Declaring Independence: Returning Scientific Publishing to ScientistsSkip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
This work is protected by copyright and may be linked to without seeking permission. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact email@example.com for more information. :
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
Out of old bookes, in good faithe, Cometh al this new science that men lere.
Out of old bookes, in good faithe,
Cometh al this new science that men lere.
—Geoffrey Chaucer, The Assembly of Fowles
As Chaucer's "old bookes" give way to the Information Age, I've been asking myself whether or not these books — and today, principally journals — have morphed into something else entirely. Scientific communication is increasingly driven by factors that have little to do with researchers and more to do with commercial publishers' profits. Even amid talk of the Internet-driven rise of scientific publishing, the researcher and the lab — where scientific communication originates — seem to be forgotten entirely.
Restoring the researcher in research publishing requires long-term, cultural shifts to right the balance in favor of the scientist. To stimulate this process, SPARC has published Declaring Independence: A Guide to Creating Community-Controlled Science Journals. Declaring Independence (a handbook and a Web site) outlines for editors and editorial board members of commercial journals how to determine whether a journal is serving its community.
For researchers worried that their journal is not serving their particular community, Declaring Independence lists alternative publishing options and methods to evaluate those choices. It also serves as primer on the publishing process (including information on abstracting and indexing services, institutional and consortial sales, marketing, production, distribution, and more) to help editorial board members understand the entire publishing process.
Declaring Independence represents just one of many resources for scientists who want to re-establish control over scientific publishing in its many forms. The Public Library of Science, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Dspace, and the Open Archives Initiative are just a few of the other projects under way to address the needs for greater access and reduced dependency on commercial publishers.
This diversity of resources for alternatives to commercial publishing is a recent development; mainstream awareness of these new initiatives was spurred by the U.S. National Institutes of Health's PubMedCentral. The initiatives, although diverse, share a common root: a growing dissatisfaction with the path scientific communications has taken during the past decade. Before a more in-depth discussion of Declaring Independence, then, it behooves us to ask a basic question: Why do we need initiatives like this?
How We Got Here
SPARC is an alliance of approximately 200 research institutions, libraries, and organizations worldwide that encourages competition in the scholarly communications market. Our mission is to introduce new solutions to scientific journal publishing, facilitate the use of technology to expand access, and create partnerships with publishers that bring top-quality, low-cost research to a greater audience. Since SPARC's inception three years ago, researchers have requested guidance to help them navigate a course away from journals whose costs have skyrocketed. Specifically, they asked how — as editors and editorial board members of commercial journals — they could counter the high cost of scientific information from commercial publishers and address the need for wider, low-cost access to that information.
In recent years we have seen the confluence of many factors that have affected the cost of and accessibility to scientific journals, including:
- The primacy of promotion and tenure;
- The grantmaking process;
- The prestige that follows from publishing in certain journals;
- The importance of peer-review;
- The disjunction between libraries (as fiscal agents) and users;
- Entrenched interests of the various stakeholders;
- Under-capitalization of nonprofit societies and publishers;
- The profit motives of commercial publishers;
- The conglomeration of the scientific publishing marketplace through mergers and acquisitions;
- Bundled offerings from publishers to libraries;
- The rise of electronic publishing and the associated empowerment of university departments, libraries, societies and individual researchers.
Without delving into these factors individually, we can assume that each of the above points — with the exception of the last — is entrenched in the culture of research and publishing. However, SPARC (an initiative of the Association of Research Libraries), sees opportunities to immediately alter the status quo. SPARC's approach in Declaring Independence is to focus on the researcher, who is key to restoring competition to the scientific journals marketplace.
Simply put, when most people think competition, they think competition for buyers. But in scholarly publishing, commpetition centers on winning authors. Authors give a journal its prestige. This fact alone powers the Public Library of Science open letter, which has, as of this writing, been signed by nearly 25,000 scientists. These scientists commit themselves to "publish in, edit or review for, and personally subscribe to, only those scholarly and scientific journals that have agreed to grant unrestricted free distribution rights to any and all original research reports that they have published."
The nearly 25,000 researcher-authors who signed the Public Library of Science pledge may ultimately represent a potent force for competition. According to the pledge organizers, who are themselves scientists, the open letter is intended to provide a strong collective voice for scientists in "redefining the terms of our relationships with the publishers of our scientific journals."
