- Email: [email protected]
Quality — It's expensive — Can we afford it?
Library Acquisitions: Practice & Theory, Vol. 12, pp. 1-10, 1988
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0364-6408/88 $3.00 + .00 Copyright © 1988 Pergamon Press plc
QUALITY-IT'S EXPENSIVE--CAN WE AFFORD IT? SSP Sixth Annual Top Management Roundtable MARCIA T U T T L E Head, Serials Department University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Library Davis Library 080-A Chapel Hill, NC 27514
On September 16, 1987, approximately 80 publishers, printers, and librarians gathered at Toronto's Inn on the Park for a three-day discussion of quality in scholarly communication, sponsored by the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP). The program was loosely structured into four major t o p i c s - G l o b a l Overview, Publishing & Editing, Libraries & Agencies, and Production & Manufacturing--all of which were to be presented on September 17. So lively and candid was the discussion, however, that the final section had to be postponed until the next day. This report summarizes each presentation and discussion and concludes with the author's perception of the meeting and its implications. Roundtable Chair D. H. Michael Bowen of the American Chemical Society stated the purpose of the meeting: to talk about "quality," an elusive, muddied, and fuzzy concept, often used as an adjective. Secondarily, the group was to talk, as always, about whatever was on its members' minds. Bowen hoped the participants would leave with a list of things to check on when they returned home, things to question and to change.
G L O B A L OVERVIEW Herbert S. White, Dean, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, made the initial presentation. Journal publishing, he stated, transcends the economic situation. Librarians do not control what journals they purchase, for publishers contact faculty members instead of librarians. Publishers must spend a great amount of time selecting their editorial advisory boards; the members' names are a means of advertising. Some scholarly journals have a 95~/0 library market, but the publisher perceives the librarian as only a purchasing agent responding to the will of the faculty. The publisher/author power structure considers library budget problems and dual pricing controversies insignificant, even the
2
M. TUTTLE
plundering o f monograph and other lines of the budget to feed the serials line. As an aside, White commented that we publish "journals" and receive "periodicals" in libraries; some transformation occurs in the U.S. mail. Journal price increases do not cause library cancellations. While duplicate subscriptions enhance the usefulness of materials, librarians are more concerned with "building the collection" and got rid o f duplicates some time ago. Librarians tolerate price increases, thus protecting existing journals at the expense of marginal journals that do not increase in price. The practice hurts new journals as well, because cancellation criteria used by librarians require the journal to have been around for some time. Librarians have pretty good instinctive data about what should be retained, but they cannot document them to the faculty. Librarians are paranoid, White claimed; their interlibrary loan policies have no impact on subscriptions. They do not lead to cancellations, nor do librarians subscribe to titles " f o u n d " through interlibrary loan. But publishers are also paranoid. There is no collusion; librarians are not that organized! They do not "network;" they join networks. They order journals that faculty members, particularly new, senior faculty members, make them buy. A professor does not care if the monographic budget is cut, so long as " m y " books are purchased. It is a fallacy that, under budget stringency, collection development becomes more of an art because the selection process is tougher. Actually, with a tighter budget, selection stops, for funds must go to ensure continuation of essential library programs. Journal cancellation is a highly visible, dangerous process, and librarians try to minimize its impact on the faculty. This attitude supports Peter Drucker's third quality of service personnel: the moral imperative that with or without adequate funding, one must give optimum s e r v i c e - o r it's m y fault. Publishers see conspiracy in every cancellation, but faculty members may no longer want to read the journal; perhaps their research interest has shifted. The process of natural selection does not work for journals; old journals neither die nor fade away. Starting a journal is relatively risk free, said White; the publisher announces a journal to see if anybody buys it. If not, he transfers the money already paid to an existing title and scraps plans for the new one. Librarians worry about rising journal prices, but they accept dilution of quality such as combined issues. White urged publishers, if they care what librarians think, to tell them the reasons for price increases outdistancing the G N P and CPI. If there are no reasons, there is nothing to tell. Instead of increasing the price, why do publishers not make the journal smaller? The usual response is that a new journal from a competitor will fill the gaps thus created. Why is the impact of technology not reflected in a lower subscription price? In part because promotion and tenure committees are not yet ready to accept publication on disk or other electronic means as equal to publication in print. They have difficulty with publication on demand. Besides, by the time a journal article is published, the author has already sent the information to those persons he wants to read it. Discussion. Publishers in the audience took exception to White's statement about the lack
of risk in starting a new journal. Some wanted to know the criteria o f a marginal journal. White responded: a duplicate subscription. The process of defining marginal journals is not scientific, but instinctive, and consists of librarians saying, "What do you think?" and "Can we get away with it?" The faculty is suspicious of librarians attempting to develop hard data for this process. Libraries should keep high quality journals and get rid of low quality o n e s but nobody has measured quality.
Quality- It's Expensive- Can We Afford it?
3
A publisher stated that librarians should inform the faculty of the cost of journals. Two librarians responded that this is being done and that a change is occurring in the reaction of faculty members: it is not business as usual anymore. LIBRARIES AND AGENCIES Libraries
Responding to the discussion regarding trends in the future o f librarians and networks, Richard M. Dougherty, Director, University of Michigan Library, departed from his prepared talk to discuss recent changes from the librarian's point o f view. Significant alteration has occurred in librarians' attitudes and in the ways (not necessarily rational) they manage collections. Librarians deal with brilliant people, and they react to that, working around the obstacles thrown in their way. When articles documenting geographical discrimination in pricing appeared in the library press, Dougherty found no apparent problem at Michigan. Then his staff determined that the situation had occurred several years earlier without the library's knowing. They had no data management system that could detect price increases, a typical situation in libraries. Dougherty consulted colleagues in other libraries but they saw no pricing problem because they did not have a suitable management system either. For the last several months, however, pricing has gained high visibility that is leading to drastic cuts in library budgets and subscriptions, and their documentation in headlines. The behavior of a few publishers has had an impact on libraries' scholarly journals collections. Three publishers accounted for 16.1070 of Michigan's serials budget in 1987, a 25070 increase over 1986. These publishers, all represented at the Roundtable, had a high percentage of their titles costing over $200 and all had high average percentage price increases. These facts, together with an accompanying increase in number of pages produced, indicates a pure profit motive on their part, despite claims of a static market and increased production costs. Which is the scholarly publisher's motive, Dougherty asked, to advance knowledge or to make a profit? He then turned to technology, discussing what c a n happen. The National Science Foundation has spent millions of dollars on NSFNET, to offer faculty members at research universities access to computers. The NSF project EXPRES, to make the entire grant proposal and award process electronic, is experimental in several universities. Academic institution commitments to technology can be in the one hundred million dollar range; the library is a big enough cost center for people to begin paying attention. Universities are getting into publishing, both electronic and hard copy, bypassing the commercial publisher. Dougherty sees an analogy with OPEC: the price o f access to scholarly knowledge is increasing, as did the price of oil. Consumers developed alternatives to petroleum by using oil shale, fuel made from corn, and solar energy. In the subsequent oil glut, prices came down. Will libraries develop alternative means o f access to knowledge? It can be done. It is not a library problem or a faculty problem, but a higher education problem among scholars seeking maximum recognition. Libraries can cancel more subscriptions than heretofore. Last year's essential journals are no longer so, and libraries can share their resources. In a time of affluence, Dougherty had asked each of his division libraries to set its ideal ratio between serials and monographs. Now, supported by the university administration, he uses these guidelines to manage the budget, requiring justification for any departure from the ratio. The library manages its materials budget.
