; this letter went out in
20 August; bingo, if you will, it is received by the librarians
21 at the time they get renewal bills; hopefully they will have
22 read it by the time they have to pay the bill, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you consider that to be a promotional
25 endeavor?
298
1 A. I consider it an explanation of facts, sir --
2 Q. But you have don't consider it --
3 A. But I can see that others who are more hip to
4 contemporary language could consider it marketing or
5 promotion, but I didn't.
6 Q. The issue here of the inclusion of a reprint of
7 the 1986 issue of Physics Today, the earlier Barschall
8 comparison survey, do you now remember, sir, as you sit here
9 today, that you had actually read that survey before you
10 sent it?
11 A. No, sir. Actually, I reread it a week ago and it
12 sounded all very new to me.
13 Q. Do you mean to tell us that you sent this letter
14 to approximately 3,000 people, after having obtained
15 governing board approval, and you never even bothered to
16 read the Barschall survey to see if it proved any of the
17 points that are in here?
18 A. No, sir, I didn't say that. I said I don't
19 remember having read it at the time.
20 Q. Do you remember at your deposition, when I asked
21 you this question over and over and over again, you
22 repeatedly said, I did not read this article until many
23 years later?
24 A. Sir, I think I said, I don't remember having read
25 that article until many years later.
299
1 MR. LUPERT: May I have Dr. Lustig's deposition
2 transcript?
3 Q. Let me put before you pages 313 and 314, my
4 question beginning on page 313, line 14.
5 A. Sorry, which page, sir?
6 Q. It is on page 313, beginning at line 14, where it
7 reads: "Now, putting before you" -- and it is one of these
8 letters to the librarians that went out during this time
9 frame -- "this letter from Barschall to you, it refers to
10 the earlier, that is, the 1986 Physics Today article,
11 apparently. Does that now refresh your recollection, sir,
12 that in fact you had seen the 1986 Physics Today survey
13 before the Gordon & Breach lawsuits were initiated in 1989?
14 "A. Quite the contrary. I stand by my
15 recollection that I did not see the 1986 article before the
16 lawsuits were initiated. I do remember being extremely
17 surprised when the lawsuits were launched or the
18 prosecutions were launched first to see a reference to the
19 article in 1986. Nowhere in my memory bank was there an
20 article in 1986."
21 Was that your best recollection?
22 A. Well, this is what I said at the deposition, yes,
23 sir.
24 Q. What is the fact. I mean before you sent a
25 letter --
300
1 THE COURT: Excuse me. Which is the '86 article?
2 MR. LUPERT: Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
3 THE COURT: Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1.
4 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, there was an earlier
5 Barschall article that was published in 1986 and this letter
6 refers to that. All of this of course is outside the
7 limitations period for this case.
8 MR. LUPERT: Your Honor is quite right. I
9 neglected to identify this for the Court to give context to
10 these letters.
11 Let me put a copy of the 1986 comparison survey
12 that Dr. Barschall did before the witness, as well.
13 BY MR. LUPERT:
14 Q. This was a comparison that he did of certain
15 physics journals with mathematics journals with philosophy
16 journals, correct?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And he used a cost per thousand character
19 analysis, correct?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. It was not until the 1988 survey that he came up
22 with the denominator for the formula called impact, correct?
23 A. Well, he called -- the characters were also the
24 denominator, yes, but the impact was not introduced until
25 1988.
301
1 THE COURT: All right.
2 MR. LUPERT: Thank you, Judge.
3 Q. Now, putting before you Exhibit 33 again, I am
4 trying to figure out how you could have written that,
5 "Professor Barschall has published an article in the
6 December '86 issue of Physics Today," etc., and then you go
7 on to state "using the proper quantitative measure." When
8 you use the word "proper," you mean that you are adopting
9 that quantitative measure as a proper measure, correct?
10 A. I state my opinion that that's the proper
11 measure, yes.
12 Q. "Barschall demonstrates most convincingly that
13 the journals of the APS and the AIP are a great bargain
14 compared to other physics journals and even compared to
15 nonphysics journals." Then it says, "A reprint of
16 Barschall's article is enclosed. Thus, even with the
17 current price increases, our journals remain an outstanding
18 buy for libraries."
19 What I'm trying to figure out is how you could
20 have written those statements without even bothering to read
21 the Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, the December 1986 survey?
22 A. Well, sir, I didn't say that I didn't read it. I
23 said I didn't recollect at the time of the deposition that I
24 read it.
25 Q. When you said, "I stand by my recollection that I
302
1 did not see the '86 article before the lawsuits," which
2 would be the Gordon & Breach lawsuits in 1989, "were
3 initiated." That phrase, "I stand by my recollection that I
4 didn't see it," is intended to convey to the questioner and
5 to the Court that you simply didn't remember it as opposed
6 to, it is your firm memory that you didn't see it?
7 A. No, I didn't say it was my firm -- I stand by my
8 recollection that I didn't see it, sir.
9 Q. That you did not see it?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. Then your recollection is that you did not see
12 it. I go back to my prior question, which is, could you
13 explain to us how you went about writing a letter setting
14 forth what are, I would daresay, very strong opinions to the
15 entire relevant library audience about a survey you hadn't
16 even bothered to read?