As the Public Library of Science says on its Web site:
Using our freedom of choice in a free market, we are offering the publishers of our scientific journals something that they value — the opportunity to profit from our ideas and hard work, and our continued patronage as subscribers — in exchange for something that we value — free and unrestricted access to the published record of our collective work.
"The number of peer-reviewed electronic journals increased well over 570 times between 1991 and 2000"
According to the Library organizers, the initiative balances the interests of commercial and non-profit publishers, scientists, and the public. The Public Library of Science proposes that in exchange for scientists' roles in editing, publishing, and peer review, publishers get a six-month lease on the original research reports they publish. After that, the published record becomes public domain.
If the journals in which the letter's signatories have published in the past do not comply with the call for open access to back issues, then the scientists say they will move to publication venues — old or new — that better satisfy their needs. This expression of intent is a sign of how far researchers are willing to go once they realize that they have a say in the way their research is produced and distributed.
Scientists play a critical role in the battle to drive down the cost of information, and many signed on to the Public Library of Science letter as soon as they recognized this. Similarly, some editors and editorial board members of commercial journals believe Declaring Independence will right an imbalance in the marketplace. Researchers have come to see themselves as a valuable commodity to be wooed — not with expensive gifts, but with pricing and policies that will make their work accessible to a broad audience. If the Public Library of Science effort succeeds and if Declaring Independence continues to impact academe, journals will be competing for the best researchers — on the researchers' terms.
How We Got Here: Part Two
The most compelling explanation of the crisis in scientific publishing derives from the marketplace's economic underpinnings. Libraries have compiled a vast amount of data showing the effect of the science, technology, and medicine (STM) marketplace on libraries — and the researchers who use libraries.
This statistical background addresses our two most important issues: the cost of scientific information and the availability of that information.
During the past 15 years, libraries have seen a growing gap between the price of scholarly resources and the libraries' ability to pay. Data collected by the Association of Research Libraries, a membership organization of over 120 of the largest research libraries in North America, reveal that the unit cost paid by research libraries for serials increased by 207% between 1986 and 1999. Libraries simply could not sustain their purchasing power with such a significant increase. Even though the typical research library spent 170% more on serials in 1999 than in 1986, the number of serial titles purchased declined by 6%.
As points of comparison, during the same time period the consumer price index increased 52%, faculty salaries increased 68%, and health-care costs increased 107%.
Fast forward to the present. Electronic publishing is booming: the number of peer-reviewed electronic journals increased well over 570 times between 1991 and 2000. While worldwide output of information resources has increased dramatically, the research library is purchasing a smaller and smaller proportion of the available universe. The typical library subscribed to 16,312 serial titles and 32,679 monographs in 1986; it is now able to afford only 15,259 serials and 24,294 monographs.
The highest prices and most significant price increases of journals science, technology, and medicine titles. Price increases in these disciplines have averaged from 9-13% a year over at least the past decade. Data support the belief that the growth of commercial publishers in STM-journal publishing is one of the underlying causes of the high prices. The current consolidation in the publishing industry raises concerns that fewer companies with greater market power will cause further price increases.
In his article, "The Impact of Publisher Mergers on Journal Prices: An Update," (ARL Bimonthly Report 207, December 1999) Mark McCabe argues that publisher mergers and consolidations are directly correlated to journal price rises. His "portfolio theory" of buyer and seller behavior in academic journal markets attempts to explain the economics:
Given libraries' demand for portfolios of titles within broad fields of study, we demonstrated in a simple economic model that, all else equal, publishers set prices so that higher-use (or quality) journals exhibit lower cost-per-use ratios. Thus, higher-use journals (that have a lower cost per use) are purchased by most libraries. Conversely, lower-use journals (that have a higher cost per use) are purchased by fewer, relatively high-budget libraries.
The intuition for this particular ordering is that higher use imparts a "cost advantage" that makes it more profitable for their publishers to price low and sell widely. Given this strategy, lower use or "high cost" journal publishers find it most profitable to price high and sell to fewer, relatively high budget libraries. Note that although the latter firms could match the "low cost" firms' prices, this strategy is less profitable than targeting the smaller base of high budget customers.
