Main Index: Trial Testimony June 12, 1997
462
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 12, 1997
12 10:05 a.m.
Before:
13
HON. LEONARD B. SAND
14
District Judge
15
16
17
APPEARANCES
18
ORANS, ELSEN & LUPERT, LLP
19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BY: LESLIE A. LUPERT
20 ROBERT L. PLOTZ
PETER E. SEIDMAN
21
COVINGTON & BURLING
22 Attorneys for Defendants
BY: RICHARD A. MESERVE
23 JEFFREY G. HUVELLE
SUSAN L. BURKE
24
25
463
1 (Trial resumed)
2 DONALD W. KING, resumed.
3 THE COURT: You may resume the stand. I remind
4 you, you are still under oath.
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
6 BY MR. HUVELLE:
7 Q. Mr. King, I would like you to look at two
8 documents that have been marked as Defendants' Exhibit WW
9 and Defendants' Exhibit VV.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. WW is a copy of your resume?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And a list of your publications?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. And Exhibit VV is a brief biography that was
16 included in one of your publications?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. In both of those documents, sir, you listed the
19 important honors and awards that you had received?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. In particular, in each document, you highlighted
22 the fact that in the 1970's you were recognized as one of
23 the most ten cited authors in the field of information
24 sciences?
25 A. Yes, sir.
464
1 Q. Is that correct?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. In each case when you cited, or when you referred
4 to that fact, you used the citation count as a reflection of
5 the quality of your own work; is that true?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. I would like you to -- strike that.
8 You submitted a report in connection with your
9 work in this case?
10 A. I'm sorry?
11 Q. You submitted a report in connection with your
12 work in this case?
13 A. Yes, sir, I did.
14 Q. Regarding citation analysis, in that report you
15 referred to an article by Linda Smith?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. You referred to that article as a particularly
18 balanced review of the pluses and minuses --
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. -- of citation analysis in your own judgment?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. And in your view, that represented a fair
23 assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of that
24 methodology; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, sir.
465
1 Q. I would like to show you a copy of the Linda
2 Smith article, which is part of Defendants' Exhibit LLL, and
3 refer you to page 88, and address your attention to the top
4 left about six lines down. There are several sentences.
5 Let me read it to you:
6 "In the case of journals, for example, the
7 usefulness of citations as a measure of the journal's
8 quality varies according to the function of the journal.
9 News journals may be of high quality but infrequently cited.
10 Until more is understood about the reasons for citing,
11 citation counts can best be viewed as a rough indicator of
12 quality. Small differences in citation counts should not be
13 interpreted as significant, but large differences may be
14 interpreted as reflections of differences in quality and
15 impact. Results of citation counts should be compared with
16 alternative quality indicators to look for correlations.
17 The validity of the measure is most fragile in citation
18 counts for individual documents and authors. One can have
19 more confidence in comparisons of counts based on larger
20 units such as journals."
21 A. Yes, sir, I would agree.
22 Q. Do you see that? And do you agree with those
23 statements by Ms. Smith?
24 A. Yes, I do.
25 Q. Yesterday I asked you about the observation that
466
1 you made in the early 1980's, that citation analysis or
2 citation counts were commonly used as a surrogate measure of
3 use and value. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. That was an observation that you made in one of
6 the books that you wrote --
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. -- reflecting the results of your various studies
9 for the National Science Foundation; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. In support of that observation, you cited a
12 number of analyses that validated the use of citation
13 counts; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. Do you recall that you cited the work of Cole &
16 Cole, who had found that citation data correlated highly
17 with survey data in determining the quality of a scientist's
18 work?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Do you remember that you cited the work of Bush
21 and others which compared citation rankings of journals in
22 economics with a study using expert opinions to obtain
23 similar rankings?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And found that the two rankings were, quote,
467
1 remarkably close?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Did you also cite the work of Cohen and Shannon,
4 who found that peer judgments of the innovative quality of
5 research papers in plant physiology correlated very highly
6 with the rates of citations to these papers?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Is it true that you cited a number of other
9 authors and studies to the same effect?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Is it true that in that publication you concluded
12 that citation counts provide an excellent surrogate measure
13 for use and/or value?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. In many instances?
16 A. Yes, sir. In instances.
17 Q. In many instances?
18 A. In many instances, yes.
19 Q. When you said that it provided an excellent
20 surrogate measure, you were using the term "excellent" in
21 the normal sense of outstandingly good?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And of exceptional merit?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do you recall, as you mentioned yesterday, that
468
1 you had published -- you published an article in Physics
2 Today --
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. -- in the early '80s?
5 And in that article, you referred to a study that
6 had been done by Charles River Associates?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. That was a study that you supervised, you
9 developed the survey questionnaire and the protocol?
10 A. Yes. We actually conducted the survey for
11 Charles River.
12 Q. And you were responsible for designing it?
13 A. Yes. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And it was well designed --
15 A. Oh, very well, I would say.
16 Q. -- thorough survey?
17 And you surveyed physicists?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. And you attempted to determine exactly which
20 scientific journals physicists considered to be the most
21 important, correct?
22 A. Yes, sir. I think that was -- the terminology
23 was most important or most frequently used --
24 Q. Right.
25 A. Yes.
469
1 Q. And as a result of that survey, you identified
2 six scientific journals that were rated by physicists
3 pursuant to your own study as the most important or the most
4 frequently used?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Correct?
7 And those six journals were the Physical Review,
8 all sections?
9 A. I'll have to -- I'm sorry. If you will just read
10 it, I'm sure from the document I'm --
11 Q. Well, why don't I --
12 A. Right.
13 Q. -- not test -- the point is not to test your
14 memory --
15 A. Right.
16 Q. -- but to get it right.
17 If you can look at Defendants' Exhibit BBB. The
18 six journals for Physical Review, all sections combined --
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Physical?
21 A. Yes, sir, I see it.
22 Q. Physical Review Letters, Journal of Chemical
23 Physics, Journal of Applied Physics, Physics Today and
24 Science?
25 A. Yes, sir.
470
1 Q. And that's page 44 of the article?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. That refers to that?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. And it's the left-hand column half-way down the
6 page you refer to that study?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. You recall we discussed this in the deposition?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Do you recall that four of those six journals
11 were included in Dr. Barschall's --
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. -- analysis?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. The two that were not were Physics Today and --
16 A. Science.
17 Q. -- Science?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Because they are general interest?
20 A. Right.
21 Q. But the others are all research publications?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Do you recall, as well, that all four of the ones
24 that, under your study of the views and judgments of
25 physicists, all four of those under Dr. Barschall's analysis
471
1 were ranked among the top 15 of the 200 journals that he
2 studied?
3 A. I don't recall what the number is. I know there
4 is a little dispute as to whether -- what that -- but it
5 was -- yes, those are certainly the journals ranking
6 highest, correct.
7 Q. All four of the ones --
8 A. Oh, absolutely.
9 Q. -- you identified as top-ranked?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. -- he identified as top-ranked?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Would you agree that the 19 -- the analysis that
14 was prepared under your supervision, the survey of
15 physicists, reveals a high level of correlation between your
16 results, the views of physicists, and the results of
17 Dr. Barschall's study?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. The two are correlated?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. With respect to impact data, I believe that you
22 commented yesterday on the fact that that impact data
23 relates to articles published over a two-year period?
24 A. I don't -- well, I don't recall saying that.
25 Yes, but that's what -- that's the way the impact measure
472
1 was done by Barschall, yes. In other words, he took the
2 articles published in '84 and '85 and took the citations to
3 those articles and over that two-year period, as I recall.
4 Q. But did I understand you to suggest that it would
5 have been better for him -- it would have been better if he
6 had looked at --
7 A. A longer period of time?
8 Q. -- a longer period of time?
9 A. It seems to me that it would -- there had be some
10 merit in doing it over a long period of time. I'm not sure
11 how much difference that would make, but there is a
12 potential. It's a little bit like sampling. There's always
13 a potential bias for non-response.
14 Q. But am I correct in understanding that you're not
15 aware of any factual basis for suggesting that --
16 A. No.
17 Q. -- that the results would be different --
18 A. No, no, I have not.
19 Q. If he looked at a longer period of time?
20 A. I have absolutely no basis at all to think that
21 it would be different.
22 Q. And it may well be that the data relating to that
23 two-year period is representative of the data over a much
24 longer period?
25 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
473
1 Q. In fact, in your deposition, when we discussed
2 the differences between looking at the two-year period, as
3 the impact factor does, and a longer period, you said that
4 that's a nuance that's not terribly important; is that
5 correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Is it true --
8 A. May I qualify the statement? And I only want to
9 qualify it in this regard: It depends on how the citation
10 data are going to be used. There are certain uses of
11 citation data where the older data would have an impact but
12 not for the purposes that we are talking about today.
13 Q. Is it true, as you have observed, that commercial
14 publishers like to maximize profits?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. I believe you have noted a couple of times a
17 study that suggested that, because of the nature of journal
18 publishing, that publishers can increase their profits by
19 raising their prices?
20 A. Up to an -- there's a point at which, if they
21 raise it too high, they will begin to lose profit -- I mean,
22 they will begin to lose -- profit.
23 Q. Isn't it true that at one point you did some work
24 for AIP and recommended that they could raise their prices
25 by as much as 60 percent and not lose any subscribers?
474
1 A. I believe that, in that study, what I suggested
2 is that there was a great deal more sensitivity to price for
3 individual subscriptions than to library subscriptions, and
4 that they could, in the -- I believe it was increase the
5 price of the library subscriptions by that much, without
6 hurting -- now, I've done some studies since then that kind
7 of corroborated that.
8 Q. Is it true that AIP did not follow your advice in
9 that respect?
10 A. I was told that they did not follow my advice and
11 I was told that they wished that they had.
12 Q. Because what they did was to charge far less than
13 they could have?
14 A. I think it was -- now, I may be wrong about this,
15 but I think it had to do more with the raising of the
16 individual prices that they regretted.