17 A. I didn't say that, sir. On the basis of seeing
18 this letter, I have to conclude now that I did see it. But
19 I did not have that recollection at the time I gave my
20 deposition.
21 Q. OK. Now you remember seeing it. Do you remember
22 also that your real purpose when you wrote Plaintiff's
23 Exhibit 33 was really, let's try to convince the librarians,
24 please, don't cancel any more of our journals, we need the
25 revenue, we are an outstanding buy, look at this cost
303
1 comparison survey, it proves it?
2 A. Sir, I don't remember, even now, seeing it. I
3 just say that I infer from having written this letter that I
4 have seen it.
5 Q. But having now looked at Exhibit 33, this mass
6 mailing to librarians, don't you agree with me that what you
7 were trying to do, you and your brethren at APS, including
8 David Lazarus, what you were attempting to accomplish was to
9 promote the sale or to promote the concept of not canceling
10 any more APS journals to the entire librarian community?
11 A. I was trying to explain why the prices went up,
12 that they were still a very good buy, and, yes, I was hoping
13 that that would influence them not to cancel any more
14 journals.
15 Q. So you would agree with me that it had a
16 promotional --
17 THE COURT: Isn't that answer good enough?
18 MR. LUPERT: Yes. It is, actually. I got
19 carried away. My apologies.
20 THE COURT: That's why I am here.
21 Q. The message, as well, as you understood it, in
22 this mass mailing to librarians was when the phrase "cost
23 effectiveness" -- skip it. Withdrawn.
24 The title of the 1988 article, which has been
25 identified as PX3, in Physics Today, is called "The Cost
304
1 Effectiveness of Physics Journals." Do you remember that?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Do you remember that? I'm sorry, I didn't hear
4 you?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And did you understand that the phrase "cost
7 effectiveness," as used by Dr. Barschall, was intended to be
8 a synonym for quality?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. Now, I take it you helped us -- I understand your
11 relationship with certain other individuals in the
12 organization. Professor Barschall is someone you have known
13 for a very long time and you think very highly of him?
14 A. I actually haven't known him for a very long
15 time.
16 Q. How long have you known him?
17 A. I only met him personally after he became a
18 treasurer and that he was a member of our publications
19 committee, personally, but I knew of his reputation and his
20 work.
21 Q. And you knew of his work and you thought well of
22 his work?
23 A. I knew of his work. I actually used his work in
24 my own research.
25 Q. And he is a world-class physicist?
305
1 A. He is.
2 Q. No question. He was involved, was he not, in the
3 Los Alamos project, where the atom bomb was developed?
4 A. He was involved, yes, sometime in the 1940s, yes.
5 Q. This I am really not sure. But I remember an
6 incident back in the '60s at the University of Wisconsin in
7 which a physics lab that was built was destroyed and he got
8 a tremendous amount of notoriety as an antiwar act?
9 A. The target was a mathematics lab, actually, which
10 had an army contract, but his lab got the brunt of it and
11 was destroyed and his graduate student was killed.
12 Q. And it got a tremendous amount of notoriety?
13 A. I don't know about that.
14 Q. I am a preacher of the '60s and I remember that.
15 But it did get tremendous publicity and his name became a
16 name that was in the newspaper quit a bit during that era?
17 A. I'm not sure about that at all, but it terminated
18 his career as an experimental physicist.
19 Q. If I were to read you testimony, which I'm
20 looking for, from Dr. Barschall in this case, in which he
21 says, in answer to this question -- this is on Barschall
22 November 14, 1996, page 72, line 8.
23 "Q. We'll come back to that in a minute, but
24 what is it about using the cost per thousand characters
25 divided by impact that makes it perhaps the most significant
306
1 measure of cost effectiveness?
2 "A. Because it includes a measure of the
3 quality of the material which is published."
4 That's Dr. Barschall's testimony. Do you want to
5 correct the testimony you gave a minute before where I asked
6 you about what cost effectiveness meant as you understood
7 the term to now state that yes, Dr. Barschall was in fact
8 attempting to equate that formula with quality?
9 A. I took your question to mean cost per 1,000
10 characters and now you have expanded it to cost per thousand
11 characters per impact, and indeed if the impact is included
12 I believe it is a measure of quality.
13 Q. So that in these promotional materials, if you
14 will adopt my phrase, when the words "cost effectiveness"
15 are used, in fact it is, at least in your mind, a synonym
16 for quality?
17 A. The 1986 article didn't have an impact study so
18 it couldn't have been a synonym for quality.
19 Q. Jump forward to 1988 and whatever publicity went
20 out about that. When the words "cost effectiveness" were
21 used, you would agree with me that that was intended to mean
22 quality?
23 A. If it includes the impact, yes.
24 Q. Would you agree with the following statement --
25 and this refers to the 1986 survey, PX1, would you agree
307
1 with the following, that the 1986 article was written to
2 demonstrate how prices that AIP and its member societies
3 charge are much lower for the amount of information in the
4 journals than other publishers?
5 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I would like to object.
6 It calls for speculation by this witness as to why an
7 article that he didn't write was written.
8 MR. LUPERT: Judge, I think this evidence will
9 show a remarkable link.
10 THE COURT: Well, no, I think the objection is
11 well taken to the form of the question.
