Subject: resignations of editors
From: Bob OLIVER <bobol@math.univ-paris13.fr>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:39:39 +0200 (CEST)

I would like to make a few comments on the change from the old K-theory
journal to the new Journal of K-theory.  This process of replacing
"expensive" journals by less expensive ones is one which I hope will
continue, and I think it's important to have agreement within the
mathematical community on what's the right way to do this --- and
especially on how it should not be done.

If I feel this process of replacing journals published by the "expensive"  
commercial publishers by less expensive journals is important, it is not
only because of price (I call them expensive for lack of a better term),
but also because these commercial publishers (via their bundling policies)
have taken away our right to choose which journals our libraries should
subscribe to and which they should not take.  However, there are two
procedures which I strongly feel must be followed when doing this.  
First, it must be done only after a general discussion among all editors.  
This means messages sent from individual editors to all of the other
editors, not only between one head editor and the others individually.  
Second, authors of submitted papers must be informed as soon as a decision
has been made, and it should be assumed that any paper submitted to the
old journal will be published in the old journal (if accepted), unless the
author explicitly (and without being asked) requests otherwise.

In the case of the K-theory journals, it was almost the opposite which
happened.  According to the accounts of several editors I've been in
contact with, there was no general discussion (in the above sense) among
the editors about replacing the old journal with a new one.  All of the
discussion went on between Bak and the other editors individually.  Also,
without discussion among other editors, Bak created his own private
company which was intended to own the new journal.  Most seriously, in
April 2006, more than a year before the public announcement about the
resignations, Bak stopped sending accepted papers to the publisher,
neither discussing this with the editors nor informing the authors.  This
led to the situation where many authors assumed (based on what another
editor had told them) that their paper had been accepted and was in the
queue to be published, while formally Bak hadn't accepted it (so that he
wouldn't be legally bound to send it to be published).  To me, all of
these actions are completely unacceptable, and should have disqualified
Bak from being chief editor of any future journal.

Some of the editors explained to me the withholding of papers by saying
that there had been major production problems with the journal, and that
the backlog was over a year.  It is definitely true that there were
serious production problems, but this is irrelevant to the point I'm
trying to make.  If production problems or backlog had reached a level to
justify a stop to sending papers to the publisher, then this type of
action (withholding papers) should have been taken only after an open
discussion among the editors, and only after notifying all authors.  This
definitely did not happen.

Bob