17 Q. But is it true that you recommended they raise
18 library prices --
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. -- and they did not do that?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. Even though you said --
23 A. Well, I don't know what they did. I -- they --
24 Bob Marks one time remarked to me that he had wished that he
25 had taken our advice, but --
475
1 Q. You were suggesting they maximize profits?
2 A. No. No.
3 Q. You were suggesting they raise their prices?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Is it true, as you have written in your report,
6 that the viability of a journal is dependent on attracting
7 high-quality manuscripts?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Does that mean that if a journal fails to attract
10 high-quality manuscripts, it will fail to gain subscribers
11 or it will lose subscribers?
12 A. Well, in a -- there's an interactive effect
13 there, having to do with the -- authors sometimes choose
14 journals based on the -- one of the factors that they use is
15 the demand, and therefore if there is a low demand for some
16 journals, they won't go to it. And if authors, good-quality
17 authors, don't go to a journal, there will also be less
18 demand. So there's kind of an interactive effect there.
19 Q. But if we are confronted by a journal which has a
20 low subscription rate, certainly one reason why that journal
21 might have a low subscription rate is because the quality of
22 the articles in the journal is low?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And there are other reasons why a journal might
25 have a low subscription rate; is that correct?
476
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. One would be the pricing strategy of the
3 publisher?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Another might be the reputation of the publisher?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. Another might be the quality of the marketing
8 efforts?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Is it true that, in the case of the journals
11 studied by Dr. Barschall, in the ones that have low
12 subscription rates, you do not know the particular reasons
13 in the case of any individual journal why its subscription
14 rate is low?
15 A. No, I do not.
16 Q. That would include the journals published by
17 Gordon & Breach?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. Are you familiar with the Physical Review
20 Journal?
21 A. Somewhat.
22 Q. How would you describe their subject area?
23 A. As I recall, it's a very broad subject area, and
24 the articles themselves are pretty much review kinds of
25 articles, and, as I recall, it's a very large journal. It's
477
1 got a lot of pages in it.
2 Q. What makes you say that they are review articles?
3 A. Well, that's -- that was my recollection of it.
4 I -- I'm not sure about that.
5 Q. Isn't it true that the articles in the Physical
6 Review Journal deal with very specialized subjects in
7 physics?
8 A. That's my understanding, yes.
9 Q. Such as -- let me just give you a couple of
10 titles -- "The Z Paren N Model of Grain Boundary Wedding,"
11 "Electronic Spin Lattice Relaxation of Photo-Excited Triplet
12 States in Disordered Organic Solids."
13 A. I'm not --
14 MR. PLOTZ: Judge, I object to the question.
15 A. I'm not a physicist. I really can't comment on
16 it, but it certainly sounds like a pretty specialized --
17 Q. Those don't sound like generalized subjects?
18 A. No, they certainly don't. No.
19 Q. Each dealing with a fairly specialized area?
20 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
21 Q. In your review of Dr. Barschall's articles --
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. -- do you agree that he accurately described what
24 he did?
25 A. Yes, sir.
478
1 Q. Do you agree that his methods for collecting and
2 analyzing the data were sound?
3 A. They appear to me to be sound, yes, sir.
4 Q. Do you recall in your report you stated,
5 "Barschall normalizes the size of the journal in order to
6 provide a common measure of cost per amount of article
7 information" --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. -- "received by the libraries."
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. You recall making that statement?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Do you agree that it is a sound approach to
14 normalize the cost in that manner?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. You yourself -- I'm sorry.
17 Within the field of physics, it should not make
18 any difference whether you are using cost per character or
19 cost per word in your analysis?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Is that correct?
22 A. I don't believe it makes any difference at all.
23 Q. You yourself have used cost per word in a lot of
24 your work?
25 A. Yes, sir, I have.
479
1 Q. And you have also done many analyses using cost
2 per article; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, sir, and I have used cost both from the
4 standpoint of publication cost as well as the price that is
5 charged.
6 Q. Right. When I refer to cost, I'm usually
7 referring to the price.
8 A. I know. I know.
9 Q. And if you will interpret my --
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. -- statements in that way.
12 You have recognized in connection with the
13 studies you have done for the National Science Foundation
14 that, where there are variations in the number of articles
15 and in the number of pages per article, that instead of
16 comparing subscription price, to quote your words, perhaps a
17 better indicator of price is price per article and price per
18 kiloword page. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. When you try to compare the cost of journals in
21 the field of physics to eight other disciplines, you did so
22 on the basis of cost per article or cost per word; is that
23 correct?
24 A. Yes, sir, I did, and I also did it over time.
25 Q. Yesterday you provided an example, I believe, of
480
1 two journals, one with a large base of subscribers and
2 another with a smaller base of subscribers?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. And you explained why, in your judgment, under
5 Dr. Barschall's analysis, a journal with a large number of
6 subscribers would be rated higher than a journal with a
7 small number of subscribers?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. You would agree that the conclusion from your
10 example --
11 A. Let's clarify whether we're talking about the
12 cost per character or the impact measure, because they are a
13 little bit different.
14 Q. Well, if we're talking about the cost per
15 character --
16 A. OK, good.
17 Q. In the example you gave, would you agree that one
18 conclusion that can be drawn from your hypothetical is that
19 one journal has a higher cost per character than the other?
20 A. Yes, sir. It can have a higher cost per
21 character than another.
22 Q. And you would agree that, under your
23 hypothetical, that's an accurate conclusion?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Insofar as Dr. Barschall has analyzed 200
481
1 journals and he has ranked them by cost per character, you
2 don't have any dispute that --
3 A. The re --
4 Q. -- those facts relating to cost per character are
5 true, objective facts?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. Your quarrel is on the policy level, right?
8 A. Well, my -- the reason that I said what I said is
9 that I was trying to distinguish between how that
10 information is interpreted and how that information is used,
11 and that's the only concern that I have about Professor
12 Barschall's data. I have absolutely no qualms at all about
13 his doing a good job, a thorough job, and with good
14 intentions.
15 Q. The work that you and Dr. Kingma have done in
16 your professional careers has one area of overlap, doesn't
17 it, in terms of your analysis of whether libraries ought to
18 purchase journals or use some article delivery service or --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. -- interlibrary loan?
21 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
22 Q. Both of you have recommended that libraries ought
23 to cancel subscriptions of high-price journals that have
24 relatively low readership?
25 A. That's -- yes, sir, and by the community served
482
1 by the library.
2 Q. Could you look at PX 2.
3 A. I'm sorry, which?
4 Q. Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2.
5 A. That's the Bulletin of the American --
6 Q. Right.
7 A. OK.
8 Q. Can you turn to Table 3.
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Page 1442.
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Ranks 200 journals by cost per character?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. And the cost of the first one is .39?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And if you go to page 1443 and the bottom of the
17 list, if you look to the first one that is listed with the
18 cost per character over 14, do you see that?
19 A. That's on page 1444?
20 Q. Right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. The bottom 14 journals.
23 1444.
24 A. Right. The ones greater than 14.
25 Q. Right.
483
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Starting with "Crystal Lattice Defects" by Gordon
3 & Breach at 16?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Do you see that almost all of the ones following
6 that are Gordon & Breach journals?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Do you have any explanation of why the Gordon &
9 Breach journals are so expensive compared to the other 200?
10 A. I suspect that it is because the audience in the
11 subscription -- number of subscriptions is low.
12 Q. Do you think that the other 186 journals all have
13 different audiences?
14 A. I don't know. I really don't know.
15 Q. Did you inquire whether there is anything
16 regarding the business practices of Gordon & Breach which
17 would account for the high level?
18 A. May I inquire --
19 Q. I'm sorry?
20 A. I'm sorry. Did I inquire about the high level?
21 Q. In connection with your work for Gordon & Breach
22 in this case --
23 A. No, no, no.
24 Q. -- did you ask what the profit margin is for
25 Gordon & Breach?
484
1 A. No.
2 Q. That could account for the high cost, could it
3 not?
4 A. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
5 MR. HUVELLE: Your Honor, if I may have one
6 minute?
7 (Pause)
8 I have nothing further, your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Plotz, redirect?
10 MR. PLOTZ: Yes.
11 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. PLOTZ:
13 Q. Mr. King, on the last point that Mr. Huvelle
14 asked you, with respect to what could account for the
15 placement of Gordon & Breach journals, besides profit, are
16 there other factors -- besides profit and size of the
17 potential readership, subscriptions, are there other factors
18 which can contribute to the price of a journal?
19 A. Probably the -- probably the most important one
20 would be the size of the potential audience, the potential
21 readership, but there are a number of factors that enter
22 into whether or not the journals are subscribed to or not.
23 If it's a society journal, obviously the membership can
24 determine the personal subscriptions, and there are factors
25 that enter into it.
485
1 Q. Are some journals more profitable than other
2 journals within a publisher?
3 A. I don't know. I have never seen anything
4 recorded in the literature about the profit of journals --
5 of commercial journals. The only thing that I have seen in
6 the literature is a study that was done in the 1970's that
7 indicated across all commercial publishers the profit was
8 about 14 percent before tax and the authors reported that
9 would be about 7 percent after tax. And there are -- a
10 couple of articles have suggested that the profit is around
11 10 percent.
12 There was an article recently by a librarian who
13 quotes a Forbes article that said that one publisher had
14 roughly a 40 percent profit but that probably included trade
15 journals, but there is just very little infor -- a lot of
16 speculation about how much profit publishers make but very
17 little really good data on that.
18 My sense is that probably journals are a little
19 bit like books in that publishers do very well on some books
20 and lose on others. I suspect that some journals are
21 marginal or perhaps lose a little bit, and there are some
22 that do very well, within a publisher. But that's
23 speculation. I don't know that for sure. That's just an
24 intuitive feeling that I have about the field.
25 Q. Now, Table 3 that you looked at from the Bulletin
486
1 article, does Table 3 say anything about the subscription
2 size of any journals?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Do you know, from looking at Table 3, what the
5 subscription size of any journal is?
6 A. No. No, I don't.
7 Q. Is that, in your view, information -- let me
8 start over.
9 Is knowing the number of subscriptions to a
10 journal information that, in your view, would be necessary
11 to properly interpret the cost information --
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. -- it contained?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you explain that?
16 A. The reason is that, in a way, that would be kind
17 of a way of normalizing those prices, and so that it would
18 make comparison much more meaningful if you know the -- I'm
19 talking now about comparison among the journals, much more
20 meaningful if you knew what the number of subscribers were.