12 MR. LUPERT: Why don't I rephrase it.
13 Q. Do you recall attending a meeting at which
14 Professor Barschall stated that his purpose in writing the
15 '86 article was to demonstrate how the prices of AIP and its
16 member societies are much lower for amount of information in
17 the journals than other publishers?
18 A. No, sir, I do not recall attending such meetings.
19 Q. Do you recall a statement to that effect ever
20 having been made?
21 A. No, sir, I don't recall any such statement.
22 Q. Do you think that that is an incorrect statement?
23 A. I don't recall -- you asked me whether I recall
24 him making such a statement, and I don't recall it.
25 Q. Do you know whether that is an incorrect
308
1 statement, that the purpose that Professor Barschall had,
2 the actual purpose when he formulated his formula for '86,
3 was to demonstrate how the prices that AIP and its member
4 societies charge are much lower than other publishers for
5 the amount of information in the journals?
6 MR. MESERVE: Objection. It calls for
7 speculation.
8 THE COURT: No, the question is whether he
9 remembers Dr. Barschall making that statement.
10 MR. MESERVE: I think the question was whether he
11 agrees that the purpose was --
12 MR. LUPERT: Let me start with the judge's
13 question so that I can just move it on and it will make it
14 so much quicker, with the Court's permission.
15 THE COURT: Yes.
16 Q. Do you remember Professor Barschall making the
17 statement to you in your presence whether -- to you or in
18 your presence, that he was writing it, and he came up with a
19 formula -- this is the '86 formula -- to demonstrate how the
20 prices that AIP and its member societies charge are much
21 lower for the amount of information than --
22 A. No, sir, I don't remember Professor Barschall
23 ever making such a statement, but you did ask me that just
24 before, the same question.
25 Q. Do you consider such a statement to be correct or
309
1 incorrect?
2 A. I'm sorry, if you want to say --
3 THE COURT: As to that, that is the objectionable
4 question. That is asking this witness as to Dr. Barschall's
5 motivation.
6 Q. Well, based on his use of the --
7 THE COURT: And that is the '86 and the witness
8 has testified that '86 didn't have the impact and
9 therefore -- well --
10 MR. LUPERT: What I'm trying to establish, and I
11 think it is a rather important point, that the formula was
12 developed for the -- I have it. It is in writing. I have a
13 statement that I am just about to confront the witness with,
14 although I'm not quite sure that he was at the meeting where
15 Professor Barschall actually said this. But it is a
16 document in evidence that has not been objected to.
17 Q. Let me show you what has been marked --
18 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I believe that, in
19 light of the stipulation this morning, there is a large
20 number of exhibits that relate to this issue in which we did
21 object.
22 MR. LUPERT: I don't think you objected on the
23 basis of hearsay, authenticity and the like, and obviously
24 if you have an objection, you have an objection.
25 There was no enumerated objection to this
310
1 particular document, which is the minutes of the publication
2 board of the American Institute of Physics dated April 9,
3 10, 1987.
4 MR. MESERVE: What is the exhibit number?
5 MR. LUPERT: The exhibit number is 24.
6 Q. I have put this before you. If I could ask you
7 to take a look --
8 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, these are the minutes
9 of an AIP meeting. This witness was an official of a
10 different organization as to an issue -- it is a publication
11 board meeting. He has testified he didn't go to AIP
12 publication board meetings.
13 MR. LUPERT: I would like to ask the witness
14 whether, by looking at the statement that is purported to be
15 made by Professor Barschall, he has a recollection that
16 Professor Barschall stated to him -- in fact, they are the
17 minutes which begin, Judge, at page 3210, on page numbered 6
18 at the top, but the Bates stamp is --
19 THE COURT: Whether looking at the minutes of a
20 meeting that he did not attend, if it refreshes his
21 recollection that on another occasion Dr. Barschall made
22 that statement?
23 MR. LUPERT: I would put that question to him.
24 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
25 MR. LUPERT: Judge, I would note that this
311
1 document is in evidence and I wonder whether I might take
2 one sentence and point it out to the court. It is on page
3 6. It is under the category 4B, Journal Prices. Barschall
4 began by referring to a table that appeared in an article he
5 recently authored in Physics Today, the December '86 issue.
6 The table Barschall explained shows the cost per thousand
7 characters of a sample of journals in both physics and
8 mathematics and compares it to corresponding statistics and
9 philosophy. It is the next sentence. Barschall emphasized
10 that the point of the article --
11 THE COURT: All right. If it is in evidence I
12 would have to read it.
13 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, we object.
14 THE COURT: You object to this being in evidence?
15 MR. MESERVE: Yes, your Honor. We provided
16 Mr. Lupert with a copy this morning, with an objection on
17 this document.
18 MR. LUPERT: Judge, that is an impossible
19 version.
20 THE COURT: What is an impossible version?
21 MR. LUPERT: We exchanged detailed objections to
22 documents last week or early last week, including noting
23 hearsay, authenticity objections and the like. This was not
24 on that list. I frankly hadn't even seen the document they
25 are talking about. These are minutes of a meeting of AIP.
312
1 There has never been any dispute --
2 THE COURT: In any event, you are not going to
3 elicit anything from this witness, so with respect to it,
4 suppose you move on and address that later.
5 Q. Let's talk about the 1988 survey.
6 Is it true that just after the August letter to
7 librarians enclosing the 1986 survey, Exhibit 33, Barschall
8 wrote you, asking whether it would be useful for him to do
9 another survey?