4
M. TUTTLE
Librarians now must look just at the bottom line; we must cancel quality, for we cannot emasculate the m o n o g r a p h s budget. Taking exception to White, Dougherty claimed that librarians a r e networking. Ownership is still more important than access, but that is changing rapidly. Librarians will have to stop equating quantity with quality. A society publisher asked what attention libraries had given to generating revenue, either from the university or from the user. Librarians, he felt, needed to be better business people. Dougherty called this an insoluble conflict. The university is not a business and will preserve free access to information. At the same time, librarians are moving toward managing the library as a business. An international publisher noted that the three publishers cited in the presentation were international but there was no mention of the strong effect on prices of the recent decline of the U.S. dollar. Dougherty responded that his staff's analysis of these publishers' public documents, such as balance sheets, concentrated on high-priced titles. The study factored out inflation and differential pricing and attempted to determine the reason for the increase that was left. Profit was the reason; the publishers have a well-crafted pricing policy, shown by the positive correlation with the ISI impact factor. Some publishers, however, increased the same percentage for high and low impact journals, n o t a well-thought out pricing policy. Dougherty later stated that Michigan's data base includes only titles subscribed to and may have different bottom lines than the publishers' data bases. Another international publisher claimed that the situation is more complicated than libraries' lack of money for increased prices. Dougherty's argument has nothing to do with quality, but with the idea that certain publishers are too big, too expensive; they have too much of the field, so libraries target them. The publisher continued, the more attractive a title becomes, the more papers submitted. Should he reject good papers to be published elsewhere? It may be in the library's interest for the journal to grow; there is then one large journal instead of 12 to 14 separate journals. To the targeting question, Dougherty responded that were other guilty publishers, one of which he named. Subscribers must make choices; rankings are necessary, and people don't like them. We will see published interpretations of the relative value of journals, but perhaps not on target. Scholars are not quite as militant as they were in White's data of seven or eight years ago. The third international publisher mentioned that his company was criticized by the industry for publishing articles on discriminatory pricing. He then asked how Dougherty deals with organizations such as E D U C O M and what impact they have on his library's budget. Dougherty said that E D U C O M ' s policies have not had a big impact on university campuses. Computer centers are involved with technology and the capability of delivering information. Libraries use that technology. Peer groups, scholars, will determine the means of publication. The journal is not the predominant means of dissemination; electronic mail is an alternative. Publishers should worry that they are pricing themselves out of the action. The publisher then agreed that they are seeing this trend and are developing alternative means themselves. Richard Rowe, Faxon C o m p a n y , raised the issue of trust. A trusting relationship is the backbone of scholarly communication and must be restored. Buyers and sellers of information are short on information about this relationship. He cited Faxon's annual pricing study and a first effort to predict prices, for libraries' use in budget planning. Rowe stated that subscription agents need to know prices sooner, by June l, and he asked that publishers make their pricing decisions and let the agents know. All the publishers present indicated that Discussion.
Quality-lt's Expensive-Can We Afford It?
5
June 1 was a reasonable target date. A librarian pointed out that the earlier publishers set their subscription prices, the more risk they incur and the more protection they must build into the price. Thus, early pricing means more profit for the agent and a higher price for the librarian. From the librarian's perspective, prices should be set as late as possible.
Agencies Rowe, the next speaker, gave the subscription agent's view of quality in publishing. We are in the Knowledge Services business, facilitating knowledge work: creation, discovery, and learning. The knowledge worker is the ultimate client. We work with data that are analyzed, used, and understood. In knowledge services, value is not the product; it is not tied to any particular technology. Profits are a by-product of the goal. Rowe predicted that institutional knowledge budgets will triple or quadruple over the next decade, because of increased use and greater value placed on knowledge. We need public policies guiding the creation of and access to knowledge. Rowe divided the publisher's core functions into "cognitive" and "commercial." Cognitive functions are: to solicit and select knowledge and refine i t - l o w - t e c h , high-value, human intensive functions that are the publisher's most significant contribution to knowledge services. Commercial functions are to: promote, disseminate, and distribute what has been selected and refined-high-tech functions. Exciting developments are occurring in knowledge development and creation, specifically in the prepublication process, which is increasingly privatized and controlled. Institutional changes are having a strong impact on scholarly publishing. Universities are becoming similar to corporations. They are making heavy investments in adult education. Some of the most dramatic changes are in tenure and promotion, where incentives are moving to favor persons generating revenue, not articles. Individual faculty members are becoming more private in their research and less interested in actual publishing of results. They show less willingness to share research, but prefer to retain the potential for revenue. The brokerage function of knowledge dissemination will become more significant; who will serve this purpose? The library is only a small part of the system; can it adapt to the changing needs o f its patrons? The telephone system will be heavily involved in brokering. Rowe had some final suggestions for increasing access to scholarly knowledge. The publisher offers information and at the same time restricts access to it by pricing policies. Publishers could provide added (run on) copies to the same billing address at a 30--40°/0 discount, increasing their circulation and profit. More publishers could exercise discriminatory pricing in favor of developing countries. The publication and access processes would be more efficient if publishers practiced standardization, such as the use of bar codes.