Using this model it is also possible to show, in some cases, that mergers are profitable for journal publishers. A corollary is that the merged firms' journal prices increase. The idea here is that the merged firm is able to internalize certain pricing externalities that the merging parties fail to consider when they act independently. Larger portfolio firms are better able to capture these benefits and therefore, all else equal, set prices at a higher level.
Given these theoretical possibilities, we attempted to test these predictions with actual data. We collected information on literally thousands of STM titles from a variety of sources, for the period 1988-1998. We chose to focus initially on biomedical titles. . . By May 1998, we were able to show, using a so-called reduced-form econometric model, that a firm's portfolio size was positively related to journal prices, and that past mergers were associated with higher prices. However, even after controlling for the effects of portfolio size and other variables, we still observed a substantial inflation residual.
McCabe, a former Department of Justice economist who worked there during several publisher mergers and merger proposals, uses data from this experience to illustrate his point about the effect of publisher mergers on library budgets:
During the sample period (1988—1998) two significant mergers occurred: one between Pergamon (57 biomedical titles) and Elsevier (190) and the other between Lippincott (15) and Kluwer (75). To estimate the impact of these mergers on the prices of the biomedical journals being studied, a subset of data from the larger sample of medical libraries was analyzed. According to these empirical estimates, each of these mergers was associated with substantial price increases; in the case of the Elsevier deal the price increase was due solely to increased market power. For example, compared to pre-merger prices, the Elsevier deal resulted in an average price increase of 22% for former Pergamon titles and an 8% increase for Elsevier titles. This asymmetry probably reflects the corresponding asymmetry in pre-merger journal portfolio size for the two firms. That is, Pergamon's relatively small biomedical portfolio prevented it from realizing it could profitably set prices at the same level as Elsevier for journals in the same class. In the Lippincott/Kluwer merger, a 35% price increase in former Lippincott titles was due in part to increased market power, but also due in part to an apparent increase in the inelasticity of demand for the titles. That is, after the merger, Lippincott titles were even less likely to be cancelled.
These results also contain a likely explanation for the persistent journal price inflation observed in most academic fields. The sensitivity of library demand to price increases is very small by normal standards (a 1% increase in price results in a 0.3% decline in subscriptions). Given this inelastic demand, publishers have a strong incentive to increase prices faster than the growth rate of library budgets. Based on the structural model estimates for key biomedical journals, the average annual increase in journal prices net of price changes due to journal quality and costs was nearly 10%.
The pricing trends associated with publisher mergers, as described by McCabe and librarians' anecdotal examples, are part of the reason why some editors and editorial board members have begun to break away from commercial journals. Although those who have resigned have done so for a variety of reasons, many of them felt that due to its high cost, their journal no longer served its community of researchers.
This awareness reached some journal referees several years ago as well. And perhaps because they are "free agents," they were able to quickly and effectively exercise their displeasure with journal price increases by refusing to referee for journals that are priced too high.
For instance, Ted Bergstrom, Professor of Economics at the University of California Santa Barbara, wrote in early 2000 a widely circulated letter:
Every year, I am asked to referee many more journal articles than I have time to handle adequately. University libraries complain that the rapid escalation of journal prices and the proliferation of new journals makes it impossible for them to maintain adequate collections of books and journals within their budgets.
I just don't see why I should supply free refereeing services to those publishers that use monopoly pricing to gouge our university budgets. I have made a new millennial resolution to stop refereeing papers for journals that charge library subscription rates greater than $1000 and to exercise preference for journals that charge less than $300. I do feel a professional obligation to review papers, but I can perform this obligation just as well by doing my refereeing for journals that are not exploiting university libraries.
My new policy leaves plenty of options, for example: the new Journal of Public Economic Theory ($240 per year to libraries), or the AER, ($142 per year), Econometrica ($178), the Canadian Journal ($120), or the Journal of Political Economy ($159). On the other hand, I will not be refereeing for the Journal of Public Economics ($1431), Economic Letters ($1492), or Public Choice ($1000 per year).
It seems to me that the publishers that overprice their journals would be up a creek if they lost the good will of the referees who provide them with free refereeing. The gougers have lost mine, at least until they cut their prices.