10 A. I'm not sure about the date, sir. You would have
11 to refresh my memory about the dates of when this happened.
12 Q. I will be happy to. Let me show you what has
13 been marked as Exhibit 35. It is dated September 8, 1987.
14 I remind you that the letter to the librarians is dated
15 August 1987. I ask you, does this refresh your
16 recollection, sir, that shortly after the letter to
17 librarians went out, Professor Barschall contacted you in
18 writing asking you, "Would it be useful" -- I refer you to
19 the very last paragraph on the second page -- "would it be
20 useful if I tried to extend my survey both in time and
21 coverage? I would be interested in getting APS and AIP
22 reactions to this idea, in particular, what additional
23 information would be helpful"?
24 Do you remember that?
25 A. Yes, sir, he says earlier that he has been --
313
1 made an effort to update the survey to 1987 and he did ask
2 if we think it would be useful, yes, sir.
3 Q. You then very quickly communicated back to him,
4 yeah, that's a good idea, correct?
5 A. I don't know how quickly it was. Again, I didn't
6 write the document but I did agree that it would be a good
7 idea, yes.
8 Q. Do you recall as well that during this very time
9 frame the AIP was communicating with Dr. Barschall also
10 encouraging him to go forward?
11 A. Well, I've seen since some letters about that,
12 yes.
13 Q. So that is a fact, is it not?
14 A. I've seen letters which state that, yes.
15 Q. I wonder if I could show you what has been marked
16 as Exhibit 36. It is a letter from Robert Marks of AIP to
17 Dr. Barschall on which you are copied. Do you see that?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. And this was, was it not, as you understood it,
20 encouragement by the AIP to Dr. Barschall to go forward,
21 correct?
22 A. Yes, it says the survey would be useful.
23 Q. Indeed, this letter goes on to say, does it not,
24 that not only would it be useful, but it would be a good
25 idea to include certain additional information in the next
314
1 survey that perhaps Professor Barschall had not used in his
2 first survey?
3 A. Yes, it says that.
4 Q. And among the information would be size, total
5 number of pages published and annual total subscription
6 price, do you see that?
7 A. Yes, sir, I do.
8 Q. In fact, do you know for a fact that
9 Dr. Barschall complied with these requests and in fact
10 included that information?
11 A. Whether it was in response to this request or
12 not, I don't know, but I think the 1988 survey did include
13 this information.
14 Q. OK. Now, you may remember that -- well, let me
15 ask you a preliminary question.
16 To your knowledge, did Dr. Barschall communicate
17 with any other publisher concerning whether it would be a
18 good idea to go forward with yet another survey?
19 A. I don't have any knowledge about that.
20 Q. You don't know one way or the another?
21 A. I don't know one way or another.
22 Q. I pointed out to you earlier that by this point
23 in time -- this is now September of 1987 -- the APS had
24 decided to impose the largest increase over all of its
25 journals in the 1980s? Do you remember that was the 27
315
1 percent figure?
2 A. I'm not sure that -- there were some larger ones
3 earlier, but I'm not sure if it was in the late '70s or
4 early '80s.
5 Q. For the five years ending 1987 -- forget ten
6 years -- it was the largest by far, it was almost double any
7 other price increase?
8 A. It was the largest.
9 Q. And at that point in time, it was also true that
10 costs at APS were rising substantially?
11 A. Well, the latter was the cause of the price
12 increases, yes.
13 Q. There were sharp and steady increases in costs,
14 were there not?
15 A. There was, yes. I've testified there was steady
16 growth of about 8 or 10 percent.
17 Q. Indeed, as of this point in time -- this is now
18 the point where Professor Barschall has written should he --
19 would be useful to go forward with another survey -- APS was
20 running at a deficit?
21 A. I don't recall that.
22 Q. Let me show you, if I might, Exhibit 38, which is
23 your treasurer's report, I believe, dated November 1, 1987.
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 MR. LUPERT: Does the court have a copy?
316
1 Q. If I could turn your attention, Dr. Lustig, to
2 page 6, numbered 6, bearing APS 4410. Are you with me?
3 Paragraph D, Publications Finances. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 THE COURT: What page are you on?
6 MR. LUPERT: I am on the page numbered 6, but it
7 bears the Bates stamp 4410, if it is easier to find it that
8 way, on the right-hand corner.
9 Q. Could you tell me what this is -- this document
10 is your report, is it not?
11 A. It is a treasurer's report, yes, that I made.
12 Q. You wrote that?
13 A. I wrote it, yes.
14 Q. And on page 6, the second paragraph, second
15 sentence, "We actually ran a deficit in our publications
16 budget," does that now refresh your recollection that as of
17 this point in time, November 1, 1987, there was a deficit in
18 your publications budget?
19 A. In the past fiscal year, 1986, yes.
20 Q. That was a factor that was significant?
21 A. It caused me concern, yes, sir.
22 Q. Page charge income. Go to page 7.
23 There may be a bar on this, which frankly would
24 have been put on by someone in my office, on our only copy,
25 so it was not on the original. It should not have been
317
1 there. But using the bar as a way of finding things, if you
2 could see the paragraph beginning, "The change has come
3 about principally because of the council's decision
4 progressively to lower page charges" -- do you see that? Do
5 you see that?
