Re: Tenure and journals (RE: Elsevier profit)

[Tom Williams <twilliam@bbl.usouthal.edu>]

First of all, the "finally figuring it out" comment was clearly tongue-in-
cheek, something some of the more suspicious types, such as myself, tend
to do.  Are we really naive enough to insist that who is picked for this
or that editorial board is not a business decision in many cases?  And
even though these are "voluntary, non-paid" positions, do these editorial
boards not get the occasional trip to home base or wherever?  Am I
implying that all of these people who agree to serve on these boards are
in it for whatever they can get out of it?  Absolutely not.  Do I believe
that there may be some who think that way, absolutely. Especially those
tied with the high-priced, high-profit companies that are out there.

However, those publishers and even some board members who may think that
way, I firmly believe, are a small minority.  Most do not think along
those lines at all.  Most journals do not make much money, especially
those in library science and similar disciplines.  But they are not the
ones who have gotten so many of us in an uproar over pricing and
questionable practices.  Many of us know who the culprits are that lack
our trust.  The types of practices we've seen in recent years on the part
of some publishers has gone a long way towards creating what increasingly
is an adversarial relationship between these publishers and the consumers.  
Instead of trying to develop a serious dialog with us, the publishing
industry hires powerful mouthpieces (such as Pat Schroeder) to see if they
can make our complaints and initiatives go away.

I believe things ARE going to change.  They have to if libraries as we
know them, including electronic, are to survive.  We're getting to a
point, and many have passed it, where we can no longer afford to purchase
the resources we need to support our programs because of the exhorbitant
prices of print and online.

One of the reasons we've come to this state is because we've sat
compliantly by without taking any sort of action over the years to protect
our collections from those we could call "Robber Barons."  Now we have no
choice.  Status Quo is no longer an option.  No matter how it is spun,
this is the reality as I see it.

-- 
Thomas L. Williams, AHIP
Director, Biomedical Libraries 
University of South Alabama
College of Medicine
Mobile, Al 36688-0002
tel. (251)460-6885
fax. (251)460-7638
twilliam@bbl.usouthal.edu

On Sat, 5 Apr 2003, Anthony Watkinson wrote:

> I really do not understand the point Tom Williams is making here.
> 
> All publishers, non-profit and for-profit open-access and not open-access,
> want their journals to be successful and by successful they usually mean
> that the journal attracts the most important articles for that audience
> that the journal aims to serve. Most publishers suggest to the editor that
> they get wide geographical coverage (and coverage of different
> perspectives if it is that sort of field) on the editorial board but leave
> the choice of the board to the editor. In the past the boards of journals
> tended to be populated by the great and the good and I am sure there are
> editors (and publishers) who still want editorial boards to be populated
> by well-known people in top positions. As a publisher I once challenged a
> rather flakey editor who wanted to start a new journal to get a prominent
> editorial board and I was shocked when he sent copies of letters from very
> top people agreeing to go on his board. I turned the journal down
> nevertheless. But I do think the situation has changed.
> 
> Over the last decade or so however I have noticed that the emphasis is
> more and more to get a working editorial board. By "working" I mean that
> the editorial board are expected to referee a number of articles every
> year, to assist the editor with advice, and to encouage friends and
> colleagues to submit to the journal. With this job description even
> prominent people are quietly let go if they do not perform and it is not
> infrequent for conscientious people to back out from commitments because
> they cannot deliver..
> 
> This is unpaid work. Editorial boards do it because they support the aims
> of the journal and they want help scholarship. OK - if they are younger
> scholars it does look good that their names are on the board of a
> prestigious journal. They will get a free subscription, which can be a
> help especially if like me you are self-employed and work from home. They
> may get a free buffet lunch at an annual editorial board meeting as a
> reward for attending the meeting in the middle of a busy conference.
> 
> I do not know what Tom Williams means about figuring out something. There
> is no secrecy here and no hidden motives. I am on the board of three
> journals in library and information science and for one of them I work
> hard, for one I do the little I am asked and for the third I have done
> nothing as yet. I cannot see where the "cushy board seats" come into the
> picture.
> 
> Anthony Watkinson