Mark Riley, a Florida State University physics professor who serves on the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee, resigned in June 1999 as a referee from the prestigious Nuclear Physics A, a publication of Elsevier Science that in 2001 cost $8,300. In his letter to the journal's editor, he protested the escalating price of the journal, writing, "These increases are having a dramatic, and negative, effect on our library materials budget and thus our educational institution. I am dismayed by the pricing and inflation policies of Elsevier and the significant part they have played, and are playing, in the present journal budget crisis."
"Alternative journals are just one aspect of the competition issue"
Unlike referees, editorial boards of journals engage in a complicated and sometimes years-long negotiation process when members decide to resign from their journal. But many do resign precisely because of their commitment to serving their intellectual community with the broadest possible access policies — including price. For example, the complete 50-member Editorial Board of the Journal of Logic Programming (JLP; recently renamed the Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming), which was endorsed by the Association for Logic Programming, took a stand against the rising cost of their journal in November 1999 when they unanimously resigned from the Elsevier Science publication. The Editorial Board launched its own lower-priced publication, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP), earlier this year. It is published by Cambridge University Press and is the sole official journal of the Association for Logic Programming. TPLP costs just $300 — 60% less than the Journal of Logic Programming had cost before its editorial board resigned.
"Theory and Practice of Logic Programming is an excellent example of what an involved, committed Editorial Board can accomplish if it is dissatisfied with the way a journal serves its intellectual community," said Jack Minker, founding editor, when TPLP launched in April 2001. "TPLP's policies are also more in line with our commitment to broad access."
(The story of how and why the editors of the JLP collectively resigned and founded TPLP is told in "Scientific Publishing: A Mathematician's Viewpoint," Notices of AMS, Volume 47, Number 7, pages 770-774, August 2000.)
In each of these cases and many others, the principals contacted SPARC to obtain advice, discuss options, and determine the best way to move forward. Though the examples and the disciplines involved are different, the common thread was the researchers' desire to better serve their intellectual community. Declaring Independence therefore identifies as its primary mission the need to create community-controlled scientific publishing. To help researchers accomplish this, we have organized the Declaring Independence handbook into three sections:
- Stage One/Diagnosis: Does Your Journal Meet its Primary Goal — To Serve its Community?
- Stage Two/Exploring Alternative Options
- Stage Three/Evaluating the Options
Together, these sections illustrate for researchers the role they could play in reforming scientific communication. If they determine to launch a viable competitive journal or an electronic initiative, SPARC supports their efforts in a number of formal or informal ways. The following excerpt is from the first section, to give an idea of what this handbook offers.
As an editor or editorial board member of a scientific, technical, or medical (STM) journal, you may be relatively unaware of subscription patterns and pricing histories in the journal publishing industry. After all, your primary job is to focus on journal content — to make sure that the latest and best research is published. And when societies published most research, it was assumed that they were managing and pricing the journals with an eye toward reaching their intended audiences around the world.
But the reality today has changed. Some publishers charge readers too much money for the journals they publish. That has led to broad scale subscription cancellations and narrower dissemination. More and more editorial boards have found that they must become seriously involved in the business aspects of their commercially-published journals if they are to be sure these essential publications remain accessible to their intended communities.
Is your journal truly serving its community? The following diagnostic guide will help you explore this question. If your answer is an unqualified "yes," completing the guide will affirm for you that you are on the right track and help you plan your future. If your "yes" is qualified, you may have issues to raise with your publisher and/or points to negotiate when you renew your contract.
If your answer is "no," please explore some of the alternatives to commercial publication presented in Stage Two and consider the steps toward DECLARING INDEPENDENCE presented in Stage Three.
Journal performance can be determined by four general measures:
- Pricing and Financial History. Is the journal fairly priced? Is the contribution your journal makes to the publisher's overhead and profit reasonable or excessive?
- Circulation and Renewal History. Has circulation been rising or falling? What do subscription renewal patterns look like and has this been affected by annual price increases?
- Production Process. What are the typical components of your journal's production process, how long does a typical production cycle take and how much does it cost? Is there a way to make it more efficient and pass the savings on to subscribers?