21 Q. You said in answer to one of Mr. Huvelle's
22 questions near the end of the examination that your concern,
23 or one of your concerns with the use of the cost per
24 thousand, as Barschall did, was in how that information is
25 used.
487
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. Could you explain what that concern is?
3 A. Well, it's just that if the cost per character
4 reflects a low subscription, then -- and that subscription
5 is also -- represents a small potential readership, then
6 it's unfair, perhaps even unwise, to compare that against a
7 very large subscription journal where the price is bound to
8 be much lower and, therefore, that the cost per character is
9 bound to be much lower, for the reason of the size.
10 Q. Why is it unfair or unwise to make that
11 comparison?
12 A. Because, if one is comparing the merits of one
13 journal against the other, it just seems to me that it
14 doesn't make sense.
15 Q. Now, you ticked off in answer to Mr. Huvelle's --
16 some of Mr. Huvelle's questions some factors that can affect
17 subscription size other than the size of potential --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- readership. Do you recall that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In your view, of all of those factors, what is
22 the most important determinant towards determining the size
23 of subscription to a journal?
24 A. The size of the subscription?
25 Q. The number of subscribers.
488
1 A. Probably the potential readership.
2 Q. Why is that?
3 A. Because it ranges so greatly among the different
4 fields.
5 Q. Well, is it your view that the number of
6 subscriptions to a journal will ever exceed the number of
7 potential readers?
8 A. No. I suppose it could happen but I can't
9 imagine that it would. There is certainly no evidence that
10 the number of subscriptions even comes close to the number
11 of potential readers because most of the journals now are
12 subscribed to very heavily by libraries, and that's the main
13 source for many journals.
14 Q. Now, the various sections of the Physical Review
15 A, B, C, and D, which you were asked about on
16 cross-examination, do you know whether each of those
17 sections covers one specialization or many specializations?
18 A. I don't. I really don't.
19 Q. If you assume that they cover -- that each one
20 covers many specializations, would that in your view affect
21 the size of potential readership of those journals?
22 A. Yes, it would.
23 Q. How would it affect the size?
24 A. Because you would have a number of people from
25 the different specializations who would read not all of the
489
1 articles in those journals but a portion of those articles
2 in those journals.
3 Q. Now, you also testified in answer to one of
4 Mr. Huvelle's questions that it's sound to normalize cost on
5 a per character or per article basis, right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that in fact you have from time to time done
8 that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In your own work?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. For what purpose have you done that?
13 A. Mostly for the purpose of comparing over time to
14 see what the trends are over time. Most of this work was
15 done initially for a study called "Statistical Indicators of
16 Scientific and Technical Communication," and, as that
17 implies, what we were trying to do is provide a range of
18 kinds of information that people could use and see what the
19 trends were over time, because there was a lot of concern
20 about what was happening with the journal publishing
21 business at that time.
22 THE COURT: You did a study comparing cost of
23 scientific journals with eight other disciplines?
24 THE WITNESS: With physics, with the eight other
25 disciplines. At that time the National Science Foundation
490
1 subdivided the scientific community into nine fields. One
2 field was physical sciences, which included physics and
3 chemistry; mathematic science, which includes statistics,
4 computer science, life science, etc. And that's what he was
5 referring to.
6 He was saying that you did it for physics to
7 compare -- I mean, for the physical sciences to compare
8 against the other sciences. That's what I think Mr. Huvelle
9 was referring to.
10 Q. What was the comparison that you were drawing in
11 that study that you referred to?
12 A. It was merely measuring across the nine fields
13 within each of the nine fields what the statistical
14 indicators were, partially to show those in the field what
15 the differences were between their field and the other
16 fields and that kind of thing. And so they could use those
17 data within the fields. Because for most of these
18 statistical indications, there were tremendous differences
19 among the fields.
20 Q. Were you using the cost per kiloword or cost per
21 article data to make comparisons among individual journals
22 for acquisition purposes?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you believe that that is a proper use of a
25 cost per kiloword or cost per article?
491
1 A. I don't. I think it can be used with caution and
2 particularly if you take into account the number of
3 subscribers.
4 Q. Were you using the cost per kiloword or cost per
5 article statistic to compare publishers as a whole?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you believe that that type of statistic should
8 be used?
9 A. Only perhaps type of publisher. Because I do --
10 quite a bit of my analysis is to compare type of
11 publisher -- now, I don't think I did that as much back then
12 as I have in my recent publications. I -- my recent
13 publications, I have tried to make distinctions among four
14 types of publishers, commercial, society, educational
15 presses, and other types of publishers.
16 Q. Do you believe that that statistic should be used
17 to make acquisition or cancellation decisions at a library
18 based on the identity of the specific publisher?
19 A. I don't. I -- one thing that I should point out
20 is that, even though I have evaluated collection development
21 activities, I have not really delved into all the details as
22 to how people make acquisition decisions, but I personally
23 would not use it, but I'm not -- I haven't been on the
24 firing line, but I personally would not use that statistic.
25 Q. You were referred in your cross-examination to an
492
1 expert, an article by Linda Smith?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. You were quoted a section dealing with whether or
4 not citation counts can be used.
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. Does the size of the potential audience of a
7 journal affect the number of citations to that journal?
8 A. I believe that it does.
9 Q. And generally how does it affect it?
10 A. Well, the -- let me qualify what I'm saying. If
11 one were looking at subdivisions of a discipline and if
12 those subdivisions were totally contained -- that is, all
13 the authors, all the readers, all the citations fell within
14 each of those divisions -- then you would expect -- and you
15 had constants of the reading per scientist, author per
16 scientist and number of citations per article, if you had
17 those all contained within subdivisions, then the impact
18 would be -- should be exactly the same across all
19 subdivisions because of the arithmetic and averaging these
20 things out.
21 The problem is, in my view -- and this is
22 speculation; I have not done this analysis -- but I believe
23 that the fact that you have a fair amount of cross citations
24 across the subdisciplines, that this means that the -- if a
25 particular journal has a small potential readership, that
493
1 that particular journal is likely to have fewer citations to
2 it than a journal that has very large citation --
3 readership. And I give again as an example the extreme,
4 which would be Science. I'm sure that the number of
5 citations to -- on the average to the Science articles is
6 much greater than very small disciplines, where very -- that
7 is, very small -- journals that have very small readership.
8 Q. When did you write the book that Mr. Huvelle
9 cited to you in which you wrote that citations were an
10 excellent surrogate measure?
11 A. I wrote the book -- the book was published, I
12 believe, in 1981. Much of the material that went into the
13 book was gathered over a period of about five or six years.
14 Q. Is it still your view today that citations are an
15 excellent surrogate measure for use?
16 A. For use? It seems to me that I have no reason to
17 believe that the amount of citation is correlated to the
18 amount of use. I mean, I -- that's part of the reason that
19 I suspect that those fields that have very little -- that
20 fields that have very little readership probably have a
21 relatively smaller number of citations.
22 MR. PLOTZ: One moment, your Honor.
23 No further questions.
24 THE COURT: Anything further of this witness?
25 MR. HUVELLE: May I have just one second, your
494
1 Honor?
2 Your Honor, I would just like to make sure I got
3 into evidence one document, which is Defendants' Exhibit XX.
4 I am not even sure whether I showed it to the witness. But
5 it is the one that I was referring to.
6 MR. PLOTZ: I would object. It is a prior
7 writing. He was asked about it. He was asked what he said.
8 But I would object to the document itself.
9 Cross-examination is impeachment material.
10 THE COURT: I believe Mr. Huvelle is not hearing
11 that.
12 MR. HUVELLE: Your Honor, let me see if I gave it
13 to the witness.
14 Do you have a copy of this?
15 THE WITNESS: I don't. I have a copy back in my
16 briefcase, if you want me to get it. That might be the
17 easiest way to do it.
18 MR. HUVELLE: No, the easiest way is for me to
19 find the document.
20 THE COURT: For what purpose would you be
21 offering it?
22 MR. HUVELLE: In this article he cites a number
23 of additional sources that I didn't go into in support of
24 the value of citation analysis, and I would like to just put
25 it in the record as additional support for his own views,
495
1 that he has written.
2 MR. PLOTZ: I think what he wrote then is
3 hearsay. He can ask him about it. He can ask him about
4 what he believed, what he believed then, what he believes
5 now. He can cross-examine him on it. But --
6 THE COURT: He has done that.
7 MR. PLOTZ: But the document itself is hearsay.
8 THE COURT: You have done that. What is there in
9 addition to what you have established in the examination
10 that that document added?
11 MR. HUVELLE: Some additional authority for the
12 validity of citations as a measure of use and value.
13 THE WITNESS: I'm at a point right now where I'm
14 wondering whether I answer -- I understood the question that
15 I was asked by Mr. Plotz. May I have the question and
16 answer asked again? Because there seems -- my answer seemed
17 to have caused some little turmoil here and I'm not quite
18 sure why.
19 THE COURT: Well, you were asked whether today --
20 you said today you have no reason to believe that the amount
21 of citation is correlated to the amount of use.
22 THE WITNESS: I do believe that the amount of --
23 I do believe that the amount of reading is correlated to the
24 number of citations.
25 I'm sorry. I may have -- I may have
496
1 misunderstood the question. And I thought my explanation
2 certainly expounded on that. I --
3 THE COURT: Reading is a prerequisite to
4 citation.
5 THE WITNESS: Absolutely.
6 THE COURT: One hopes that people don't cite when
7 they haven't read it.
8 THE WITNESS: By the way, there are studies that
9 show that there are a few -- I think it's something less
10 than 10 percent -- but there are a few citations in which
11 the author actually didn't read the article. There are
12 instances of it, but not a great number.
13 THE COURT: I'm in a profession in which citation
14 is quite a common practice.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: I have some familiarity with --
17 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. Yes.
18 THE COURT: -- citation. So when you say that
19 there is a correlation between extent of readership and
20 extent of citation, is that telling us anything very
21 profound?
22 THE WITNESS: Not particularly. But I -- it is
23 only of -- I only mention that partially because I believe
24 that if a journal has a small potential readership, that
25 that particular journal will have fewer citations to it.