6 A. The change in the relative income from different
7 sources. If you look at the previous paragraph, yes.
8 Q. And there was in fact a decision at that point in
9 time to lower page charges?
10 A. Yes, there was.
11 Q. And that would have lowered revenue, correct?
12 A. From page charges.
13 Q. And in fact, the decision to lower page charges
14 had been motivated -- and just read on with me -- by a
15 desire to be fair to the physics community, to improve the
16 competitive position of our journals vis-a-vis the
17 commercial publishers which do not request payment from the
18 authors, specifically with regard to high quality papers in
19 high energy theory. Do you see that?
20 A. I do see it, yes.
21 Q. Is that a correct statement?
22 A. Yes. I testified exactly the same thing about an
23 hour ago.
24 Q. So there was a deficit. There were prices that
25 were going up in the largest amount in the last five years.
318
1 A decision had been made in November of '87 to phase out
2 page charge income because to do so would improve the
3 competitive position with commercial publishers. All of
4 that is true as of the point that Professor Barschall wrote
5 his letter saying, would it be useful if I did another cost
6 comparison survey, right?
7 A. Yes, the decision was not to phase them out but
8 to lower the page charges.
9 Q. And all of what I said, with that correction that
10 you just made, is true as of the time Professor Barschall
11 writes his letter saying, would it be useful if I did
12 another survey, right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, am I also correct about two other revenue
15 components that face APS? You charge a price -- one price
16 to academic libraries, but you also allow members, that is,
17 the 40,000 physicists, to buy their journals just about at
18 cost, maybe just a drop over?
19 A. As I said before, it isn't just academic
20 libraries, it is all libraries, Mr. Lupert.
21 Q. With that correction. But the physicists
22 members, the 40,000, they are the ones who can buy this same
23 journal at a much, much lower price than the library?
24 A. As members they have to pay only the last copy
25 price, which means the postage and paper of that copy which
319
1 they are receiving.
2 Q. In fact, and we'll come back to this in a little
3 bit, there was a real concern at APS that the members who
4 were getting their copy at cost, if you will, or just a
5 little bit over, were depositing their copy in the library,
6 the library was then canceling the journal and depriving APS
7 of revenue, and that was a problem and one that was focused
8 on, correct?
9 A. Well, not the members, Mr. Lupert, some members.
10 Q. OK --
11 A. And, furthermore, it was not particularly
12 necessarily a question of cancellation -- we have no
13 evidence of any of that -- it was a question of new
14 libraries or new research centers, particularly in Europe,
15 starting up which never had an APS journal and members
16 there -- not being used to differential pricing, because
17 commercial publishers have very little of that -- thought it
18 was proper for them to pay the member rates and then place
19 the issue in the library, and of course we thought that was
20 unfair and improper, yes.
21 Q. But the answer to my question, in a word, is,
22 yes, that it was a concern that, whether it was a few or a
23 lot, but there was a potential loss of revenue that was
24 occurring because the members were basically giving the copy
25 to the library and the libraries were making the decision,
320
1 at least on some occasions, we're a lot better off paying
2 the member price than we are paying this much larger APS
3 academic library price, let's just go forward with the
4 member journal?
5 A. I corrected your statement, the members, because
6 I wanted to make you understand it was not a very large
7 financial concern. It was a relatively small one, being
8 just a few -- maybe a hundred members or so.
9 Q. You mean, there was a point where your brethren
10 on the threesome that ran the APS thought that this was a
11 problem of size, and they in fact described these people as
12 voracious and they had to be stopped, do you remember that?
13 A. It was largely a moral judgment on our part. We
14 don't like people to cheat inadvertently or knowingly.
15 Q. Do you recall that after receiving Marc's letter
16 on which you were copied, Professor Barschall wrote back
17 very promptly and said, I'm going to go forward and do
18 another survey?
19 A. I don't recall specifically what letter you are
20 referring to.
21 Q. I wonder if I might show you Exhibit 37. It is
22 dated October 5, 1987.
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Do you recall learning that Professor Barschall
25 had signaled that he was going to expand his physics journal
321
1 survey and go forward, but it would have to wait a couple of
2 months because he had -- he was busy, he had a couple of
3 other things?
4 A. No, I don't recall ever having seen this letter,
5 Mr. Lupert.
6 Q. Do you recall learning that information -- well,
7 certainly you learned at some point Professor Barschall was
8 going to go forward and do the work, right?
9 A. I had learned about it when he showed me a draft,
10 I believe.
11 Q. That was the first time you learned of that?
12 A. I think so.
13 Q. He didn't tell you before that he was working on
14 this?
15 A. I don't recall that, no.
16 Q. By the way, did you know that professor -- strike
17 that.
18 Professor Barschall was at the University of
19 Wisconsin, correct?
20 A. Madison, yes, sir.
21 Q. Do you know whether the University of Wisconsin
22 had ever conducted any surveys of librarians based on
23 whether they were using journals or not?
24 A. I know that now. I didn't know it at the time.
25 Q. But you now know that back in 1987, for example,
322
1 there had been a use study that Professor Barschall knew
2 about at the University of Wisconsin?
3 A. No, sir, I knew that there was a later use study.
4 Q. There was a later one. When did that take place?
5 A. I'm not sure of the exact year. I think it was
6 around 1992.