Discussion. Discussion after Rowe's presentation centered on the value of the agent to the library and to the publisher, raising the issue of discounts and service charges. There was also lively give-and-take on the topic of added copies and subscriptions for developing countries.
P U B L I S H I N G AND EDITING
Journal Publishing Robert N. Miranda, President, Pergamon Journals, Inc., detailed his efforts to define "quality" by polling his staff. Comments included such phrases as: timely production, all
6
M. TUTTLE
background information in place, looks good, fair price, easy fulfillment, good content, makes a p r o f i t - a l l based on the staff member's own role in the company. Publishers are being pulled kicking and screaming into the electronic age. At Pergamon, electronically produced journals cost 35°70 more than the old way. Publishers are concerned about the rising cost per page. Competition for authors and editors is fierce, and the appearance of a journal is used as a lure. A "slick" publication is good for the tenure review committee; camera-ready copy is "lousy." Publishers are moving toward standardization in presentation and in reference style (for use with a software system), because standardization makes refereeing easier. This job, incidentally, is becoming tougher; people do not want to take time to review articles, particularly if, as is sometimes the case, the author omits an essential bit of data, to prevent a scientific experiment from being replicated. In response to decreasing subscriptions, publishers try to make their journals more useful. For example, Pergamon includes software review sections in several titles. Each journal is evaluated; efforts to respond to changes in a discipline lead to merging, ceasing, and "twigging." Publishers sell the electronic production o f paper journals, such as laser printing, for each step from manuscript to publication. This is not electronic publication, but more efficient production of the standard paper journal.
Discussion. Miranda's c o m m e n t that people no longer wanted to referee articles was supported strongly by other publishers. A librarian commented that such a chore was not counted in the reward system; referees want their cut o f the profits. A society publisher commented that there are not enough people to review all the articles that are submitted for publication. Production people expressed alarm and frustration at the increase in paper costs. Some had been told that a very small decrease in page s i z e - f r o m 8 1/2 ~ x 1 1" to 8 3/8 ~ x 10 3/4 , could save them two to three percent. Discussion continued with suggestions for standardizing products in paper and size. White space, much demanded by editors, is costly. To rumors o f a paper shortage it was suggested that this is a ploy by paper manufacturers, and printers are overstocking. A librarian made a plea for enough room on outside margins for binding. Discussion throughout the meeting touched on the increasing production-related demands and complaints of journal editors and the expense o f giving in to these. Appearance o f the journal cover and wide margins and other white space were expenses incurred for the benefit of editors. These were seen as marketing expenses. The desirability of using acid-free paper created a small storm of discussion. Either it costs more than other paper, or it is available at the same price; the issue was not settled. Apparently acid-free paper is not available in lighter weights, preventing the weekly journals from using it. Is it necessary to have acid-free paper when m i c r o f o r m and online versions of the journal exist?
Book Publishing Richard C. Rowson, Director, Duke University Press, concentrated on book publishing. He agreed with Miranda that one's definition of quality is related to function; authors relate quality to appearance. Rowson had three subtopics: (1) publishing of trade books by university presses and other scholarly publishers; (2) quality in editing; and (3) the gatekeeping role o f the university press. University presses are beginning to do trade publishing, such as novels and poetry. Rowson asked: what can you do best, and how can you do it with quality? The purpose o f university press personnel is to be scholars first and publishers second.
Quality- It's Expensive- Can We Afford It?
7
Should university presses use camera-ready copy for quick publication? Perhaps they could eliminate copy editing for the same reason. It is possible to lose a contract if the publisher insists on copy editing and other substantive editing, but the extra effort can pay o f f in added sales. The university press acts as gatekeeper, standing in the way of poor work and poor scholarship. The publisher is responsible for quality control and stems the flow o f information. At the same time, the university press has an even more important function in gate-opening. It has a responsibility to provide a forum for controversial ideas, to contribute to new dialog. The university press must have the courage to help authors with pioneering ideas, responsibly presented.
Journal Editing Lewis I. Gidez, editor, Journal of Lipid Research, placed primary emphasis on a good relationship with authors. The editor's responsibility to the author includes fast review, which is made expensive by costs o f rapid communication and the shortage of reviewers. Gidez's recent experience indicates that established reviewers either farm out the work or do a superficial job. The editor owes the author accuracy, through a rigorous peer-review process, although this sometimes backfires and creates a controversy. When a decision is made on foreign papers (forty percent of his submissions), the results are sent next-day delivery, along with the reviews. This is a promotional measure, to encourage more foreign papers. It is necessary to continue to promote a journal. Those that rest on their laurels lose subscriptions, leading to price increases. Publishers must use such methods as promoting article submission, increasing paper quality, and jazzing up the cover with a picture. Gidez commented on previous talks. On the increased use o f technology, he claimed that very few scientists take advantage of electronic communication. A survey shows that 2.3% use electronic mall. Less rigorous editing and production standards attract more articles. Some journals are ranked informally as to desirability as a place to publish. "Publish or perish" has become "Raise money or perish." Faculty members must more and more raise their own money. However, the scholar cannot raise money without publishing. One must publish to qualify for grants. Finally, the hallmark of quality is consistency, and this is expensive. Publishers should neither force authors always to obey their "guide to authors" nor spend money for insignificant corrections.
Discussion for Rowson and Gidez. There was some uneasiness among publishers about the ranking of journals mentioned by Gidez, but he would not give names of journals. The "list" has developed, he said, because deans are looking for an easy way o f evaluating journals instead of reading articles by faculty members up for promotion or tenure. Copy editing was on people's minds; some feel it is a luxury. Are there new trends? Are there ways to save money here? Rowson mentioned free-lance copy editors. Another university press publisher suggested that we are seeing more "sleaze," more falsifying of data, than f o r m e r l y - or else we are becoming more aware of it. A librarian pointed out that bits of data are often omitted from articles so that other researchers cannot replicate research. Some journals check every reference; others do not, feeling that it is too expensive. What is the role o f the reviewer in checking references? A publisher stated that the reviewer is reluctant to challenge the validity o f an author's research, preferring to reject the paper on some other basis, because o f the possibility o f legal action being taken by the author.