497
1 THE COURT: Fewer readers and fewer citations?
2 THE WITNESS: Right, to it. And that those
3 journals that are very large are likely to have more
4 citations to those journals --
5 THE COURT: As a consequence of having more
6 readers?
7 THE WITNESS: More readers, exactly. That's all
8 I've said. And there is certainly some evidence that was
9 cited in my book that would suggest that that is true. I
10 have not done a study myself to establish that, but in --
11 THE COURT: Had you in 1997 changed your views on
12 that subject?
13 THE WITNESS: No.
14 THE COURT: From those that you expressed in
15 1980 --
16 THE WITNESS: No.
17 THE COURT: All right.
18 THE WITNESS: But this does have a bearing on the
19 use of the impact factors, because if a journal has a small
20 number of citations to it, the impact factor is going to be
21 low.
22 THE COURT: But that journal may nevertheless be
23 serving a very worthwhile purpose in the scientific
24 community?
25 THE WITNESS: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And
498
1 all I'm saying is, so that if you compare the impact of a
2 small journal that's just a super journal for a small
3 community, because they have very few citations to those
4 articles, that you shouldn't be comparing that to a Science
5 Magazine that has a lot of citations to it because the
6 audience is very large. That's the point that I was trying
7 to make.
8 MR. HUVELLE: Just a couple of questions.
9 RECROSS EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. HUVELLE:
11 Q. If you have a large journal with a lot of
12 articles and you compare it to a small journal with fewer
13 articles, isn't it true that the impact factor normalizes
14 the size of the journal --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- because you determine the average rate of
17 citation --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- per --
20 A. Article.
21 Q. -- article?
22 A. Yes. But I'm -- yes, absolutely. Sure. Of
23 course.
24 MR. HUVELLE: Your Honor, I would like to have
25 the witness identify Exhibit XX, and introduce it into
499
1 evidence as -- I will -- could you look at --
2 THE COURT: As what? As a prior consistent
3 statement of the witness?
4 Objection sustained. Let's move on.
5 Anything further of this witness?
6 MR. HUVELLE: One question.
7 THE COURT: Yes.
8 Q. Is it true, sir, that circulation data is not
9 available for many publishers?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you.
12 THE COURT: OK. Thank you, Mr. King.
13 MR. PLOTZ: Judge, the second-to-last question
14 Mr. Huvelle asked, I have to clarify one point.
15 THE COURT: This is known as having the last word
16 syndrome. You may.
17 MR. PLOTZ: I will try to be very brief.
18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. PLOTZ:
20 Q. With respect to the question you were asked just
21 a couple questions ago about impact factor, the relationship
22 of impact factor for a small journal and a large journal --
23 A. Let's make a distinction now whether you're
24 talking about "large" in terms of the number of articles or
25 "large" in terms of the number of subscriptions, because I
500
1 think there's a little bit of confusion on that.
2 Q. I'm referring to "large" in the sense of number
3 of subscriptions and "small" in the sense of number of
4 subscriptions.
5 Will there be a difference between those two
6 categories in terms of the number of citations per article?
7 MR. HUVELLE: Your Honor, this isn't following up
8 on my question. I don't see why he should have the last
9 word on this.
10 THE COURT: I will allow it, on the
11 representation it is the last question.
12 A. In my view, that it is a -- the impact factor
13 will be different for the -- for a large subscription
14 journal than a small subscription journal.
15 Q. And different in what pay?
16 A. In that they -- the number of citations -- the
17 average number of citations per article will reflect the
18 potential readership of those two journals.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 THE COURT: Thank you.
21 (Witness excused)
22 THE COURT: Plaintiff may call its next witness.
23 MR. LUPERT: Our next witness is the principal of
24 the plaintiffs, Martin Gordon, but I understood from
25 Mr. Meserve that he has a logistical problem.
501
1 THE COURT: Yes. Do you want to call a witness
2 out of turn?
3 MR. LUPERT: We don't object. If it's Dr. Ramsey
4 you're talking about?
5 MR. MESERVE: Yes, that's correct.
6 THE COURT: All right. Then we will call a
7 defendants' witness out of turn.
8 MR. MESERVE: Defendants call Professor Norman
9 Ramsey.
10 NORMAN F. RAMSEY,
11 called as a witness by the defendants,
12 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. MESERVE:
15 Q. Professor Ramsey, where are you employed?
16 THE CLERK: Please state your full name, sir.
17 THE WITNESS: My name is Norman F. Ramsey,
18 R-A-M-S-E-Y.
19 BY MR. MESERVE:
20 Q. Professor Ramsey, where are you employed?
21 A. I'm a professor emeritus at Harvard University, a
22 Higgins professor of physics emeritus.
23 It's an endowed professorship and Higgins is the
24 man who gave the money.
25 Q. Professor Ramsey, when did you receive your
502
1 Ph.D.?
2 A. In 1940.
3 Q. With whom did you work?
4 A. I worked with Professor I.I. Rabi.
5 I received it from Columbia University.
6 Q. What was the nature of the work that you
7 performed?
8 A. This was doing -- actually, I had the very good
9 fortune, about two months after I started working with him,
10 he invented the very first magnetic resonance experiment,
11 and I was involved in that.
12 Q. Did Professor Rabi get any awards as a result of
13 that?
14 A. Yes. Rob received the Nobel Prize partly based
15 on work in part which we did together.
16 Q. Was this the fundamental technology that allowed
17 magnetic resonance imaging in hospitals?
18 A. Yes, although there were intermediate steps
19 before magnetic resonance imaging came in many years later.
20 Q. After you received your Ph.D., what were the
21 nature of research activities that you undertook for the
22 federal government during World War II?
23 A. Yes, well, during World War II, at the beginning
24 of the War I was urged, and even before the War started for
25 the U.S., I was urged to work on radar research at MIT
503
1 Radiation Laboratory, and I was in charge of development of
2 three-centimeter wavelength radar, which proved to be one of
3 the most effective radars used during World War II.
4 Q. Did you work on another radar-related project
5 towards the end of the War?
6 A. Yes. At the end of the War, partly related to
7 World War II, at the urging of the scientific community, I
8 went to Los Alamos.
9 Q. Did you work on the Manhattan Project?
10 A. Yes, I did.
11 Q. That was to develop the atomic bomb?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Are you still conducting research?
14 A. Yes, I am.
15 Q. In what fields have you conducted research over
16 the years?
17 A. Well, there have been a number of years, so it
18 covers quite a few years, fields, but I would say definitely
19 atomic physics, molecular physics, nuclear physics, particle
20 physics, and with special emphasis on high-precision
21 measurements in those fields, using a modification of this
22 magnetic resonance method.
23 Q. Have you ever used any prizes or awards for your
24 scientific work?
25 A. Yes, an embarrassingly large number.
504
1 Q. Could you just mention a few of them?
2 A. I would say the leading ones are the 1989 Nobel
3 Prize in physics; the 1988 National Medal of Science, which
4 is awarded by the President of the United States; the
5 Vannevar Bush award of the National Science Board; and the
6 Medal of Honor of the Institution for Electrical and
7 Electronic Engineering.
8 Q. Are you a member of the National Academy of
9 Sciences?
10 A. Yes, I am.
11 Q. Is that an honor, to be --
12 A. Yes, indeed.
13 Q. I presume, Dr. Ramsey, that you have published
14 extensively in the field of physics?
15 A. Yes, I have published over 400 papers and about
16 three books so far. And I shipped one booked off to the
17 publisher last Monday.
18 Q. Professor Ramsey, I am going to hand you an
19 exhibit that has been marked as Defendants' Exhibit X.
20 Could you identify that exhibit for me, please.
21 A. Yes. That's --
22 Q. That's actually two things.
23 A. One is a brief summary of my biography, and then
24 the other is a fairly complete bibliography. It actually
25 goes up to 1996, and a couple of articles since then but
505
1 essentially it's complete.
2 Q. Have you published in a variety of fields in
3 physics?
4 A. Yes. Yes, I have.
5 Q. You mentioned the book that you just sent off to
6 the publisher. What was the nature of that book?
7 A. Well, this was a -- a book for a private
8 publisher, World Scientific, and it's a combination. It's a
9 reprint volume of my 56 most important papers, accompanied
10 with about a 50-page autobiography, accompanied by a
11 one-page retrospective commentary on each of the articles.
12 Q. Of your 56 top papers, how many were published in
13 Physical Review?
14 A. Well, I know that I -- I know that only by virtue
15 of this publication, and 45 of them were in either the
16 Physical Review or Physical Review Letters, or -- 45 of them
17 were by the American Physical Society publications, that is,
18 Physical Review Letters or Physical Review.
19 Q. And how many of them were in journals published
20 by the American Institute of Physics?
21 A. Five.
22 Q. Does that leave six publications that were in
23 journals of publishers other than the --
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. -- APS and AIP?
506
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is your allocation of your best papers among the
3 various publishers something that is typical for prominent
4 physicists?
5 A. I would think so, yes.
6 MR. LUPERT: Objection, your Honor, to the lack
7 of foundation. He has not been offered as an expert or
8 identified as an expert, and, frankly, I concede his
9 expertise in physics without question.
10 THE COURT: Do you want to lay a foundation?
11 Q. Professor Ramsey, do you read an extensive number
12 of literature in physics?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. LUPERT: Judge, I object. He has not been
15 offered as an expert. He just simply hasn't been offered
16 for this purpose. We had an identification of experts. We
17 went through the entire rule procedure. This is not a topic
18 he has been offered for. I therefore object to it.
19 THE COURT: I think it's a fact question. I
20 think he can testify if he believes it's within his
21 knowledge and background as to where something occurs. I
22 don't think that's --
23 MR. LUPERT: I think it would also be hearsay.
24 THE COURT: Overruled.
25 MR. LUPERT: I really do think this should have
507
1 been offered as expert testimony so we had a chance to
2 develop it if it's a relevant point. We have no ability to
3 counter this. I really don't particularly see its
4 relevance, but --
5 THE COURT: Overruled.
6 Q. Professor Ramsey, the question that I had asked
7 you was whether the allocation of your best papers among the
8 various publishers is one that you believe is typical for
9 productive physicists in the United States?