7 Q. You did not know that there also had been one
8 back in around 1987?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. Professor Barschall at the time of this
11 correspondence that we went over, he was, until March of
12 1988, on the governing board of AIP, was he not?
13 A. I believe so.
14 Q. The governing board of AIP is like the executive
15 council of APS, it is the supreme -- did you use that word,
16 the supreme authority?
17 A. There is no such thing as the executive council
18 of APS.
19 Q. But instead it is called the governing board?
20 A. The governing board is the equivalent of the
21 council of APS.
22 Q. And Professor Barschall at some points in time
23 had been on the publications committees of both AIP and APS?
24 A. He had been on the publications committee of APS
25 and on the publications board of AIP.
323
1 Q. And they have basically the same function, which
2 is the oversight of the business end of the publications arm
3 of the organizations, correct?
4 A. No, that's not the function -- certainly not the
5 function of the APS publications committee.
6 Q. Let's first talk about AIP. Is it correct that
7 AIP's publication as a committee -- is that the right word?
8 A. Publications board.
9 Q. Publications board. Is it correct that the
10 publications board of AIP has a business function; it
11 oversees the physical publication?
12 A. I do not know that. I don't believe that. But I
13 believe it has all the editors of AIP journals on it, I
14 think.
15 Q. At some point in time after the 1986 survey went
16 out, the 1986 survey, did it come to your attention that
17 Gordon & Breach had written a letter stating its complaints
18 or concerns, if you will, about aspects of that '86 survey?
19 A. No, sir, no such letter was received.
20 Q. Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit
21 21, which appears to be a letter from Gordon & Breach
22 Science Publishers, Inc., to the American Physical Society
23 and Professor Henry H. Barschall, 335 East 45th Street, and
24 then there is a second letter -- a second addressee, and
25 Professor Barschall, care of the APS, do you see that?
324
1 A. I see it, yes.
2 Q. Now, it has been your testimony that you never
3 saw this letter, correct?
4 A. I didn't see it until you sent it after the
5 litigation had started, yes.
6 Q. After Barschall, Professor Barschall had
7 decided -- strike that.
8 After it was stated to Professor Barschall that
9 it would be useful for him to go forward with another
10 survey, did you have any discussions with him at any time
11 about whether it would be a good idea to check any of the
12 data or any other aspect of the work he was doing with
13 publishers other than APS?
14 A. He did not ask to check the data with APS, sir.
15 So that didn't come up.
16 Q. OK. You said, and I'll show this to you in a
17 minute, that you received a draft -- in fact, you received
18 more than one draft of the Barschall second survey, the one
19 that becomes PX3, which is the summer of '88?
20 A. I'm not so sure, sir. I think the draft I
21 received was a draft of what was meant to be only a single
22 article. So I don't think it corresponded to either of the
23 two exhibits.
24 Q. OK. But it was a draft. You received a draft?
25 A. It was a draft of an article that Professor
325
1 Barschall was writing on cost effectiveness of physics
2 journals.
3 Q. So he sent you a draft and he asked for your
4 comments, right?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. You gave him comments. We'll go over that in
7 just a minute.
8 Do you remember you gave him comments?
9 A. I gave him some comments, yes.
10 Q. Did you ask Professor Barschall whether, in words
11 or substance, it would be fair or in the exercise of doing
12 this as a scientist if you gave other publishers a draft and
13 let them comment on it, too?
14 A. I didn't.
15 Q. Did you have such a conversation with him, sir?
16 A. I did not have such a conversation --
17 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I would like to object.
18 We are getting into the whole editorial process for the
19 preparation of the original Barschall article, which is
20 something that in your --
21 THE COURT: Why are we doing this?
22 MR. LUPERT: Judge, you have actually ruled, in
23 the phase of the case that dealt with our attempt to amend
24 the complaint and the secondary use phase, that this very
25 type of evidence of the participation of the business people
326
1 at AIP and APS in the drafting was relevant to the issue of
2 secondary use. I would add that I think it is relevant to
3 the issue of whether an injunction should issue. It is
4 footnote 5 in that opinion and it goes to those very issues.
5 MR. MESERVE: I believe that our stipulations
6 should have fulfilled any evidentiary question that
7 Mr. Lupert is raising.
8 THE COURT: Footnote 5?
9 MR. LUPERT: I believe it is footnote 5 in the
10 decision in 1985 -- 95, I'm sorry. 1995.
11 THE COURT: '94 was the main opinion.
12 MR. LUPERT: You are absolutely right.
13 (Pause)
14 THE COURT: I see. There is a '95 decision, 905
15 F. Supp., and --
16 (Pause)
17 MR. LUPERT: Do you have the right cite? I'm
18 confused myself. I only have the --
19 THE COURT: Our conclusions here --
20 MR. LUPERT: That is the one, exactly.
21 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, may I respond?
22 THE COURT: Yes.
23 MR. MESERVE: If this arose in the context in
24 which we had filed summary judgment on the issue of whether
25 there had been secondary uses, and your Honor I believe was
327
1 ruling on, making an observation at footnote 5, that some of
2 this evidence would be probative, I believe, in the context
3 of whether there had been secondary uses at a time when the
4 plaintiffs were seeking to recover damages and what had
5 happened in the period of '86, '87, '88, '89 and on what
6 would have been relevant as to whether there had been
7 secondary uses that would justify damages for the
8 plaintiffs, in light of the stipulations, I would believe
9 that we are in a situation where the issue of whether there
10 are secondary uses of this history is now irrelevant.