8
M. TUTTLE
P R O D U C T I O N AND M A N U F A C T U R I N G
Production Virginia Martin, Director, National Academy Press, spoke informally on production and generated a great deal of discussion. Trying to define quality, Martin asked: Can we define quality? What makes one pay more? (Appearance? Type? Length of useful life? Paper quality?) Where can compromises be made? What does technology bring? Her goals as a publisher are to get the book out more quickly (four to five weeks) and less expensively than the competition. A survey o f librarians and printers showed that librarians equate quality with the following: acid-free paper, a good index, a readable spine, standardized sizes, and a readable typeface. Librarians can get along with less color. Printers characterized quality as" cleanness of print, typographic design, cooperation of author and printer, four-color cover design, and an absence of dust jackets.
Discussion. Following a lengthy discussion of laser printers and various software production packages, someone commented that the future is WORM (Write Once, Read Many); and that will be the end of the acid-free paper problem. Unfortunately, these databases must be reproduced with each hardware generation. In contrast, some traditionalists predicted the exhaustion of the paper supply, to which Rowe responded that he foresees on-demand publication using recycled paper. A librarian brought up the question of how to index this material and suggested that indexes be kept in a reference-based data base, in order to enhance access.
Manufacturing The Roundtable's final speaker was C. Stephenson Gillespie, Jr., President, The William Byrd Press, whose topic was journal production. He pointed out that we cannot afford not to have quality. Quality is the only thing that endures. We must afford quality. How do we get there? The manufacturing side is working hard; printing quality is getting better and cheaper. Microprocessing makes printing and typesetting a real bargain, reducing the cost to 1978-80 prices. At the same time, more pages, more color, and more fold-outs are being used. Byrd Press is working with ink manufacturers testing non-alcohol-based inks that give a superior image using less ink. In the polybagging process, the current rate of 12,000 an hour is several times last year's best rate. The all-electronic path is not far away. Quality is culture-bound, and we continue to pursue what the consumer considers quality. We see "boutique-ing" going on. The printer for scholarly journals is not in the business of selling ink on paper, but of packaging information. People's expectations are changing throughout society, including scholarly publishing. The format is not sacred and may be changed without damage. In this context, magic is possible, because the eye sees what it expects to see. Gillespie then listed three processes in journal manufacturing where dollars can be saved if we overcome our biases. The first is rigid rules about typography by journal production management and printer personnel. To illustrate, he cited bad computer hyphenation and the expense of manual correction. Second, we need to reduce the expense of changes made from page proofs. Byrd Press is, increasingly, sending more sets of proofs, making more changes, telefaxing more materials. This activity serves to create more errors. How can we reduce this
Quality-It's Expensive-Can We Afford It?
9
process and the associated expense? One suggestion is to end review with the submission of the manuscript. Eliminating most or all correcting would slash the greatest overhead and cost. The reduction in accuracy could be minimized by quality control personnel. Gillespie's final example of an unnecessarily expensive bias was the bidding process. It does not work well, because the publisher is never able to specify exactly what is wanted from the printer. Organizations are dynamic, thus it is not possible to predict what will be needed. The manufacturer needs an understanding and responsive partner in the publisher. A better way to get the best price is to negotiate, for differences between printers do exist. Gillespie raised two "relationship issues." First, the publisher's approaching the printer as an adversary. The publisher cannot afford n o t to trust the printer. Printer personnel work for the publisher on a specific project. The possibility o f a customer's leaving for another printer is a terrible threat to these persons. Second, the relationship needs to be more of a partnership. The imminent all-electronic path is best used that way.
D E L I N E A T I O N AND C L A R I F I C A T I O N OF ISSUES A. F. Spilhaus, Jr., Executive Director, American Geophysical Union, summarized the discussions. Individual concerns often conflict with the success of the scholarly communication system, and gaps in understanding of each other's position do not help. Costs will not come down. All involved parties need to develop trust, and this trust will come from increased understanding. Quality results from partnerships. Can the nature of scholarly communication change? How? Is it going to change? Probably its nature cannot change, but it can be disrupted. The perceived value of information is inflating rapidly, urged on by our conflicting goals. How can we control the information flow? Should we save everything? It can't be done. Can technology really cut costs, while enhancing some quality elements and not damaging others? What about the electronic dissemination of materials? The jury's out. The allelectronic path? It may only shift costs to the author. A major issue brought out in the discussions was that funding for scholarship is not adequate to do business as usual. How do we determine appropriate means of funding? The decrease of volunteerism is a severe handicap. Scholarly communication must make its case politically. We must define our requirements and do what we can with the resources we have. On budget control, is accountability in the right place, with libraries and publishers? We measure scholarly publishing in the billions of dollars, but nobody seems to have any of it. Whose expectations are the most important? The author's? What are our expectations of quality? It is necessary to educate each component of the system; authors are the key. The value of quality is relative. Quality is what enhances the system as a whole. Or, is quality "doing it the way it used to be done?" What is to be done about the "rising quality of sleaze" or, "the identification of sleaze?" Academic institutions and learned societies have a responsibility to see and understand the entire scholarly communication process. Quality relationships is what the Society for Scholarly Publishing is all about.
A U T H O R ' S REFLECTIONS This Roundtable was my first SSP activity, and it was one of the best meetings I have attended. Several veteran members expressed the same thought. Participating in the Round-
10
M. TUTTLE
table was a worthwhile experience and a great stride in moving from the librarian's usual adversarial relationship with journal publishers to the partnership that is necessary for us to fulfill our purpose of disseminating scholarly information. As instructed when the meeting opened, I brought several themes home with me. The concept of partnership among publishers and librarians now appears possible. I learned of other tensions in the scholarly communication process, but I felt that participants in the Roundtable truly try to work as partners. With one possible exception. The term "author" appears to cover all persons reading scholarly journals. Authors intimidate publishers, who consider them the real purchasers of journals, even though the library pays the invoice. I perceived a fear of displeasing the author and some blame of the author for the expense of journal publication. The work librarians are doing in partnership with faculty members ("authors") to evaluate and shape research library journal collections is an exciting development, contrary to the relationship of the past and contrary to publishers' vision of this relationship. Somewhat akin to this work is the question o f "sleaze." Must we publish all those extra pages? Should editorial standards be higher? Which brings us to the frustrating questions of volunteerism and raising revenue. The Society for Scholarly Publishing has very few librarians as members, and its directors want more to join and become active. On the basis of the Sixth Top Management Roundtable, I encourage acquisitions and collection development librarians and library administrators concerned with the scholarly communication process to become members. The annual fee is $40.00, and the address is: Society for Scholarly Publishing, 2000 Florida Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0364-6408/88 $3.00 + .00 Copyright © 1988 Pergamon Press plc
QUALITY-IT'S EXPENSIVE--CAN WE AFFORD IT? SSP Sixth Annual Top Management Roundtable MARCIA T U T T L E Head, Serials Department University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Library Davis Library 080-A Chapel Hill, NC 27514
On September 16, 1987, approximately 80 publishers, printers, and librarians gathered at Toronto's Inn on the Park for a three-day discussion of quality in scholarly communication, sponsored by the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP). The program was loosely structured into four major t o p i c s - G l o b a l Overview, Publishing & Editing, Libraries & Agencies, and Production & Manufacturing--all of which were to be presented on September 17. So lively and candid was the discussion, however, that the final section had to be postponed until the next day. This report summarizes each presentation and discussion and concludes with the author's perception of the meeting and its implications. Roundtable Chair D. H. Michael Bowen of the American Chemical Society stated the purpose of the meeting: to talk about "quality," an elusive, muddied, and fuzzy concept, often used as an adjective. Secondarily, the group was to talk, as always, about whatever was on its members' minds. Bowen hoped the participants would leave with a list of things to check on when they returned home, things to question and to change.
