FW: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

["Barbara Meredith" <bmeredith@publishers.org>]

Scholarly publishers of peer-reviewed journals add value in the 
course of investing in the oversight of the process of expert 
peer review, and the consequent association of a journal's brand 
and reputation (including "rank" by measures such as ISI Impact 
Factor) with an author's work. That is transformative value for 
the author, who can leverage the published work as proof that the 
research conducted was judged to be sufficiently authoritative 
and significant as to merit additional grant funding or other 
recognition. The additional value that is added by scientific 
publishers who undertake copyediting, proofreading, formatting, 
and dissemination in print and online (with adherence to 
bibliographic and online linking standards that enable reliable 
archiving and discovery)is added primarily for the benefit of the 
customer and reader, but is also a service to the author. 
Publishers do thereby enhance also the accuracy of scientific 
communications, as well as provide for information dissemination 
and archiving in a fashion that adheres to library and industry 
standards.

Barbara J. Meredith
Vice President
Professional/Scholarly Publishing
Association of American Publishers, Inc.
71 Fifth Avenue, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10003 USA
Tel: 1-212-255-0200 X223
Fx:  1-212-255-7007
bmeredith@publishers.org
www.pspcentral.org
www.publishers.org

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] Janellyn P Kleiner
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing
errors

It is not my intent to be argumentative. I just want some answers 
and examples because, in my experience, it most DEFINITELY is NOT 
a fact that the paper accepted differs in content from the paper 
published, other than print format, UNLESS the editor is 
accepting inferior papers. The only difference that I've 
experienced in my published papers was a change in a title ONCE 
which, frankly, I thought was presumptuous on the journal 
editor's part and not as accurate regarding the paper's content.

I have decades of experience in 
journalism/masscomm/writing/publishing even PR as well as a 
library/information science degree.  I started out in junior 
high, continued through high school & college, then as a 
newspaper reporter, and have edited/published for my university 
and for the American Library Assn. Demands from my husband & 
children got me into librarianship because I was never home while 
in the business world (but I was so stunned by the way libraries 
did business that I resigned 3 times my first year from the 
academic library where I was Head of Circulation). I've adjusted 
and am now Associate Dean at an ARL library but my commercial 
background still rears its head at times. The diffences in the 
business world & academia are drastic & even today, there are 
times that I'm still appalled at the 'goings-on' in the scholarly 
world.

The articles coming across my desk in this career that needed 
substantive changes or 'appeared' to include inaccuracies were 
rejected with the exceptions of some conference proceedings that 
couldn't be rejected and they did need LOTs of editing help. I've 
also been invited to apply for the editor positions of College & 
Research Libraries and RQ/RUSA Quarterly and refused due to time 
constraints. I'm providing this history because I want you to 
know that my interests & curiousity are real and I'm not sniping 
at anyone. I'd just like some answers that may blow holes in my 
current opinion that scholarly publishing is the most profitable 
venture going in the world of publishing.

Some of my scientist friends have told me they need help from 
editors but the help needed is simplistic -- grammar, spelling, 
sentence structure, minor changes that any literate colleague 
could provide. It wasn't that they didn't have the skills, they 
didn't want to spend their time basically editing their own 
articles because it took them away from their labs. You see I've 
been intrigued (or horrified) by scholarly publishing from the 
time I learned they paid page charges in many of the sciences to 
get published -- four decades ago -- and it was not inexpensive.

Since I formerly wrote for a living, I went into shock about 
paying to be published (pure vanity press methods to me) to be 
followed by further shock when I learned that I was NOT getting 
paid by College & Research Libraries for the article my library 
director had asked me to do. Any other time, I'd have known the 
payment status in advance but I was simply doing him a favor and 
expecting to earn a few bucks on ths side. Little did I know. To 
this day, I still think authors of papers should be paid. Yes, 
it's part of tenure & promotion and I've made it to the Professor 
rank myself, but I do not think it's good practice for 
academicians. Unfortunately, most have not been that interested 
after gaining promotion & tenure until recent journal prices 
skyrocketed and began to threaten their research library 
collections.

I do know the difference between copy editing and proof reading, 
the latter often done by the author when he/she is provided the 
proof. In many scientific journals, copy editors do NOT have a 
scientific background equivalent to the researcher. How can they 
'pick up serious errors' other than house style, grammar, etc. 
Journal editors, when confronted, gloss over explaining their 
'value-added' arguments claiming they are not really the point. 
They ARE the point in view of the horrendous prices some 
publishers charge universities for journals that could not exist 
without papers submitted by the universities' researchers. And, 
who supports the researchers?  The very institutions charged 
outragious subscription fees for papers jointly supported by 
their institutions and funding agencies so it is VERY important 
to have journals' editing tasks and value-added activities 
enumerated and justified.

I truly do not mean to be argumentative but it would be a welcome 
change to get some straight answers. Please provide some 
justification for these claims, or at least examples of the kind 
of substantive changes made by journal editors. To me, the only 
added value I have seen, & it's a superb addition, is the linking 
of references to the full-text articles. That truly is a service 
but it's a mechanical one. I have a couple of colleagues, both 
scientists, who serve as editors and are well-paid for having 
their names listed as editors, but they can't justify the 
'value-added' arguments made by the publishers of their work. I'm 
very curious about this.  Could some of the editors on this 
listserv provide those answers please?  They may help those of us 
advocating open access to better understand why so many editors 
of scholarly publishing oppose it -- other than financial gain.

Jane Kleiner
Associate Dean of Libraries for Collection Services
The LSU Libraries
Louisiana State University
E-Mail: jkleiner@lsu.edu