10 A. Yes. I think for the more productive ones, yes.
11 Though I will agree I'm not an expert. I've not analyzed
12 everyone else's paper.
13 Q. Why do you have so many of your publications, of
14 your best publications, in the journals of the APS and the
15 AIP?
16 A. Because, the first part of that is that it is the
17 high-prestige journal to publish in. If they are highly
18 selected and they will be read -- I mean, I publish things
19 because I want people to know about them, and this is the
20 best likelihood of their knowing about them, if they are
21 published in leading journals.
22 Q. Have you ever published in a Gordon & Breach
23 journal?
24 A. No, I have not.
25 Q. Why not?
508
1 A. Well, I haven't had anything special in that
2 field and I've not felt that -- I felt that the Physical
3 Review would be a much more desirable place to publish, if I
4 could get the paper accepted.
5 Q. Do you read articles in the field of physics in
6 connection with your work?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you read the journals cover to cover?
9 A. No.
10 Q. How do you select what to read?
11 A. Combination of reasons, of ways -- one is first
12 when you start on one thing, you pick up other
13 possibilities. The second thing is talking to other people.
14 The -- and scientific meetings. You learn about things.
15 Then there are several journals, such as Science
16 and Physics Today, which sort of report on interesting and
17 exciting news. And I hear about that -- for example, there
18 was recently one I feel very much interested in, by Karl
19 Wyman at the University of Colorado. I looked up that
20 article with great interest. It turned out it was in
21 Science Magazine.
22 Q. Do you receive preprints from --
23 A. Oh, yes.
24 Q. -- physicists that have citations that caused you
25 to go and read the article?
509
1 A. That's correct. That's correct.
2 Q. And you read review articles that provide
3 citations that give you direction of what to go and read?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Where do you obtain access to the --
6 A. I --
7 Q. -- articles that you want to read?
8 A. Through the libraries, mostly the Harvard College
9 Library.
10 Q. Would your access to an article in a library be
11 facilitated if the article were in a specialized journal or
12 a more general journal?
13 A. No, it would not -- it would be a little more
14 difficult, because I have nowhere to find it in the big
15 journals.
16 Q. A little more difficult --
17 A. That it would be more difficult finding the
18 journal. I think if it's an efficient sufficiently, highly
19 selective one, it might not be in the library.
20 Q. So is it your testimony -- I think there may be
21 confusion as to your answer on that question.
22 MR. LUPERT: Objection to the leading nature of
23 this entire inquiry, your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Refrain from leading.
25 MR. MESERVE: I am sorry.
510
1 Q. Is it your practice to cite the sources on which
2 you rely in your research?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. LUPERT: Judge, this is supposed to be direct
5 testimony. It's just not.
6 THE COURT: It is a leading question.
7 Q. Dr. Ramsey, could you describe your citation
8 practices in your publications?
9 A. Yes. I like to give credit where credit is due.
10 I cite the leading articles which led me to the development
11 a little bit on the -- if it's a totally new or fairly new
12 thing, I like to give the past history of it and quote the
13 people who did the earlier things that led to the ideas.
14 Q. Are you familiar with the Gordon & Breach
15 journals in the field of physics?
16 A. Some, not highly.
17 Q. Are there any particular Gordon & Breach journals
18 with which you are familiar?
19 A. The current topics of -- it is sort of Review
20 Journal.
21 Q. Are you referring to a Comments Journal?
22 A. Comments Journal is what -- the name I was trying
23 to think of.
24 Q. The Comments Journal, I think, in Nuclear
25 Physics?
511
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. How often do you look at that journal?
3 A. Not very often.
4 Q. If there were a good article in that journal, you
5 would cite it, wouldn't you?
6 A. Oh, sure.
7 Q. Have you ever cited a --
8 THE COURT: That's an instance of your refraining
9 from asking a leading question?
10 MR. MESERVE: I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm trying
11 to expedite this.
12 Q. Have you ever cited a Gordon & Breach journal?
13 MR. LUPERT: Judge, it's just -- the entire
14 examination is as if this was the cross of their own
15 witness, and I'm sorry to have to pop up every --
16 THE COURT: I think the point is well taken.
17 MR. MESERVE: Pardon me?
18 THE COURT: I think the point is well taken. I
19 think you can ask non-leading questions and it will not --
20 it will not slow things down. It will speed them up,
21 obviously.
22 MR. MESERVE: Yes, I understand.
23 Q. Could you describe your citation of Gordon &
24 Breach journals?
25 A. I believe I cited one very nice review article.
512
1 It had it on electric dipole moments field, which I have
2 done -- was chiefly quoted in -- it was an article based on
3 my work, as a matter of fact, but it was a very nice
4 summary.
5 Q. How many times have you cited it?
6 A. I think -- I don't know, and I have not had a
7 chance to really look it up. I think maybe once or in two
8 or three, somewhat, review articles.
9 Q. Could you describe your citation of the practices
10 regarding the journals of the APS and AIP?
11 A. Well, they -- I don't make any special effort to
12 do it for any special journal, but I do like to quote the
13 principal and give reference to the principal things that
14 led to the development and the ideas, and it's true, that's
15 very frequently one of the APS journals.
16 Q. What about AIP journals?
17 A. The same is true of AIP journals, particularly
18 the journal there that I probably most cite is the Journal
19 of Chemical Physics.
20 Q. Can you give us some notion of -- you said you
21 cite them frequently, but how frequently?
22 A. Well, I'd say -- it depends on what article I'm
23 writing on. If it's only one -- if it pertains to chemical
24 physics, in those areas, I would cite almost every article,
25 if it's one on --
513
1 Q. I meant with respect to your citation of APS and
2 AIP journals.
3 A. What? I don't understand the question.
4 Q. I was asking you a question about -- you said you
5 cite them frequently and I was asking the question how
6 frequently do you cite them?
7 A. Well, usually I would say -- any article,
8 depending on the length of the article, I would say most of
9 the articles I write will have maybe 15, 20, 25 citations,
10 out of which number probably, I think, 80 percent are
11 probably to the APS publications and the others to spread
12 over all the journals.
13 Q. Why so many citations of APS and AIP?
14 A. Because they haven't done --
15 MR. LUPERT: I object to the form of the
16 question.
17 THE COURT: Overruled.
18 A. Repeat the question, please.
19 Q. Why so many citations to APS and AIP journals?
20 A. Because that's where most of the important work
21 has been done in publishing.
22 Q. Professor Ramsey, are you a member of the
23 American Physical Society?
24 A. Yes, I am.
25 Q. Have you served as an officer?
514
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Could you briefly describe your experience as an
3 officer?
4 A. Right. My first serving as an officer was back
5 in 19 -- somewhere around 1950, when I was an elected member
6 of the Council of the American Physical Society, and then
7 later in 1978 and '79, I was President of the American
8 Physical Society, and this also included being vice
9 president over a period and past president.
10 Q. How were you selected?
11 A. This is by ballot of the Society, actually,
12 the -- to make sure there is some competition, the
13 Nominating Committee is required to nominate at least two
14 candidates, and then it -- further nominations are open to
15 members of the Society and then there is an election of the
16 members.
17 Q. Is it an honor to be selected president?
18 A. Yes, it's a great honor.
19 Q. Is there any work involved?
20 A. Yes, lots of work.
21 Q. There's more than one year of work involved?
22 A. Yes. It's about a four-year period. The first
23 period, as vice president, then as president elect and then
24 as president, and then most recent past president.
25 Q. You indicated it's a lot of work. Is it a
515
1 full-time job?
2 A. In some res -- you had to keep up your old
3 full-time job at Harvard while doing it, when I would say
4 it's pretty much of a full-time job in addition.
5 Q. What kind of people are selected as officers of
6 the --
7 A. Usually outstanding -- very outstanding
8 physicists.
9 Q. In what communities?
10 A. From the community of physics, I would say the
11 majority probably come from universities, some of them come
12 from industry.
13 Q. What is the purpose, if you know, of the American
14 Physical Society?
15 A. The purpose is, I think, very well stated in its
16 constitution. It's for the purposes of advancing the
17 knowledge and advancing and diffusing the knowledge of
18 physics and its applications to human welfare.
19 Q. Do you know what the APS's tax status is?
20 A. It's non-profit.
21 Q. How large is the membership of APS?
22 A. About 40,000.
23 Q. Do you know the international distribution of
24 membership of the APS?
25 A. I don't know the exact amount. There is a big
516
1 international distribution; I would say probably 90 percent,
2 85, 90 percent are probably U.S. citizens, but there is
3 quite a large foreign membership.
4 Q. Are the members principally physicists?
5 A. The members are almost all physicists, although
6 the requirements for becoming a member are not very severe,
7 so you can be a member without it.
8 Q. Are members required to publish in APS journals?
9 A. No.
10 Q. How does the APS go about achieving this purpose
11 of advancing the knowledge and diffusion of physics?
12 A. By a variety of mechanisms. One important one is
13 we arrange meetings of the -- annual meetings and for sort
14 of all physics in which there are invited papers, usually
15 about 45 minutes' duration on the principal advances in the
16 field recently. Then any member of it can contribute at
17 each meeting one ten-minute long contributed paper.
18 Then there are four or five slightly more
19 specialized meetings, usually several of the fields of
20 physics in those meetings, taking place in different parts
21 of the country, and then there are much smaller meetings
22 which are sponsored by the Physical Society. Then of course
23 very importantly are the journals, particularly for the
24 Physical Society, the Physical Review, which, incidentally,
25 the title is a little confusing. The word "review" is in
517
1 that. This is an original source for original publications.
2 It's chiefly because it's a hundred years old. That was the
3 title picked a hundred years ago. Everybody knows what it
4 is. It's quite different from, say, The Reviews of Modern
5 Physics, which is also an APS publication, which is a review
6 journal that usually has reviews of a number of articles.
7 Q. The Physical Review Letters is another entity?
8 A. Physical Review Letters is a very important
9 additional part of the others -- it's for faster publication
10 of particularly urgent papers, but then this is --
11 publication is by no means the only activity. We also have
12 various programs for supporting education in the schools,
13 for the arrangement for mentor or mentors from the
14 universities to give talks in various high schools in their
15 area, and the same thing from the people from the larger
16 universities, come to the smaller ones and give talks.