11 THE COURT: Well, this inquiry, as I understand
12 it, is to elicit whether the matter was intended or geared
13 for purposes of the secondary usage.
14 MR. LUPERT: That is correct, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: And I believe what I said there was
16 that, although I was not permitting the opening of a new
17 substantive count, I was not then ruling on its
18 admissibility at this trial.
19 MR. MESERVE: In the same decision that we are
20 talking about, or the 1995 decision, you had denied a motion
21 made by Gordon & Breach to reopen your 1994 decision in
22 which you had held that the argument --
23 THE COURT: Yes, it is in connection with that
24 that I'm saying that I'm not then ruling on its
25 admissibility at this trial with respect to those issues
328
1 which had survived. In any event, I overrule the objection.
2 BY MR. LUPERT:
3 Q. I think the question was whether --
4 THE COURT: You asked Dr. Barschall whether he
5 intended to send his draft to other publishers?
6 MR. LUPERT: Thank you, judge.
7 THE WITNESS: I did not ask Dr. Barschall that,
8 no, sir.
9 Q. So the topic of whether it would be fair, in a
10 general sense, when doing this kind of a survey, to send
11 copies to more than one of the publishers that was included
12 just never came up?
13 A. I took it at its face value and I didn't question
14 Dr. Barschall asking him to comment on whether the prices he
15 had quoted taken from the covers of APS journals were
16 correct or the number of pages were correct. So there was
17 no general inquiry by Dr. Barschall of us or anyone to
18 correct the actual numbers.
19 Q. There was, in fact, when you got drafts, there
20 was back and forth about what should go in it; that is a
21 fair statement, is it not?
22 A. I made some grammatical corrections, and I said I
23 don't quite understand what the word "impact" means myself,
24 so I think we would approve the article if you define
25 "impact."
329
1 Q. You think that has a grammatical impact?
2 A. No, I said "and." And I made the suggestion that
3 he should define a technical term.
4 Q. Do you remember, sir, having gotten a draft and
5 writing Professor Barschall and saying, in almost these
6 words, APS journals and AIP journals come out so well, why
7 don't you just come out and say it? Didn't you write that
8 in virtually those terms?
9 A. That was in a different draft, not the one you
10 asked me about. And, yes, I did say, you might as well
11 state the conclusions clearly.
12 Q. That means you got more than one draft, then?
13 A. Yes, I said I got one draft of a general article
14 before there was any decision that it could not be published
15 in Physics Today, and then I probably got another draft.
16 Q. Let's go over the first draft for just one
17 second. Let me show you Exhibit 47. It is dated March 9,
18 1988.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you see this one?
21 A. Yes, sir, I do.
22 Q. Just pause for one second so the Court can get a
23 copy.
24 MR. LUPERT: It would expedite things, actually,
25 if you could pull out not only 47 but 48 and 57 and 59 at
330
1 the same time. I would be able to move with much more
2 speed.
3 THE COURT: We are going to have to stop promptly
4 at 4:30. I have a conference call that I have to take
5 promptly at 4:30.
6 Which are we looking at now?
7 MR. LUPERT: We are looking at a progress report
8 dated March 9, 1988, Exhibit 47, from Heinz Barschall.
9 Q. And I take it "Harry" is Harry Lustig? That's
10 you?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. This was a progress report, it so states? And he
13 enclosed two printouts and he said APS journals look good by
14 both measures, do you see that?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. And you got this, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It was then that you wrote back, did you not,
19 saying, in this Exhibit 48, that it would be better if you
20 defined "impact"? Do you see that?
21 A. I believe that is my answer, yes.
22 Q. So when you said, would you please define
23 "impact" for those who are not familiar with the definition
24 in the citation index, I take it you were referring to
25 librarians?
331
1 A. I was referring to the readers. This was meant
2 to be published in the physics journal.
3 Q. Isn't it a fair statement that in your opinion,
4 librarians don't know what impact is and neither do
5 physicists; it is a statistic from something called the
6 Science Citation Index?
7 A. I don't have any such opinion. I myself wasn't
8 too clear what it was and I wanted it defined more clearly
9 at the time.
10 Q. You didn't know what it was, correct?
11 A. I wasn't completely clear what it was.
12 Q. And in fact you are a trained physicist, are you
13 not?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You've taught in physics, have you not?
16 A. Oh, yes, a lot.
17 Q. And in fact, you have a considerable reputation
18 in physics, do you not?
19 A. That is not for me to say.
20 Q. In fact, once Professor Barschall got Exhibit 48,
21 he responded to you, did he not, in which he said, or to
22 your knowledge, you did in fact define "impact" so that
23 people would know what it was, right?
24 A. Yes, of course. The main exchange on 47 and 48
25 was about a question that Dr. Barschall was personally
332
1 concerned, why was the journal he had been editor of not as
2 cost effective as another APS journal, and I give him the
3 explanation for that.
4 Q. But, indeed, one of the issues was, hey, look,
5 nobody knows what this statistic impact is. I don't know
6 what it is. I'm a physicist. We'd better get that
7 definition in there, right?