G L O B A L OVERVIEW Herbert S. White, Dean, School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, made the initial presentation. Journal publishing, he stated, transcends the economic situation. Librarians do not control what journals they purchase, for publishers contact faculty members instead of librarians. Publishers must spend a great amount of time selecting their editorial advisory boards; the members' names are a means of advertising. Some scholarly journals have a 95~/0 library market, but the publisher perceives the librarian as only a purchasing agent responding to the will of the faculty. The publisher/author power structure considers library budget problems and dual pricing controversies insignificant, even the
2
M. TUTTLE
plundering o f monograph and other lines of the budget to feed the serials line. As an aside, White commented that we publish "journals" and receive "periodicals" in libraries; some transformation occurs in the U.S. mail. Journal price increases do not cause library cancellations. While duplicate subscriptions enhance the usefulness of materials, librarians are more concerned with "building the collection" and got rid o f duplicates some time ago. Librarians tolerate price increases, thus protecting existing journals at the expense of marginal journals that do not increase in price. The practice hurts new journals as well, because cancellation criteria used by librarians require the journal to have been around for some time. Librarians have pretty good instinctive data about what should be retained, but they cannot document them to the faculty. Librarians are paranoid, White claimed; their interlibrary loan policies have no impact on subscriptions. They do not lead to cancellations, nor do librarians subscribe to titles " f o u n d " through interlibrary loan. But publishers are also paranoid. There is no collusion; librarians are not that organized! They do not "network;" they join networks. They order journals that faculty members, particularly new, senior faculty members, make them buy. A professor does not care if the monographic budget is cut, so long as " m y " books are purchased. It is a fallacy that, under budget stringency, collection development becomes more of an art because the selection process is tougher. Actually, with a tighter budget, selection stops, for funds must go to ensure continuation of essential library programs. Journal cancellation is a highly visible, dangerous process, and librarians try to minimize its impact on the faculty. This attitude supports Peter Drucker's third quality of service personnel: the moral imperative that with or without adequate funding, one must give optimum s e r v i c e - o r it's m y fault. Publishers see conspiracy in every cancellation, but faculty members may no longer want to read the journal; perhaps their research interest has shifted. The process of natural selection does not work for journals; old journals neither die nor fade away. Starting a journal is relatively risk free, said White; the publisher announces a journal to see if anybody buys it. If not, he transfers the money already paid to an existing title and scraps plans for the new one. Librarians worry about rising journal prices, but they accept dilution of quality such as combined issues. White urged publishers, if they care what librarians think, to tell them the reasons for price increases outdistancing the G N P and CPI. If there are no reasons, there is nothing to tell. Instead of increasing the price, why do publishers not make the journal smaller? The usual response is that a new journal from a competitor will fill the gaps thus created. Why is the impact of technology not reflected in a lower subscription price? In part because promotion and tenure committees are not yet ready to accept publication on disk or other electronic means as equal to publication in print. They have difficulty with publication on demand. Besides, by the time a journal article is published, the author has already sent the information to those persons he wants to read it. Discussion. Publishers in the audience took exception to White's statement about the lack
of risk in starting a new journal. Some wanted to know the criteria o f a marginal journal. White responded: a duplicate subscription. The process of defining marginal journals is not scientific, but instinctive, and consists of librarians saying, "What do you think?" and "Can we get away with it?" The faculty is suspicious of librarians attempting to develop hard data for this process. Libraries should keep high quality journals and get rid of low quality o n e s but nobody has measured quality.
Quality- It's Expensive- Can We Afford it?
3
A publisher stated that librarians should inform the faculty of the cost of journals. Two librarians responded that this is being done and that a change is occurring in the reaction of faculty members: it is not business as usual anymore. LIBRARIES AND AGENCIES Libraries
Responding to the discussion regarding trends in the future o f librarians and networks, Richard M. Dougherty, Director, University of Michigan Library, departed from his prepared talk to discuss recent changes from the librarian's point o f view. Significant alteration has occurred in librarians' attitudes and in the ways (not necessarily rational) they manage collections. Librarians deal with brilliant people, and they react to that, working around the obstacles thrown in their way. When articles documenting geographical discrimination in pricing appeared in the library press, Dougherty found no apparent problem at Michigan. Then his staff determined that the situation had occurred several years earlier without the library's knowing. They had no data management system that could detect price increases, a typical situation in libraries. Dougherty consulted colleagues in other libraries but they saw no pricing problem because they did not have a suitable management system either. For the last several months, however, pricing has gained high visibility that is leading to drastic cuts in library budgets and subscriptions, and their documentation in headlines. The behavior of a few publishers has had an impact on libraries' scholarly journals collections. Three publishers accounted for 16.1070 of Michigan's serials budget in 1987, a 25070 increase over 1986. These publishers, all represented at the Roundtable, had a high percentage of their titles costing over $200 and all had high average percentage price increases. These facts, together with an accompanying increase in number of pages produced, indicates a pure profit motive on their part, despite claims of a static market and increased production costs. Which is the scholarly publisher's motive, Dougherty asked, to advance knowledge or to make a profit? He then turned to technology, discussing what c a n happen. The National Science Foundation has spent millions of dollars on NSFNET, to offer faculty members at research universities access to computers. The NSF project EXPRES, to make the entire grant proposal and award process electronic, is experimental in several universities. Academic institution commitments to technology can be in the one hundred million dollar range; the library is a big enough cost center for people to begin paying attention. Universities are getting into publishing, both electronic and hard copy, bypassing the commercial publisher. Dougherty sees an analogy with OPEC: the price o f access to scholarly knowledge is increasing, as did the price of oil. Consumers developed alternatives to petroleum by using oil shale, fuel made from corn, and solar energy. In the subsequent oil glut, prices came down. Will libraries develop alternative means o f access to knowledge? It can be done. It is not a library problem or a faculty problem, but a higher education problem among scholars seeking maximum recognition. Libraries can cancel more subscriptions than heretofore. Last year's essential journals are no longer so, and libraries can share their resources. In a time of affluence, Dougherty had asked each of his division libraries to set its ideal ratio between serials and monographs. Now, supported by the university administration, he uses these guidelines to manage the budget, requiring justification for any departure from the ratio. The library manages its materials budget.