17 There is a special program for women and
18 minorities in physics with which we had more women and more
19 minorities in physics and efforts to encourage that.
20 There's a program on scholarships for that. There are
21 prizes awarded for -- particularly with emphasis for
22 younger people. And then there is an international, very
23 important international activity, both for international
24 arrangements of meetings and cooperation, but also, in
25 special cases, for example, for the poorer countries, we
518
1 arrange for means of getting some publications to the
2 libraries which cannot support it, at least some of the
3 principal publications, including in our own journals but
4 also some contributed by the people.
5 Q. Does the Society also have activities in the
6 area, general area of public affairs?
7 A. Yes. Yes, there's a special -- both in the
8 information link, for example, I've had a study at one stage
9 on photovoltaics, whether this was any possibility of ever
10 contributing to the energy problem or not. And the answer
11 was, it looks -- it's difficult. It's going to be expensive
12 but maybe it will come in.
13 Q. Who runs the Society?
14 A. It's run by, I would say basically by the
15 Council. It's an elective council of members. There
16 actually are two ways the Council is formed. Actually, the
17 Society is divided into divisions, the different fields of
18 activity, and each division has one or more members of the
19 Council, and then there are openly -- there are general
20 counselors that are elected by the whole membership.
21 Q. Are the members of the Council compensated?
22 A. No, neither is the president.
23 Q. From what community do the members come from?
24 A. I would say it comes -- probably mostly from
25 university, but it comes from the physics community. It
519
1 includes people from industry. It includes people from the
2 universities. And --
3 Q. There has been previous testimony about the three
4 principal operating officers of the Society. Are those
5 officers physicists?
6 A. Yes. They are. They are. And there are some
7 paid officers of the Society, as the president or vice
8 president, but there is a treasurer and executive officer,
9 used to be executive secretary, at the time I was there, and
10 then the editor-in-chief.
11 Q. Who sets the policy for the APS?
12 A. The Council.
13 Q. Do the members of the Council have any personal
14 financial stake in the APS?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What in your experience are the most important
17 considerations that guide the decisions of the Council?
18 A. I would say the things that are specified in
19 the -- in the charter, in the constitution, namely, for the
20 advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics and
21 its applications to human welfare.
22 Q. Do you have personal experience with the American
23 Institute of Physics?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What is that experience?
520
1 A. I was chairman of the governing board of the
2 American Institute of Physics for about six years, from
3 about 1980 to 1986.
4 Q. What is the function of the board?
5 A. It is the governing board. It is just like the
6 Council of the Physical Society. It is what determines the
7 policy of the organization and elects the officials and the
8 paid staff.
9 Q. What is the purpose of the American Institute of
10 Physics?
11 A. The purpose of the American Physical -- of the
12 American Institute of Physics is essentially the same. Its
13 constitution is also for the advancement and diffusion of
14 the knowledge of physics and its application to human
15 welfare, but in the case of the American Institute of
16 Physics, which is really an organization of which the
17 members are other organizations -- the Physical Society is
18 one of the member organizations of the American Institute of
19 Physics, but so also is the Acoustical Society, Astronomical
20 Association, and nine other organizations. And it
21 basically -- the American Institute of Physics does the
22 things which are best done by that group together as opposed
23 to separately.
24 Q. Why are some things best done collectively?
25 A. Because they can be done more efficiently. For
521
1 example -- and they are sometimes done cooperatively. For
2 example, one of the valuable things done by both are the
3 matters pertaining to employment opportunities, and
4 particularly there is a range of -- many meetings of, say,
5 the Physical Society are a -- oh, what is colloquially
6 called the slave market, I apologize, but it's essentially
7 an opportunity for potential new Ph.D.s to be interviewed by
8 professors who are looking for high-rate employers,
9 employees, and now that -- one is somewhat administered in
10 part by AIP. It's somewhat managed by APS.
11 Q. How does the AIP achieve its purposes?
12 A. It achieves its purpose by getting a examination
13 of things. A different but very important one is once or
14 twice a year for the officers of the member societies to
15 have a meeting at which they can exchange their views. They
16 can discuss common problems and how best to meet them and
17 solutions that different people have done.
18 Q. Has the a -- excuse me, professor. I didn't mean
19 to interrupt you.
20 Does the AIP publish journals?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Why does it publish journals?
23 A. I would say it publishes journals which, I would
24 say, in a certain sense they feel need to be published that
25 aren't being published by other organizations, but, in
522
1 particular, ones that are more cross-field. For example,
2 the one that I am most familiar with and have had a fair
3 number of -- several of my publications in is the Journal on
4 Chemical Physics.
5 Q. Beyond the scientific journals, are there any
6 other publications?
7 A. Yes. It also publishes the Physics Today, which
8 actually goes to member -- not just to the Physical Society
9 but also it goes to the other organizations who are member
10 organizations who are members of AIP. It's a general review
11 journal.
12 Q. Does the AIP publish books now?
13 A. It used to publish but I believe it is stopping
14 that.
15 Q. You mentioned that AIP has some service
16 functions. You mentioned career planning and placement
17 activity.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Are there other service functions?
20 A. Oh, yes. I mean, for example, that's one which
21 adds an efficiency. Although to the Physical Review, it's
22 published -- the publisher officially is the American
23 Physical Society. The actual mechanics of putting out the
24 publication is handled by the American Institute of Physics.
25 And it also -- American Institute of Physics does that for a
523
1 number of other journals, a number of the member societies
2 as well. It's a very helpful service to them.
3 Q. Does the AIP conduct statistical studies?
4 A. Yes, particularly on employment opportunities.
5 It tries to make -- a very difficult thing -- to make
6 predictions as to how -- what's going to be the need of
7 physicists in the future. Future-predicting is hard.
8 Q. Are there any activities of the AIP in the
9 general area of the history of physics?
10 A. Yes, yes, a very important one. There is the
11 so-called Neils Bohr Library, which is the main library,
12 actually, for history of physics, and then along with it, a
13 library collection. They also do a very good correlation
14 job. They don't try to do it all themselves. They, for
15 example, had urged me to have the historian at Harvard be
16 sure I get him the right kind of collection of my files.
17 They won't want to bother with them there. They try to be
18 serving more. But there is a center from which the people
19 who are interested in the history of physics can go to find
20 out where the files are.
21 Q. You mentioned the governing board. Are the
22 members of the governing board volunteers?
23 A. The members of the governing board are indeed
24 volunteers. They are unpaid. But they are usually selected
25 by the member societies. In other words, there are these
524
1 various organizations that are part of it. And each one of
2 these nominates or -- nominates or selects members of the
3 group to be on the governing board. And then the chairman
4 of the governing board is elected by the board as a whole.
5 Q. I would like to turn to some of the issues that
6 have been raised in this case.
7 Are you familiar with page charges --
8 A. Yes, I am.
9 Q. -- of physics journals?
10 What are they?
11 A. They are an attempt to help on a very serious
12 problem in physics: The cost of preparing the first print
13 version is very expensive because of the mathematic setup
14 and whatnot, and it is a small fraction of the total
15 research cost but it is a large cost as a book. And I think
16 many of us feel -- I think if it could be done, it's the
17 best way -- that it is best actually to have part of the
18 cost of the original setup of the article paid for as part
19 of research.
20 Q. Who pays the page charges?
21 A. It is paid for from the research grant of the
22 individual. Now, in some respects I hate paying page
23 charges because it reduces my research money. But it is
24 also a very unfair burden to put such an expense on the
25 libraries.
525
1 Q. Are page charges -- something a researcher
2 submits, an article, he pays to have the article published;
3 is that right?
4 A. Yes. It's charged through his research grant.
5 Now, ultimately, that means it comes from the research
6 foundation, or the government, whichever provided the money.
7 Q. Does the money come from a library budget?
8 A. No, no, not from the library, no.
9 Q. Well, you have indicated, in your discussion of
10 page charges, part of the reasons why there are page charges
11 is to defray part of the expenses of the dissemination of
12 research information. Are there problems that have arisen
13 with page charges?
14 A. Oh, yes, there are problems. I mentioned one.
15 And I feel it myself. I hate to see my -- some of my
16 research money spent for any purpose other than more
17 research, so there is -- the research scientist, on the one
18 hand, does not want to lose his research money. On the
19 other hand, he also doesn't want the libraries to be
20 impoverished, because they are one of the principal means of
21 diffusing the knowledge of physics.
22 Q. Have page charges been a source of controversy --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- at APS and AIP?
25 A. Yes, they are. For the reasons I have mentioned,
526
1 it is clear you can either say there should be no page
2 charges or there should be. And you can worry that the page
3 charges may reduce some people's willingness to write
4 articles.
5 Q. You mentioned earlier that the Physical Review
6 had several sections.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What do you mean by "sections"?
9 A. Well, they are subdivided according to fields of
10 interest. I mean, there's and A, B, C, and D, and E, as it
11 now is. And, for example, A is one of the ones I'm very
12 active in, atomic, molecular and optical physics. B is
13 condensed matter physics in which I do research. C is
14 nuclear physics in which I have done some research. D is
15 particle physics, in which I had published things. And E
16 is, I think, what used to be part of A. It moved over into
17 E, and it has to do with things like chaos.
18 Q. Is there a logic, if you know it, to the -- as a
19 physicist, in looking at the various sections of Physical
20 Review, that explains how things have been subdivided?
21 A. Well, I think, yes, there is a logic. It's not a
22 unique logic. There are many ways these things would be
23 divided. I think the way it's divided in the Physical
24 Review is a good one but it is by no means the only way.
25 Q. Why is it a good one?
527
1 A. It's a good one because you can find the articles
2 easily. It's easy to remember. But, for example, you can
3 equally well make a division in which, as is done in some
4 journals, some of the European journals, you combine nuclear
5 and particle physics, you put them in the same category.
6 Q. But are the matters covered in, for example,
7 Physical Review A, interconnected fields of physics?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In your experience, are the articles in Physical
10 Review any less specialized than those in other journals?
11 A. No. No.
12 Q. Could you explain what sort of necessary level of
13 detail is required for an article in a journal publishing
14 original research?
