Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:13:35 -0500 (EST) From: Dev Sinha Subject: a letter from Kirby to Elsivier Publishers (fwd) I think other people on the topology list might be interested in this if they haven't seen it already. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Forwarded message: From: kirby@math.berkeley.edu (Rob Kirby) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 12:02:34 -0800 (PST) To: mobley@omni.cc.purdue.edu Subject: elsevier Cc: ann.okerson@yale.edu, dfortner@library.berkeley.edu Dear Ms. Mobley: I much enjoyed reading your letter to the ARL directors, and I certainly agreed with its sentiments. After reading the NYTimes article on Elsevier, I wrote the letter below to their CEO's, with my views on publishing in mathematics. Your are welcome to share my letter with others. Yours, Rob Kirby ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 30 December, 1997 Math Dept. > University of California > Berkeley, CA 94720-8204 > kirby@math.berkeley.edu > > >Mr. Nigel Stapleton >CEO, Reed Elsevier > >Mr. Russell White >President, Elsevier Science Inc. > > >Dear Mr. Stapleton and Mr. White: > > I am a mathematician (in particular a topologist) writing to >you about scientific publishing (particularly in math, and more >particularly about your journal Topology). During the past year I >have been gathering information, thinking, and writing about the high >cost of commercial math journals and alternative methods of >publication. Let me explain my view of the future of math publishing >and how it relates to Reed Elsevier. > > The latest issue of Topology shows that it takes, on the >average, about two years from the time a paper is submitted to the >time it is published. This is typical in mathematics, and probably >hasn't changed much in decades. > > Thus, in order to disseminate their mathematics quicker and to >establish priority, mathematicians send out preprints. Mathematicians >want to receive preprints so as to keep up with the field without >having to wait for the journal to appear years later. For these >reasons the preprints are crucial to our profession. The journals are >crucial because of their role in refereeing, vouching for the worth of >a paper, and as an archive. > > By now, almost all mathematicians produce TEX versions of >their papers, and distribute an electronic preprint. This makes >distribution easy, and it would be still easier if mathematicians were >more willing to standardize their personal versions of TEX. > > What I would like to see happen, and is beginning to happen, >is the following: there would exist preprint servers in each subfield >of mathematics (a subfield being 2 to 5% of math, defined in a natural >way, for example mine would be low dimensional topology). Once an >author has produced a suitable TEX version of a paper, s/he would send >it to one or more preprint servers which would list the paper on-line >for eternity. I could go to a server that interested me and ask for >a specific paper, or all papers by a certain author, or all papers in >a certain subject since a certain date, or all papers with certain >code words; I might have a subscription which sends me an abstract >each time a paper is listed. > > Such a system has the following advantages: (1) assuming >almost all mathematicians join this system, I have quick and efficient >access to papers that interest me, which I can peruse on my computer >screen and print if I wish (contrast this with waiting for publication >and then hoping my library subscribes so that I can laboriously xerox >page by page); (2) I can easily distribute my own papers to any >interested reader (contrast this with duplicating a paper preprint, >stuffing envelopes and addressing, and then missing part of my >interested audience). > > Such preprint servers already exist. One in high energy >physics is working splendidly, run by Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos >National Lab. Some servers exist in math, and we are in the midst of >organizing a more coherent system to cover all of math, done through >Ginsparg's operation. I think we are off to a good start in >"Geometric Topology" (see http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ ). > > These preprint servers are only meant to be a better way of >maintaining the old preprint system. It is still vitally important, >in my opinion, that we mathematicians retain our tradition of having >papers refereed and accepted (or rejected) by journals of varying >reputation. This should continue, and can also be done >electronically. We have started an electronic journal, Geometry & >Topology, based at the University of Warwick (see >http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/gt/ ). It is free, at least in the >foreseeable future. It is off to an excellent start with a large >distinguished board of editors and standards at least that of >Topology. We expect to offer a paper subscription at a very low >price, determined by the cost of a commercial printer using our TEX >files. Of course, there are the hidden subsidies to G&T by Warwick, >such as supporting the computers that G&T uses and some time by the >editors. > > Where do the commercial publishers come into this picture? We >mathematicians write and TEX our papers, we referee and edit for the >journals, and we are well paid by our universities for these tasks. >We then turn over the papers, with copyright, to the publishers who >add relatively little value in producing the paper volume from our TEX >files, and who then turn around and sell the journal to the university >libraries at what is, in some cases at least, an exorbitant price. > > Last spring, I collected some data on prices of journals which >can be found at http://math.berkeley.edu/~kirby/journals.html in the >appendices. The data is given in price per page