Publishers and the doctrine of Good Works

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

We have had a number of interesting posts on this list over the 
last couple weeks concerning just what it is that a publisher 
does that adds value to scholarly communications.  In my view, 
the comments supportive of publishers were by and large accurate 
and fairly framed.  One theme, however, caught my attention, 
namely, that publishers exercise a gateway function and thus 
ensure that the quality of published work is high.  While this is 
true, the comment must be placed in context.

Let us imagine, then, a scheme by which publishers act in a 
coordinated manner to improve the quality of academic journals. 
They do this by instituting across-the-board price increases of 
20%.  (The Department of Justice does not look into this because 
it is absorbed in the investigation of scholarships granted on 
the basis of need instead of merit.)  Libraries, whose budgets 
are flat, therefore must cancel subscriptions.  Approximately 20% 
of the journals must go.  Since librarians wish to collect the 
finest work, it is journals of lower quality that get cut. 
Therefore, in one stroke the publishers have improved the quality 
of the subscribed journals by 20%.

I trust no one would find this to be a satisfactory outcome, 
except perhaps for those lucky publishers who somehow escape the 
cuts.  Yet it is an example of a gatekeeper function at work.

The fact is that we don't want to improve the average quality of 
journals; we want to lower it.  This is because "lower" does not 
mean "poor."  A graduate of the 60th ranked college or university 
may regret not having attended #1 or #3, but is likely to feel 
pleased to have done better than #100 or not to have attended 
college at all.  The problem with the publishers' gatekeeper 
perspective is that it is entirely self-serving. Raising quality 
is not the issue; expanding quantity is, providing that expansion 
is within a certain range of quality, a range that is 
substantially lower than the current subscription base.

Paradoxically, the Public Library of Science is one of the few 
organizations that operates on this principle, though 
inadvertently.  PLoS publishes the highest-quality material, all 
of which would have found a home in other publications.  If PLoS 
did not have an Open Access model, librarians would have had to 
pay for that high-quality material.  As it is, however, the PLoS 
OA strategy makes room in the budget for material of lower 
quality--but lower is not poor.  It is intriguing to speculate 
whether the Moore Foundation would have funded PLoS under the 
banner, We Strive to Lower the Quality of Scientific Publishing!

My 20%-increase scenario has this unfortunate characteristic: 
it is precisely what is going on in the real world, though 
stretched over a few years.  There are many defenses of the 
publishing industry, but publishers should get off their high 
horse about being the guardians of quality.  It is possible for a 
college to be Too Selective.

Joe Esposito