8 A. I think he adopted my suggestion, yes.
9 Q. There then came a time, did there not, on June 1,
10 1988, in which Dr. Barschall sent you a second draft, and
11 you wrote him this letter, which is PX57. I would like you
12 to take a moment and just read that to yourself,
13 particularly paragraph 1.
14 (Pause)
15 Q. Have you read it?
16 A. Yes, I have.
17 Q. Where you said that you should state explicitly
18 in the text that in every category the APS and AIP journals
19 are the most cost effective, correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. That's what you wanted him to write?
22 A. I suggested that.
23 Q. That's right?
24 A. I put as a question, shouldn't you state it
25 explicitly, yes.
333
1 Q. Do you recall that Professor Barschall wrote
2 back, and he said -- in fact, let me just show you the
3 letter --
4 MR. LUPERT: This is Exhibit 59, Judge.
5 THE COURT: Yes.
6 Q. -- in which he said, in respect to the question
7 of stating that APS journals come out the best, that the
8 editors of AIP felt strongly that the point would make the
9 articles sound too much like propaganda, too much like
10 propaganda, and would reduce its credibility, do you see
11 that?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. And when profess Barschall used the word
14 "propaganda," he meant advertising?
15 A. I don't know. He used "propaganda."
16 Q. But you understood that what he meant was
17 propaganda -- strike that.
18 You understood that when he used the word
19 "propaganda," he meant advertising?
20 A. No, I think the word "propaganda" speaks for
21 itself.
22 Q. You don't think that that's synonymous, as used
23 in this letter, with advertising?
24 A. I don't think so.
25 Q. I wonder if I might read you something that
334
1 Professor Barschall said about this topic and ask you if you
2 agree with him.
3 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I would like to object.
4 I think it is improper. It doesn't make a difference
5 whether he agrees with somebody else's testimony.
6 THE COURT: Yes, I don't --
7 MR. LUPERT: I thought this was the modus
8 operandi. I have done this so often.
9 THE COURT: This is on the issue of whether
10 propaganda is advertising or not? I don't think that is
11 worth spending time on.
12 MR. LUPERT: I'm sorry, sir.
13 THE COURT: I don't think that is worth spending
14 time on.
15 MR. LUPERT: Thank you.
16 Q. In this letter, in the last sentence, it also
17 says, does it not, if you send out reprints, a covering
18 letter could make the point you wish to make, correct?
19 Isn't that what it say?
20 A. That's what it says.
21 Q. Ultimately, was a decision made to send out a
22 cover letter with a reprint?
23 A. I don't know about that.
24 Q. You don't know --
25 A. I don't recall how I -- the reprints weren't sent
335
1 out, so I don't know what decision was made.
2 Q. You don't recall a series of back and forth with
3 your co-executives concerning whether or not reprints should
4 be sent out with cover letters, with the 1988 renewal bills?
5 A. I recall there were some discussion of that in
6 which I was tangentially involved, but I do not recall what
7 the discussions said about cover letters right now.
8 Q. Do you remember that there was a cover letter
9 prepared that was approved at the highest levels of APS, a
10 cover letter quite similar in style to Exhibit 33 that went
11 out the year before?
12 A. Can you show it to me, please?
13 Q. I show you my copy.
14 That is the '87 one. Don't you remember that
15 there was a letter of very similar style that was drafted,
16 approved at the highest levels of APS, and created,
17 reproduced, 12 to 15,000 copies of it were made; don't you
18 remember any of that?
19 A. I do not. Sorry.
20 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, this is what we
21 stipulated to that we intended to distribute in 1988.
22 THE COURT: This is the one which was not sent
23 after Gordon & Breach --
24 MR. MESERVE: That is correct, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: So why is there need to --
336
1 MR. LUPERT: His testimony just goes to, in the
2 plaintiff's view, the issue of whether this organization was
3 creating, with Professor Barschall, a formula that was
4 direct and true to the point --
5 THE COURT: My question wasn't an invitation to a
6 closing statement. But it is stipulated, as I understand,
7 that, but for the protests made to counsel by the plaintiff,
8 that the defendants would in 1988 have distributed reprints
9 similar to the practice that they followed in '87, is that
10 correct?
11 MR. MESERVE: That's correct, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: All right.
13 MR. LUPERT: If your Honor feels that that is
14 sufficient on this point, it is a given.
15 THE COURT: I don't want to cut you off. If
16 there is something beyond that that you are seeking to
17 establish -- if that's what you are seeking to establish, it
18 is established.
19 MR. LUPERT: I am also seeking to establish,
20 though I will review this material -- in fact, it is 4:15,
21 4:20. With your Honor's statement, this would be an ideal
22 time for me to adjourn, to review what I had in mind to do
23 on some of these topics.
24 THE COURT: That's what's known as an offer that
25 I can't refuse.
337
1 All right, we are adjourned, then, until 10 a.m.
2 tomorrow.
3 MR. LUPERT: Thank you.
4 (Witness excused)
5 (Adjourned to 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 11, 1997)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
338
1
2 INDEX OF EXAMINATION
3 Witness D X RD RX
4 BRUCE KINGMA.............161 161 234
5 HARRY LUSTIG.............259
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
|