and price per 10,000 >characters. The latter is more accurate, but the former is easier to >understand. Briefly, an efficient and cost conscious journal like the >Pacific Journal of Math can be sold at about 13 cents/page. It is a >non-profit company, with only minor subsidies from a few universities, >and a 40+ year history of low costs and good mathematics. > > Perhaps the three most prestigious math journals are the >Annals of Math (Princeton Univ Press) published at 15 cents/page, the >Journal of the American Math Society at 15 cents/page also, and >Inventiones Mathematicae (Springer) at 110 cents/page. > > Your journal Topology costs us 81 cents/page. Berkeley >subscribes to 13 of your math journals, and the average cost is 73 >cents/page, ranging from a high of 135 cents/page for Nonlinear >Analysis to a low of 47 cents/page for Linear Algebra and its >Applications. Wolters Kluwer averages 67 cents/page for 5 journals. > > Springer averages 82 cents/page, Academic Press 40 cents/page, >and Birkhauser 68 cents/page, for comparison. The non-profits are >usually less. > > So this brings me to the main point of this letter. I read in >yesterday's New York Times about Reed Elsevier expanding dramatically >and having high margins in its scientific publishing. Yet it looks to >me as though you are on your way out in scientific publishing, at >least in math. How can you stay in business offering a topology >journal at 81 cents/page when you have competitors offering roughly >the same product at under 20 cents/page? What's going on here? > > I know part of the answer. There is a time lag. Your prices >have been going up steeply in recent years. Mathematicians pay little >attention to these things for we subscribe to few journals as >individuals and in those cases get much lower prices if our libraries >also subscribe. Our librarians have noticed the higher prices, but it >has taken a while for them to get our attention. But many of us have >woken up by now. (Furthermore, publishers added much more value in >the old days of typesetters and galley proofs.) > > But now that we are awake, we also notice the alternatives. >In my field, we have a free electronic journal and are on the way to >having a preprint server. By the time our library decides on which >journals to subscribe to this summer, I expect that much (most?) >topology will be on the preprint server, some good topology papers >will have shifted away from Topology to lower cost journals, and I >will be able to recommend to my library that they drop Topology (and I >will, alas, drop my personal subscription). Perhaps this will be >delayed a year. When Berkeley drops Topology, and editors, referees >and authors begin to desert Topology, how long will it continue to >exist? > > An interesting issue here is copyright. I understand that, at >the moment, you allow authors to list their paper on their web site, >but do not allow (once the copyright form has been signed) authors to >put their papers on preprint servers. I'm not surprised at this >restriction, given what I wrote in the last paragraph. But why should >authors give up the right to use a preprint server when it is >obviously so much in their interest that everyone use preprint >servers? You might win that battle if Topology were unique enough, >but if you demand a restrictive copyright, authors are likely to go to >your competitors. > > So you see boom and I see bust. Your markets in other areas >such as law may be in good shape; things vary widely between academic >disciplines. But I think I know math pretty well, and I don't see >much of a future for high cost commercial publishers. > > But I would be sorry to see Topology disappear. It's an old >friend. I published my thesis there in 1967. From my desk I see all >the back issues, and know many papers therein. The editors at Oxford >are friends and have worked hard from the beginning to make Topology a >journal of stature. But all that sentiment can't overcome a price >that's too large by a factor of 4. > > It is presumptuous of me to tell you how to run your business, >but here are a few possibilities anyway. > > I'd guess that you could cut the price of Topology in half, >and probably more, and still make a profit. After all, there are >economies of scale and you have much experience and a tradition to >help. American automobile manufacturers who thought they were pretty >efficient in the 70's found they could double their efficiency when >they ran into Japanese competition. Also, you apparently have high >profit margins in scientific publishing which could come down some. > > Announcing a price cut to 40 cents/page, with promised cuts in >the future, would probably save Topology, at least for quite a while. >But this doesn't seem too likely when I read about 3 to 5 year >contracts with 9.5% increases locked in, and only some electronic >enhancements to offer us (those electronic enhancements look modest >compared to what we are doing ourselves with preprint servers and >electronic journals that are free). > > Best for us would be for you to simply give the journal >Topology to its editors in Oxford, to run as a non-profit as the >Pacific Journal is. All you'd get is some good will from >topologists. > > I think that proceeding as you are will just run journals like >Topology into the ground. There may be profits there for another few >years. But then all that remains is ill will from some academics who >didn't want a favorite journal to die. > > I'd also encourage you to talk to us. We mathematicians >produce the math for your journals, and we urge (so far) our libraries >to buy your journals. Of course it is costly in time to talk to us. >I will circulate this letter to other mathematicians, and will be >happy to circulate your reply in the same way. That is one way to >reach us. > >Yours, > >Rob Kirby >