RE: Funding OA

["David Groenewegen" <d.groenewegen@ballarat.edu.au>]

It seems to me that the key factor is that the demand is being skewed by
the assumptions that underlie the promotion/funding process. Up until now
funding, tenure etc has been determined by the places you have been
published because that has been the primary indicator of the quality of
your work. The value of the publication has been judged by the perceived
value of the name, editors, history and so on. This was not unreasonable
in the pre-internet world, where finding information was much tougher. But
just being published in a "good' title is not a true indication of the
value of the research.

As an example I looked at issue v50n20 of "Physical Review B" in Web of
Science. This issue was published in 1994, so it has had plenty of time to
be read and cited. The journal has an impact factor is in the top ten for
"Physics, Condensed matter" according to JCR. Of the 96 articles from that
issue indexed in WoS, 23 have been cited 3 or less times. Several have
never been cited. But on the current criteria for advancement it doesn't
matter that the articles have been ignored by the Physics community for 10
years. What matters is that "Physical Review B" published them.

In 1994 I was working in serials check-in and binding in a science
library. Physical Review B put out a huge issue every week. The shelves
were groaning under the weight of the bound issues, each so large that you
could only bind two issues into one volume or the spine would collapse.  
But they kept coming. I note that v70n20 from 2004 has 130 articles in it.
Because everyone wants to be in a "quality" journal.

It seems to me that we need to get away from the brand name of the journal
or the publisher and move towards the value of the article to other
researchers (as this is supposed to be one of the key reasons for
publication) . At the moment citation rates are the only viable way of
measuring it. How this can be done is a whole other question of course,
but it will be interesting if ISI Web Citation Index can bring about a
shift in perceptions, assuming it does what they were trying to achieve.
But as long as where you publish is a critical factor, what you publish
will be undervalued.

By the way, this should not be seen as an attack on Physical Review B, or
the authors whose articles were not cited or who choose to publish there
or on the quality of the articles. It was just an example that has stuck
in my head from my days of lugging vast numbers of issues off the shelves
and into the work area to prepare for binding.

David Groenewegen
Information Resources Management Librarian
Information Services
University of Ballarat
PO Box 355
Ballarat VIC 3353
AUSTRALIA

Ph: +61 3 5327 8078
Fx: +61 3 5327 8231

email: d.groenewegen@ballarat.edu.au 

>>> RFeinman@downstate.edu 08/17/05 8:12 am >>>

I should have said A key issue.  I agree that THE key factor is the
demand.  My perception, however, is that the problem is not exactly as
David describes it but rather the perception that new OA journals lack
prestige.  The concern seems to be how the journal looks to a review
committee for their grant.  My pitch to prospective authors is that
prestige comes from the papers published not from the publisher and that
PubMed and the internet have leveled the playing field.  I even suggest
puting in grant renewals that they chose to follow NIH guidelines by
publishing in our OA journal with a prestigous editorial board and one
eminent co-editor-in-chief.  I think the NIH could help by explicitly
encouraging study sections to look favorably on those who do chose OA
(assuming the paper is inherently good).

I feel, however, that part of prestige is presence and production values
that color the picture.  I think N&M has a unique niche in integrating
molecular science and traditional nutrition but we might be said to
compete somewhat with Cell Metabolism: a new journal but a spin-off of
Cell which is well established and whose hard copy version and website
have great impact.  In essence, we (or BMC)  are a start-up company trying
to compete with General Motors (generic term).  We (or BMC) can't go to a
bank with the prospect of big profits later.  An interesting example is:  
This month's Cell Metabolism has an ad "seeking two junior editors to join
a multidisciplinary team in our Cambridge, MA, office....offers an
attractive salary and benefits." N&M has one junior editor who is paid
from external funds.  Dr. Hussain and I are unpaid.  How many researcher's
can put in the kind of time that this takes for no money?

I agree with David that demand is key but there has to be a mechanism for
meeting the demand.  Basically, Cell Metabolism is not a good deal.  I
subscribe because it is part of my job.  It publishes a small number of
articles, a fraction of which are of interest to any single person.  It
presumably involves a large flow of money from libraries to Elsevier.  I
think offering a product that will compete with this is easy in terms of
value but will require a similar large flow of money to have presence.

I think one good way to solve a problem is to describe an ideal solution.  
I will give as analogy an exam given by Dr. Fred Sachs of SUNY Buffalo in
a course in cell biology.  The exam had four questions:

1. Describe any problem in cell biology whose solution will guarantee
you a Nobel Prize.
2. Describe how you would solve this problem using any real or
imaginary equipment or techniques no matter how far out or futuristic.
3. Describe how you could adapt exisitng equipment or techniques so as
to approximate the answer to question 2.
4. Why aren't you doing this?

His report was that students were largely stuck on part 2, that is by
their imagination.  If they could answer question 2, they could come up
with something for question 3.

My last message was background for the question of whether we can come up
with an ideal solution for the financial or organizational problem in OA.  
(I am working on the demand problem but will be glad to hear suggestions
on that too). Regards, RF

Richard D. Feinman Professor of Biochemistry Co-editor-in-chief, Nutrition
& Metabolism Department of Biochemistry SUNY Downstate Medical Center