15 A. Well, in the first place, it's different in a
16 letter article -- in the Physical Review Letters it's
17 different than in Physical Review. Because Physical Review
18 Letters is restricted in length, but in particular, even in
19 that you try to give all the background to understand it.
20 But in the Physical Review articles, you certainly should
21 explain things in enough detail so that the experiment can
22 be repeated by other people, so that it can be criticized,
23 and criticized intelligently, and found to be erroneous if
24 it's erroneous.
25 Q. Do the norms of science require a certain level
528
1 of detail so as to enable this capacity to replicate and
2 verify the research results?
3 A. Yes, they do. I think it's -- some authors are
4 better about doing it than others.
5 Q. During your terms of activity with the APS and
6 AIP, were there debates about the pricing of journals?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What was the nature of those debates?
9 A. I think debated -- it's basic schizophrenia. On
10 the one hand, we are anxious to get the word out or anxious
11 to have the libraries have subscriptions to all the possible
12 journals, so we want to keep the prices down. On the other
13 hand, we have the problem if we do it in part by page
14 charges, then that comes off of research budgets, and so we
15 try -- we have to compromise.
16 Q. What would be the impact of increasing prices of
17 the AIP and APS journals on subscriptions?
18 A. I don't think it would have much of an impact at
19 all on the number of our subscriptions. It would have a
20 little impact. I mean, for example, the very poor countries
21 would probably be unable to continue their subscription. A
22 few cases where universities have multiple subscriptions,
23 they could drop it, but the biggest effect of a big increase
24 in Physical Review prices would be, I think, a marked
25 reduction in the ability of libraries to purchase other
529
1 journals.
2 Q. Are you familiar with the article that was
3 published in Physics Today by Professor Barschall in July
4 1988?
5 A. I now am.
6 Q. That's Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3.
7 A. Yes. Actually, I did not read it when it first
8 came out.
9 Q. I'm going to hand you a copy of Plaintiffs'
10 Exhibit 3.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You said you didn't read it when it came out --
13 A. No.
14 Q. -- but you read it --
15 A. I read it when it became a controversial issue.
16 Q. Meaning before your deposition in this case?
17 A. Yes, before my deposition, yes.
18 Q. I would like to have you turn to Table 1 of
19 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3. That's found at page 58.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. I would like to have you look at the fact that
22 this table is clustered into eight different broad
23 categories; is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do these groupings, in your view, reflect a
530
1 sensible way to examine the physics literature?
2 A. Yes.
3 MR. LUPERT: Objection, your Honor.
4 A. It's not --
5 MR. LUPERT: I object. We're getting back to
6 leading.
7 THE COURT: Overruled.
8 A. Yes, I think it's a very sensible one. It is not
9 a unique one. I could -- there could be several others
10 which I would also think are sensible.
11 Q. I would like to have you look through each of the
12 categories and tell me which of the categories are ones in
13 which you have published work.
14 A. Right. I have certainly published things in
15 letters journals and review journals, atomic physics. I
16 have not done anything in condensed matter physics. I have
17 done in nuclear physics, particle physics, and I think one
18 each in applied physics and instrumentation.
19 Q. Is there any major journal in each of these areas
20 that should have been included in this table that wasn't?
21 A. It's --
22 MR. LUPERT: Objection.
23 A. -- very hard to think of all other journals.
24 MR. LUPERT: Objection. This is --
25 THE COURT: Excuse me?
531
1 MR. LUPERT: Withdrawn, your Honor.
2 A. Would you repeat -- please run through -- I'm not
3 sure if the question was approved or not.
4 THE COURT: You may answer.
5 A. Yes. I don't see any obvious omissions, but it's
6 very hard in looking at a list to tell whether something
7 isn't there.
8 Q. You're not aware of any major journal that was
9 excluded?
10 A. I don't see Physical Review E, although it may be
11 because at the time this was prepared there may not have
12 been a Physical Review E.
13 Q. And Physical Review E, in your view, is a major
14 journal?
15 A. Yes. But I think it was started -- I believe it
16 was split off from A probably after this was published.
17 Q. Would you rely on the Barschall methodology or on
18 the Barschall articles in selecting the journals that you
19 need for your work?
20 A. No, I would not, not, I think, if the article
21 seemed to me very reliable for what it does and it defines
22 well what it does. On the other hand, I'm -- I know from
23 reading the journals what ones I would want.
24 Q. Well, should libraries, in your view, rely on it?
25 A. I think -- no, they should not. Libraries should
532
1 depend -- make full utilization of what's usually in the
2 library committees in the different fields. For example, at
3 Harvard, there's a library committee and it basically
4 recommends to the library what really is of greatest
5 interest to the people there, and it shouldn't be done just
6 by any sort of rule of cost or impact even. On the other
7 hand, I think it's an excellent article and it's nice
8 information for the people who make the decision.
9 Q. Should the information be available to the
10 libraries?
11 A. Oh, it should certainly be available.
12 Q. Have your views on the usage of the Barschall
13 article changed since your deposition in this case?
14 A. No. They may not be totally clear as stated in
15 the deposition. They haven't changed.
16 Q. Did you intend to imply anything different about
17 the use of the Barschall article in your deposition --
18 MR. LUPERT: Objection. We are resuscitating a
19 witness that hasn't even been cross-examined.
20 THE COURT: I think it's a little anticipatory
21 rebuttal.
22 Q. Did you intend to imply anything different during
23 your --
24 MR. LUPERT: Objection, your Honor.
25 THE COURT: Sustained.
533
1 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I have no further
2 questions of this witness.
3 THE COURT: We will take a five-minute recess.
4 MR. LUPERT: Thank you, Judge.
5 (Recess)
6 THE COURT: Mr. Lupert?
7 MR. LUPERT: Thank you.
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. LUPERT:
10 Q. Dr. Ramsey, we met when I had the --
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. -- opportunity to take your deposition in Boston
13 a few weeks ago.
14 One of the topics we talked about at that
15 deposition, you may recall, was the question of whether
16 either AIP or APS was interested at certain times in the
17 issue of creating new journals, new specialized journals.
18 Do you remember we talked about that?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. As I recall your testimony, what you said was
21 that there were discussions about that very topic, correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And a problem invariably arose, however, and --
24 that's correct too, right?
25 A. Yes. Well, not invariably, but usually.
534
1 Q. Usually. That's a fair word. Usually arose.
2 And the problem that arose was that there were basically --
3 and if I state this wrong, just correct me -- but there were
4 basically so many different factions that had reasons for
5 why particular specialized -- new specialized journals might
6 be a good idea or might not be a good idea that it led to
7 just interminable debate, that might go on for a couple of
8 years. By the time you got to the end of the debate, there
9 really wasn't any need for the journal anymore.
10 A. That is, I would say, an overstatement, but they
11 were interminable, as you correctly say -- term it, and, no,
12 new journals were started.
13 Q. There were some.
14 A. But it was not very effective.
15 Q. But it was hard to start a new journal,
16 basically?
17 A. It's a very democratic organization.
18 Q. It was the environment that really prevented the
19 creation of new journals, correct?
20 A. Didn't prevent. But there was the advantage of a
21 democracy, but it's slow, but it's also an advantage of
22 democracy that it proceeds well.
23 Q. It's a fair statement, just to summarize it, that
24 at the time you were involved -- and I'm going to come back
25 to the time frame in just a minute -- but starting a
535
1 specialty journal was hard because different factions had
2 their own interests?
3 A. It was hard, yes.
4 Q. And I believe you had testified at your
5 deposition that in your view, commercial publishers could
6 move much faster?
7 A. Yes, they can.
8 Q. And I think you also testified that there is a
9 need for commercial publishers, correct?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. And one of the reasons why there is a need for
12 commercial publishers is because society simply can't
13 publish all the good articles that are out there?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. In fact, while Mr. Meserve brought out the fact
16 that certainly the great majority of your papers are in the
17 journals of the two organizations you were affiliated with,
18 you in fact have published with commercial journals?
19 A. Yes. Particularly physics letters.
20 Q. I'm sorry, sir?
21 A. Physics letters is one of the principal ones. It
22 is a major -- a European journal.
23 Q. I just wanted to mention that it's relevant to
24 this case that there are not-for-profit publishers and there
25 are commercial publishers and you have published some papers
536
1 with commercial publishers?
2 A. Sure.
3 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, Mr. Lupert, I am sure,
4 is well-intentioned, but he keeps on interrupting the
5 witness in his answer.
6 MR. LUPERT: Do I? I'm sorry. If I do, please,
7 I don't mean to.
8 Q. But so we're on the same wavelength -- and if I
9 interrupted you, please, give a full answer -- you have
10 published with commercial publishers?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. Now, while you obviously have an enormously
13 varied and wonderful career, frankly, there are certain
14 subspecialties of physics about which you really don't know
15 very much, correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. One of the examples that come up in this case is
18 ferroelectrics. It's fair to say that is an area you don't
19 know too much about, right?
20 A. Well, I know a little about it, because we have
21 used it.
22 Q. But you have not published in that area, right?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you know what percentage, even in approximate
25 terms, the Gordon & Breach journal Ferroelectrics publishes
537
1 of all the research in the area of ferroelectrics?
2 A. No, I do not.
3 Q. If I told you that there had been testimony in
4 this case that the journal ferroelectrics, the Gordon &
5 Breach journal, publishes in the neighborhood of 25 percent
6 or so of the research, that would not be something you would
7 know? No?
8 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I object. This witness
9 has just said he doesn't know anything about --
10 THE COURT: He has repeated that he doesn't know.
11 And Mr. Lupert's question isn't evidence.
12 Q. Do you have the Physics Today article up there
13 with you?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15 Q. You were asked some questions by Mr. Meserve
16 concerning the journals that are called Physical Review A
17 and divide themselves up into A, B, C, D, and perhaps E
18 these days. I am correct, am I not, about the following
19 principle: First, Physical Review A, for example, publishes
20 specialized research, correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. True. But the specialized research that it
23 publishes is in a variety of different specialties, correct?
24 A. Yes, but in atomic molecular optical.
25 Q. The point that I'm trying to get at, and just
538
1 tell me if you agree, is that the journal called Physical
2 Review A, while it publishes highly specialized research,
3 publishes papers in a variety of specializations?