4
M. TUTTLE
Librarians now must look just at the bottom line; we must cancel quality, for we cannot emasculate the m o n o g r a p h s budget. Taking exception to White, Dougherty claimed that librarians a r e networking. Ownership is still more important than access, but that is changing rapidly. Librarians will have to stop equating quantity with quality. A society publisher asked what attention libraries had given to generating revenue, either from the university or from the user. Librarians, he felt, needed to be better business people. Dougherty called this an insoluble conflict. The university is not a business and will preserve free access to information. At the same time, librarians are moving toward managing the library as a business. An international publisher noted that the three publishers cited in the presentation were international but there was no mention of the strong effect on prices of the recent decline of the U.S. dollar. Dougherty responded that his staff's analysis of these publishers' public documents, such as balance sheets, concentrated on high-priced titles. The study factored out inflation and differential pricing and attempted to determine the reason for the increase that was left. Profit was the reason; the publishers have a well-crafted pricing policy, shown by the positive correlation with the ISI impact factor. Some publishers, however, increased the same percentage for high and low impact journals, n o t a well-thought out pricing policy. Dougherty later stated that Michigan's data base includes only titles subscribed to and may have different bottom lines than the publishers' data bases. Another international publisher claimed that the situation is more complicated than libraries' lack of money for increased prices. Dougherty's argument has nothing to do with quality, but with the idea that certain publishers are too big, too expensive; they have too much of the field, so libraries target them. The publisher continued, the more attractive a title becomes, the more papers submitted. Should he reject good papers to be published elsewhere? It may be in the library's interest for the journal to grow; there is then one large journal instead of 12 to 14 separate journals. To the targeting question, Dougherty responded that were other guilty publishers, one of which he named. Subscribers must make choices; rankings are necessary, and people don't like them. We will see published interpretations of the relative value of journals, but perhaps not on target. Scholars are not quite as militant as they were in White's data of seven or eight years ago. The third international publisher mentioned that his company was criticized by the industry for publishing articles on discriminatory pricing. He then asked how Dougherty deals with organizations such as E D U C O M and what impact they have on his library's budget. Dougherty said that E D U C O M ' s policies have not had a big impact on university campuses. Computer centers are involved with technology and the capability of delivering information. Libraries use that technology. Peer groups, scholars, will determine the means of publication. The journal is not the predominant means of dissemination; electronic mail is an alternative. Publishers should worry that they are pricing themselves out of the action. The publisher then agreed that they are seeing this trend and are developing alternative means themselves. Richard Rowe, Faxon C o m p a n y , raised the issue of trust. A trusting relationship is the backbone of scholarly communication and must be restored. Buyers and sellers of information are short on information about this relationship. He cited Faxon's annual pricing study and a first effort to predict prices, for libraries' use in budget planning. Rowe stated that subscription agents need to know prices sooner, by June l, and he asked that publishers make their pricing decisions and let the agents know. All the publishers present indicated that Discussion.
Quality-lt's Expensive-Can We Afford It?
5
June 1 was a reasonable target date. A librarian pointed out that the earlier publishers set their subscription prices, the more risk they incur and the more protection they must build into the price. Thus, early pricing means more profit for the agent and a higher price for the librarian. From the librarian's perspective, prices should be set as late as possible.
Agencies Rowe, the next speaker, gave the subscription agent's view of quality in publishing. We are in the Knowledge Services business, facilitating knowledge work: creation, discovery, and learning. The knowledge worker is the ultimate client. We work with data that are analyzed, used, and understood. In knowledge services, value is not the product; it is not tied to any particular technology. Profits are a by-product of the goal. Rowe predicted that institutional knowledge budgets will triple or quadruple over the next decade, because of increased use and greater value placed on knowledge. We need public policies guiding the creation of and access to knowledge. Rowe divided the publisher's core functions into "cognitive" and "commercial." Cognitive functions are: to solicit and select knowledge and refine i t - l o w - t e c h , high-value, human intensive functions that are the publisher's most significant contribution to knowledge services. Commercial functions are to: promote, disseminate, and distribute what has been selected and refined-high-tech functions. Exciting developments are occurring in knowledge development and creation, specifically in the prepublication process, which is increasingly privatized and controlled. Institutional changes are having a strong impact on scholarly publishing. Universities are becoming similar to corporations. They are making heavy investments in adult education. Some of the most dramatic changes are in tenure and promotion, where incentives are moving to favor persons generating revenue, not articles. Individual faculty members are becoming more private in their research and less interested in actual publishing of results. They show less willingness to share research, but prefer to retain the potential for revenue. The brokerage function of knowledge dissemination will become more significant; who will serve this purpose? The library is only a small part of the system; can it adapt to the changing needs o f its patrons? The telephone system will be heavily involved in brokering. Rowe had some final suggestions for increasing access to scholarly knowledge. The publisher offers information and at the same time restricts access to it by pricing policies. Publishers could provide added (run on) copies to the same billing address at a 30--40°/0 discount, increasing their circulation and profit. More publishers could exercise discriminatory pricing in favor of developing countries. The publication and access processes would be more efficient if publishers practiced standardization, such as the use of bar codes.
