RE: Calculating the Cost: an author rejoinder

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

There is an unfortunate dilemma here.:

All of us, librarians and scientists, are rightly unwilling to accept
public control over either research or the publication of research, yet
all of us, librarians and scientists, are in need of public support for
research and the publication of research.

If public support is interpreted narrowly to mean the U.S. Federal
government, I think most of us would be somewhat apprehensive.

If public support is interpreted broadly, to include the foundations and
other groups, the diversity gives much protection to all parties.  The
advantage of using such a broad interpretation is to include the
fundraising, research, professional publication, and general audience
publication of the societies, such as the ADA.

We really should use an even broader interpretation, to include the work
done in other countries. Fortunately, biomedical research in the US does
not stand alone; I have noticed an implicit assumption that the NIH
governs the world.  It's obvious we all benefit, not just from the mutual
scientific contributions, but also the diversity of legal systems and
national interests.  The centralized system to truly fear would be one
that is closed to outsiders.

I have also not seen an understanding that the purposes of scientific
societies and of universities are exactly the same: to support research,
to support the dissemination of research; to train researchers, and to
educate the non-specialists.  I anticipate the possibility of universities
and societies sharing not only research efforts, but the sponsoring of
journals (and there are a few examples). I anticipate the possibility of
societies that prefer not to publish on their own joining forces with a
university, not with a commercial publisher

We've had some discussion on this list recently about the inadequately
recognized interdependency of university researchers and university
libraries: they share the same support.  This should be broadened;
distributing the support between the publisher and the library is also
just distributing the same money, intended for the same purpose.

The library will not grow rich at the expense of the society publishers,
or the society publishers at the expense of the library. There is little
enough money for scientific communication--and still many users not
adequately served.  For example, if all the effort over the last few
months debating embargo periods had been exerted for some productive
purpose like reducing publication lags, we would all have gotten our
information sooner.

The sad truth is, that we are all afraid of each other, and of the
potential other parties have for harming our own interests; if we were not
afraid, we could instead make use of the possibilities for helping each
others' interests.  I suggest we will make the most progress by treating
the last year as a bad example.

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