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

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Scholarly journal publishers do not add value through peer 
review.

The peer-reviewers add value through peer-review. The editor adds 
value by managing the peer review.

They both do this for prestige, not money--the peer-reviewers are 
normally unpaid, and the editor receives only expenses (which 
might be substantial for the very largest journals.)

To the extent that the publisher contributes to this (aside from 
paying the expenses of the editor) they contribute by appointing 
a good editor.

To the extent that

> the consequent association of a journal's brand and reputation 
> (including "rank" by measures such as ISI Impact Factor

adds value, the value is derived from the other articles. The 
editor is responsible for most of this: the consistent value of 
the journal from year to year depends on the editor, or the 
succession of editors, and their success in finding good authors.

The publisher is not responsible for any of this, or for any 
other aspect of the scholarly quality of the journal. The IF 
depends upon the articles, not the publisher--the highest levels 
of IF in almost all subjects is attained by very different types 
of publisher.

The publisher is responsible for coordinating the different 
technical and editorial processes. The publisher is responsible 
for distribution; positively for good distribution, negatively 
for impeding it. Publishers who establish prices that only a 
hundred or so libraries can pay impede the distribution. 
Publishers who delay the posting of OA copies impede the 
distribution.

It is the responsibility of the publishers to find a business 
model that does not impede the distribution. It is not the 
responsibility of the libraries to arrange this for them. It is 
not the responsibility of the authors, or of the readers.  When 
an author or library pays them, this distribution is what they 
are being paid for.

Those publishers who can only obstruct, should get out of the 
way. If some do not, it is in the end the ultimate responsibility 
of the authors, libraries and readers to find those who can.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

(I do not intend this as a response to BM personally; she is 
obliged by her position to defend both the worthy and less worthy 
members of her association.)

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Barbara Meredith
Sent: Tue 7/11/2006 9:37 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: FW: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

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.
New York, NY 10003 USA
bmeredith@publishers.org
www.pspcentral.org
www.publishers.org