Discussion. Discussion after Rowe's presentation centered on the value of the agent to the library and to the publisher, raising the issue of discounts and service charges. There was also lively give-and-take on the topic of added copies and subscriptions for developing countries.
P U B L I S H I N G AND EDITING
Journal Publishing Robert N. Miranda, President, Pergamon Journals, Inc., detailed his efforts to define "quality" by polling his staff. Comments included such phrases as: timely production, all
6
M. TUTTLE
background information in place, looks good, fair price, easy fulfillment, good content, makes a p r o f i t - a l l based on the staff member's own role in the company. Publishers are being pulled kicking and screaming into the electronic age. At Pergamon, electronically produced journals cost 35°70 more than the old way. Publishers are concerned about the rising cost per page. Competition for authors and editors is fierce, and the appearance of a journal is used as a lure. A "slick" publication is good for the tenure review committee; camera-ready copy is "lousy." Publishers are moving toward standardization in presentation and in reference style (for use with a software system), because standardization makes refereeing easier. This job, incidentally, is becoming tougher; people do not want to take time to review articles, particularly if, as is sometimes the case, the author omits an essential bit of data, to prevent a scientific experiment from being replicated. In response to decreasing subscriptions, publishers try to make their journals more useful. For example, Pergamon includes software review sections in several titles. Each journal is evaluated; efforts to respond to changes in a discipline lead to merging, ceasing, and "twigging." Publishers sell the electronic production o f paper journals, such as laser printing, for each step from manuscript to publication. This is not electronic publication, but more efficient production of the standard paper journal.
Discussion. Miranda's c o m m e n t that people no longer wanted to referee articles was supported strongly by other publishers. A librarian commented that such a chore was not counted in the reward system; referees want their cut o f the profits. A society publisher commented that there are not enough people to review all the articles that are submitted for publication. Production people expressed alarm and frustration at the increase in paper costs. Some had been told that a very small decrease in page s i z e - f r o m 8 1/2 ~ x 1 1" to 8 3/8 ~ x 10 3/4 , could save them two to three percent. Discussion continued with suggestions for standardizing products in paper and size. White space, much demanded by editors, is costly. To rumors o f a paper shortage it was suggested that this is a ploy by paper manufacturers, and printers are overstocking. A librarian made a plea for enough room on outside margins for binding. Discussion throughout the meeting touched on the increasing production-related demands and complaints of journal editors and the expense o f giving in to these. Appearance o f the journal cover and wide margins and other white space were expenses incurred for the benefit of editors. These were seen as marketing expenses. The desirability of using acid-free paper created a small storm of discussion. Either it costs more than other paper, or it is available at the same price; the issue was not settled. Apparently acid-free paper is not available in lighter weights, preventing the weekly journals from using it. Is it necessary to have acid-free paper when m i c r o f o r m and online versions of the journal exist?
Book Publishing Richard C. Rowson, Director, Duke University Press, concentrated on book publishing. He agreed with Miranda that one's definition of quality is related to function; authors relate quality to appearance. Rowson had three subtopics: (1) publishing of trade books by university presses and other scholarly publishers; (2) quality in editing; and (3) the gatekeeping role o f the university press. University presses are beginning to do trade publishing, such as novels and poetry. Rowson asked: what can you do best, and how can you do it with quality? The purpose o f university press personnel is to be scholars first and publishers second.
Quality- It's Expensive- Can We Afford It?
7
Should university presses use camera-ready copy for quick publication? Perhaps they could eliminate copy editing for the same reason. It is possible to lose a contract if the publisher insists on copy editing and other substantive editing, but the extra effort can pay o f f in added sales. The university press acts as gatekeeper, standing in the way of poor work and poor scholarship. The publisher is responsible for quality control and stems the flow o f information. At the same time, the university press has an even more important function in gate-opening. It has a responsibility to provide a forum for controversial ideas, to contribute to new dialog. The university press must have the courage to help authors with pioneering ideas, responsibly presented.
Journal Editing Lewis I. Gidez, editor, Journal of Lipid Research, placed primary emphasis on a good relationship with authors. The editor's responsibility to the author includes fast review, which is made expensive by costs o f rapid communication and the shortage of reviewers. Gidez's recent experience indicates that established reviewers either farm out the work or do a superficial job. The editor owes the author accuracy, through a rigorous peer-review process, although this sometimes backfires and creates a controversy. When a decision is made on foreign papers (forty percent of his submissions), the results are sent next-day delivery, along with the reviews. This is a promotional measure, to encourage more foreign papers. It is necessary to continue to promote a journal. Those that rest on their laurels lose subscriptions, leading to price increases. Publishers must use such methods as promoting article submission, increasing paper quality, and jazzing up the cover with a picture. Gidez commented on previous talks. On the increased use o f technology, he claimed that very few scientists take advantage of electronic communication. A survey shows that 2.3% use electronic mall. Less rigorous editing and production standards attract more articles. Some journals are ranked informally as to desirability as a place to publish. "Publish or perish" has become "Raise money or perish." Faculty members must more and more raise their own money. However, the scholar cannot raise money without publishing. One must publish to qualify for grants. Finally, the hallmark of quality is consistency, and this is expensive. Publishers should neither force authors always to obey their "guide to authors" nor spend money for insignificant corrections.
Discussion for Rowson and Gidez. There was some uneasiness among publishers about the ranking of journals mentioned by Gidez, but he would not give names of journals. The "list" has developed, he said, because deans are looking for an easy way o f evaluating journals instead of reading articles by faculty members up for promotion or tenure. Copy editing was on people's minds; some feel it is a luxury. Are there new trends? Are there ways to save money here? Rowson mentioned free-lance copy editors. Another university press publisher suggested that we are seeing more "sleaze," more falsifying of data, than f o r m e r l y - or else we are becoming more aware of it. A librarian pointed out that bits of data are often omitted from articles so that other researchers cannot replicate research. Some journals check every reference; others do not, feeling that it is too expensive. What is the role o f the reviewer in checking references? A publisher stated that the reviewer is reluctant to challenge the validity o f an author's research, preferring to reject the paper on some other basis, because o f the possibility o f legal action being taken by the author.