4 A. Yes. You could subdivide on down and down, yes.
5 Q. Indeed, I think at the deposition you were good
6 enough to tell me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that in the
7 subcategory called atomic physics, for example -- do you see
8 it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- the journal called Hyperfine Interaction,
11 which is the fifth journal -- do you see it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. That is published by a commercial publisher,
14 correct?
15 That is one of the specialties that is covered by
16 Physical Review A as well?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. But that Physical Review A just doesn't cover
19 hyperfine interaction?
20 A. Oh, no. Physical Review A, I would certainly --
21 I have written a number of papers on hyperfine interactions
22 and they have been published in Physical Review A.
23 Q. Right. But Physical Review A would also cover
24 papers that you have written or that others have written on
25 other specialties?
539
1 A. That's correct, but in the somewhat limited field
2 of atomic physics.
3 Q. Correct. And I take it the same is true, as we
4 look through each of these six substantive subdivisions that
5 Professor Barschall used, that each of the Physical Review
6 sections that are listed there are general journals in the
7 sense that they publish in a variety of different
8 specializations; that's a fair characterization, is it not?
9 A. Well, there is specialization and specialization.
10 I mean, many people would consider atomic physics as a field
11 of specialization. It's not all of physics. But it's also
12 true there are subdivisions within atomic physics. There
13 are subdivisions within hyperfine interactions if you want
14 to go on. Hyperfine is in the subfield of hyperatomic
15 physics and hyperfine interactions of atoms is another
16 subdivision within that specialty.
17 Q. Let me focus you on instrumentation just as an
18 example. I'm not going to take you through every one of
19 these subdivisions, but just as an example, the third entry,
20 could you tell me what that stands for, the AIP journal?
21 A. Reviews of Scientific Instruments.
22 Q. The Reviews of Scientific Instruments, I think
23 you testified --
24 A. It's an AIP journal, I think, yes.
25 Q. I think I said an AIP journal. But it is an AIP
540
1 journal.
2 A. Sorry.
3 Q. The Review of Scientific Instruments, it's fair
4 to say it covers the gamut of topics in instrumentation,
5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. While the journal Particle Accelerators, or at
8 least the topic particle accelerators, the last one on that
9 list, that is a specialized field within the area of
10 instrumentation?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 A. But, for example, I have published an article on
14 accelerators in the AIP -- the Review of Scientific
15 Instruments. And it was a fairly specialized one.
16 Q. But again, not to belabor the point, but the
17 review of science instruments covers topics other than
18 particle accelerators?
19 A. Yes, it does.
20 Q. Now, you were president of the APS, and I think
21 if I recall correctly, but tell me if I'm wrong, the year
22 was 1979?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You were the operating head of the governing
25 council -- I have forgotten the title, frankly.
541
1 A. Well, the president of APS is also the chairman
2 of the governing board --
3 Q. Chairman of the governing --
4 A. -- of the council of the American Physical
5 Society.
6 Q. And with respect to the AIP, could you remind me
7 what your position was?
8 A. My position, that was at a later period, and that
9 was chairman of the governing board of the American --
10 Q. Chairman. Thank you, I just had forgotten the
11 title. Chairman of the governing board, you had that
12 position up until 1985, correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And we went over this in some detail at your
15 deposition. But is it an accurate statement to say that,
16 since you left your position as chairman of the executive
17 council of AIP, you have had nothing substantive to do with
18 the business operations of either the AIP or APS?
19 A. Nothing major.
20 Q. And you have had nothing whatsoever to do with
21 the marketing aspect of their journals?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Correct? And I take it this is a fair statement.
24 As you sit here today, you have no knowledge of what the
25 current marketing program's goals are of either of the
542
1 societies? This isn't something you have kept from --
2 A. No, I think I could guess some, but I would not
3 know.
4 Q. Do you know Dr. Harry Lustig, who is sitting in
5 the second row?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. As I understand it -- correct me again if I'm
8 wrong -- you did not overlap. That is, he was not the
9 treasurer --
10 A. No.
11 Q. -- of APS when you had a senior position with
12 either AIP or APS?
13 A. He was not. Joe Burton was then the treasurer.
14 Q. Is it fair to say that, since 1985, when you no
15 longer --
16 A. Well, in '86, I --
17 Q. Was it 1986? OK. From 1986 forward, you don't
18 know what efforts, if any, Dr. Lustig, for example, took
19 with respect to a perception, if there were one, about a
20 rising cancellation rate of APS journals?
21 A. No.
22 Q. And you don't know whether there grew a
23 perception during the time frame that Dr. Lustig was
24 involved of whether the ever increasing prices of APS
25 journals actually would be causing cancellations by
543
1 librarians?
2 MR. MESERVE: Your Honor, I object. He has
3 already said he doesn't know if marketing activities were
4 prosperous in this period.
5 THE COURT: I will allow it.
6 Q. Do you remember my question?
7 A. No, I do not.
8 Q. Or you do not know?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Just one follow-up question. Do you know one way
11 or another whether Dr. Lustig and perhaps his colleagues at
12 the APS actually sent out mass mailings of Professor
13 Barschall's surveys to librarians?
14 A. No, although I've heard about it, but I do not
15 know directly, no.
16 Q. You do not know directly? And do you know
17 whether that is in fact the kind of marketing effort that
18 the APS or AIP is determined to do in the future?
19 A. No.
20 Q. With respect to Gordon & Breach's comments
21 journals, you gave a little testimony about that when
22 Mr. Meserve asked you. I believe you either testified today
23 or you told me at the deposition that one of your articles
24 was in fact the subject of a comment.
25 A. Yes, correct.
544
1 Q. By that I mean in one of the comments journals of
2 Gordon & Breach?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You thought that was fairly well written and you
5 were pleased with it?
6 A. Yes. That's the one I hope -- I should at
7 least -- have given a reference to in one of my articles. I
8 think I probably did.
9 Q. Do you know whether the authors in the comments
10 in the comments journals are paid or not?
11 A. I think they are paid.
12 Q. The comments is basically an overview, isn't it?
13 Is that a fair statement?
14 A. It's usually a short summary.
15 Q. Right. It's not a research -- it's not a basic
16 research --
17 A. No.
18 Q. -- article? Correct?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Bet yet you agree with me that the comments
21 journals serve a useful purpose, don't they?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. With respect to page charge revenue, during the
24 time that you were familiar with the topic, 1986 and before,
25 there was a general perception, at least by some of the
545
1 people on the governing board of AIP and APS executives,
2 that without page charge income, prices would have gone up
3 significantly?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you share that?
6 A. Yes, I think significantly, yes. I don't know
7 the amount.
8 Q. But there would have been analyses that were made
9 of the amounts back in that time frame, correct?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And there was also, was there not, discussion
12 over a period of years, with some frequency, let's say,
13 about what impact the elimination of page charges and the
14 subsequent increase in prices would have with respect to the
15 ability to attract authors to the APS journals, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Indeed, there was a concern expressed by some
18 that even Nobel Prize winners like yourself, and Nobel
19 laureates, people of the highest levels of your profession,
20 would or might go to publications not charging page charges
21 to avoid having to pay them?
22 A. Well, it's certainly true that, under certain
23 circumstances, Nobel Prize winners are good examples of one
24 who might -- they are requested to write a great many
25 invited articles, and they do tend to have a larger fraction
546
1 of their things done elsewhere. It's also, as they get old
2 enough so they no longer have research grants, they either
3 have to pay out of their own pocket for it or alternatively
4 they are also entitled, as is anyone else, to say, no, he
5 has no funds for paying for it, in which case the journals
6 that do the page charges will publish the journal. But
7 that's always a little embarrassing for a Nobel Prize winner
8 to say, look, I'll do it too. So actually my last article
9 for the -- in the Physical Review, I paid the page charges
10 personally. So I think it's a good thing.
11 Q. But you have actually -- I think you testified to
12 this too -- you actually had articles or at least on
13 occasion articles published in commercial journals, and one
14 of your reasons for it was you really didn't want to pay the
15 page charges?
16 A. Well, we did have one of the articles I did with
17 the collaborators, some collaborators in England, France,
18 and Germany, on an experiment we were doing at Grenoble, and
19 they felt they would rather not pay -- have page charges,
20 and we agreed, I'm very happy.
21 Q. And it was published --
22 A. It was published with Physics Letters they're
23 than Physical Review Letters.
24 Q. Physics letters is published by one of the
25 commercial publishers?
547
1 A. That's correct. I think it's part of Elsevier.
2 Q. When I asked you a moment ago about whether they
3 were executives of the APS -- and I will refer you to David
4 Lazarus. You know David Lazarus?
5 A. I know David Lazarus very well.
6 Q. David Lazarus was one of the senior executives at
7 one point?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you recall that at one of the meetings you
10 attended at the APS, Dr. Lazarus made the statement that
11 Nobel laureates on occasion were not publishing with society
12 journals as a result of page charges?
13 A. I don't remember him making that exact statement.
14 At the time I was not a Nobel laureate. I think it's
15 undoubtedly a true statement and not totally due to page
16 charges. I think there is a tendency, since Nobel laureates
17 tend, by definition, to be getting somewhat older, that
18 probably they are invited to publish in many other journals
19 as well.
20 Q. Let me put this before you. It was quite some
21 time ago. This goes back to September 6, 1984. It is
22 Plaintiffs' Exhibit 13. These are the executive committee
23 meeting minutes of the American Institute of Physics, which
24 indicates you were there as the chairman of the AIP.
25 A. Correct.
548
1 Q. I think I showed you these at the deposition.
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. So if I might put this before you and ask you to
4 take a look at the first paragraph of it, does that refresh
5 your recollection specifically that David Lazarus was
6 expressing a concern that Nobel laureates would not publish
7 with society journals as a result of page charges?
8 A. I think it probably does. I think the key is the
9 sentence, "There was no consensus." And that was, I think,
10 how it was left, but I am not able to say whether Lazarus
11 made that statement or someone else.
12 Q. You don't really remember whether it was Lazarus?
13 A. I don't really remember it, but I would certainly
14 not disagree with it.
15 Q. I think you testified that generally speaking the
16 minutes of |