8
M. TUTTLE
P R O D U C T I O N AND M A N U F A C T U R I N G
Production Virginia Martin, Director, National Academy Press, spoke informally on production and generated a great deal of discussion. Trying to define quality, Martin asked: Can we define quality? What makes one pay more? (Appearance? Type? Length of useful life? Paper quality?) Where can compromises be made? What does technology bring? Her goals as a publisher are to get the book out more quickly (four to five weeks) and less expensively than the competition. A survey o f librarians and printers showed that librarians equate quality with the following: acid-free paper, a good index, a readable spine, standardized sizes, and a readable typeface. Librarians can get along with less color. Printers characterized quality as" cleanness of print, typographic design, cooperation of author and printer, four-color cover design, and an absence of dust jackets.
Discussion. Following a lengthy discussion of laser printers and various software production packages, someone commented that the future is WORM (Write Once, Read Many); and that will be the end of the acid-free paper problem. Unfortunately, these databases must be reproduced with each hardware generation. In contrast, some traditionalists predicted the exhaustion of the paper supply, to which Rowe responded that he foresees on-demand publication using recycled paper. A librarian brought up the question of how to index this material and suggested that indexes be kept in a reference-based data base, in order to enhance access.
Manufacturing The Roundtable's final speaker was C. Stephenson Gillespie, Jr., President, The William Byrd Press, whose topic was journal production. He pointed out that we cannot afford not to have quality. Quality is the only thing that endures. We must afford quality. How do we get there? The manufacturing side is working hard; printing quality is getting better and cheaper. Microprocessing makes printing and typesetting a real bargain, reducing the cost to 1978-80 prices. At the same time, more pages, more color, and more fold-outs are being used. Byrd Press is working with ink manufacturers testing non-alcohol-based inks that give a superior image using less ink. In the polybagging process, the current rate of 12,000 an hour is several times last year's best rate. The all-electronic path is not far away. Quality is culture-bound, and we continue to pursue what the consumer considers quality. We see "boutique-ing" going on. The printer for scholarly journals is not in the business of selling ink on paper, but of packaging information. People's expectations are changing throughout society, including scholarly publishing. The format is not sacred and may be changed without damage. In this context, magic is possible, because the eye sees what it expects to see. Gillespie then listed three processes in journal manufacturing where dollars can be saved if we overcome our biases. The first is rigid rules about typography by journal production management and printer personnel. To illustrate, he cited bad computer hyphenation and the expense of manual correction. Second, we need to reduce the expense of changes made from page proofs. Byrd Press is, increasingly, sending more sets of proofs, making more changes, telefaxing more materials. This activity serves to create more errors. How can we reduce this
Quality-It's Expensive-Can We Afford It?
9
process and the associated expense? One suggestion is to end review with the submission of the manuscript. Eliminating most or all correcting would slash the greatest overhead and cost. The reduction in accuracy could be minimized by quality control personnel. Gillespie's final example of an unnecessarily expensive bias was the bidding process. It does not work well, because the publisher is never able to specify exactly what is wanted from the printer. Organizations are dynamic, thus it is not possible to predict what will be needed. The manufacturer needs an understanding and responsive partner in the publisher. A better way to get the best price is to negotiate, for differences between printers do exist. Gillespie raised two "relationship issues." First, the publisher's approaching the printer as an adversary. The publisher cannot afford n o t to trust the printer. Printer personnel work for the publisher on a specific project. The possibility o f a customer's leaving for another printer is a terrible threat to these persons. Second, the relationship needs to be more of a partnership. The imminent all-electronic path is best used that way.
D E L I N E A T I O N AND C L A R I F I C A T I O N OF ISSUES A. F. Spilhaus, Jr., Executive Director, American Geophysical Union, summarized the discussions. Individual concerns often conflict with the success of the scholarly communication system, and gaps in understanding of each other's position do not help. Costs will not come down. All involved parties need to develop trust, and this trust will come from increased understanding. Quality results from partnerships. Can the nature of scholarly communication change? How? Is it going to change? Probably its nature cannot change, but it can be disrupted. The perceived value of information is inflating rapidly, urged on by our conflicting goals. How can we control the information flow? Should we save everything? It can't be done. Can technology really cut costs, while enhancing some quality elements and not damaging others? What about the electronic dissemination of materials? The jury's out. The allelectronic path? It may only shift costs to the author. A major issue brought out in the discussions was that funding for scholarship is not adequate to do business as usual. How do we determine appropriate means of funding? The decrease of volunteerism is a severe handicap. Scholarly communication must make its case politically. We must define our requirements and do what we can with the resources we have. On budget control, is accountability in the right place, with libraries and publishers? We measure scholarly publishing in the billions of dollars, but nobody seems to have any of it. Whose expectations are the most important? The author's? What are our expectations of quality? It is necessary to educate each component of the system; authors are the key. The value of quality is relative. Quality is what enhances the system as a whole. Or, is quality "doing it the way it used to be done?" What is to be done about the "rising quality of sleaze" or, "the identification of sleaze?" Academic institutions and learned societies have a responsibility to see and understand the entire scholarly communication process. Quality relationships is what the Society for Scholarly Publishing is all about.
A U T H O R ' S REFLECTIONS This Roundtable was my first SSP activity, and it was one of the best meetings I have attended. Several veteran members expressed the same thought. Participating in the Round-
10
M. TUTTLE
table was a worthwhile experience and a great stride in moving from the librarian's usual adversarial relationship with journal publishers to the partnership that is necessary for us to fulfill our purpose of disseminating scholarly information. As instructed when the meeting opened, I brought several themes home with me. The concept of partnership among publishers and librarians now appears possible. I learned of other tensions in the scholarly communication process, but I felt that participants in the Roundtable truly try to work as partners. With one possible exception. The term "author" appears to cover all persons reading scholarly journals. Authors intimidate publishers, who consider them the real purchasers of journals, even though the library pays the invoice. I perceived a fear of displeasing the author and some blame of the author for the expense of journal publication. The work librarians are doing in partnership with faculty members ("authors") to evaluate and shape research library journal collections is an exciting development, contrary to the relationship of the past and contrary to publishers' vision of this relationship. Somewhat akin to this work is the question o f "sleaze." Must we publish all those extra pages? Should editorial standards be higher? Which brings us to the frustrating questions of volunteerism and raising revenue. The Society for Scholarly Publishing has very few librarians as members, and its directors want more to join and become active. On the basis of the Sixth Top Management Roundtable, I encourage acquisitions and collection development librarians and library administrators concerned with the scholarly communication process to become members. The annual fee is $40.00, and the address is: Society for Scholarly Publishing, 2000 Florida Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009.