- Performance of the Publisher. As an editorial board, are you satisfied with your relationship with your publisher and with the way the publisher is operating the business side of your journal?
Pricing and Financial History
What are the individual and institutional subscription prices for the journal? Examine the gap between these prices if they are different. How do prices for your journal compare with similar journals in your field? Are subscribers getting their money's worth when they pay for your journal?
What is the average annual price increase over the last ten-year period? How does it compare with standard measures of inflation? As you consider various pricing projections over the next five to ten years, what is your sense of pricing's impact on dissemination over time?
For most commercially published journals, the publisher traditionally controls subscription rates. Are prices determined by number of pages or another method? If by page numbers, are price increases outstripping (rather than keeping pace with) the increase in content?
Overall, what is the objective of the pricing approach? How does this compare to the editorial board's objectives for the journal?
Aside from subscription rates, what are the journal's other revenue sources (page charges, color charges, advertising, reprint income, royalties, etc.) and how does this fit into the publisher's pricing policy?
How many subscriptions were needed to break even last year? Your publisher should be able to tell you the break-even point.
What is the breakdown of all the operational costs? How much is spent on the publisher's editorial operations? On printing? On marketing? How much is allocated for the publisher's own general and administrative (overhead) costs?
How much profit does the publishing company make annually? How does the overall margin compare to that of your journal?
Circulation and Renewal History
What is the breakdown between individual and institutional subscriptions and between the revenue generated from these two different sources?
What is the ten-year trend in subscriptions? If there have been changes, what are the causes? What is the cancellation history? Has the cancellation rate been rising or declining? If rising, what are the causes? What is the outlook for the next five to ten years?
What is the average time required for copy editing, composition, pre-press operations, and printing? Do these times seem reasonable in comparison with similar journals?
What is the turnaround time for peer review, and does the publisher handle this function? Is the system automated? Is someone on the editorial board monitoring the process to make sure it is completed in a timely way?
What is the overall turnaround time from article submission to publication?
Performance of the Publisher
Whether your editorial board operates on behalf of a society or otherwise, your agreements and/ or contracts with the publisher are key to your satisfaction. You may have several agreements to consider, based on your editorship or contribution to the journal. Typically, there will be a publishing agreement between the publisher and the society whose journal it produces; an editor's agreement, which may or may not outline remuneration; and an agreement pertaining to article rights of individual contributors. Read each contract carefully. Does it spell out the publisher's responsibilities to your satisfaction? Offer adequate control for the society? Administrative support?
Finally, be especially watchful of the non-competitive clauses and their restrictions. In addition to whatever non-competition restrictions may exist under applicable state law, some of these clauses can prevent the editor from performing any work for another journal as well as any promotional activity for several years after termination of the contract. It is generally best not to agree to any non-competition clauses following the termination of your contract.
For a detailed checklist on evaluating publisher agreements, see the CREATE CHANGE Web site at www.createchange.org. The following questions are merely starting points.
Who owns the journal title? The titles of journals — especially prestigious journals — are very valuable commodities. If there is a major change in the publisher, the editor, or the editorial board, what happens to the title?
What is the stance on copyright? Does the publisher hold control over all rights in the present and the indefinite future? All over the world? In all forms, even those not yet invented? In many written agreements, publisher rights and privileges can be breathtakingly comprehensive. Authors should expect to retain adequate rights to personal distribution or re-use of their own work.
What is the publisher's archiving policy? Is the publisher committed to maintaining digital archives in a way that will guarantee perpetual access? Will there be continual migration to higher platforms? Under what circumstances are archives accessible to subscribers and researchers?
The majority of scientific journals are being published in electronic form. How does the price of the electronic edition compare with the print? Does your publisher plan to move to purely electronic distribution? Will you be consulted about whether and under what conditions the journal will be available electronically?
What is the publisher's policy and practice in the licensing of electronic versions of the journal? Does it provide the kind of generous access that you want your journal to have? Does your society receive fair royalties?
Editorial boards have a right to a certain level of service and quality of publication, and there are concrete steps you can take to make sure your journal receives what it deserves.
How to Use the Checklist
This checklist can be used by the editorial board in evaluating both the journal and the publisher's performance. Or it can be used as a guide by an external review panel, perhaps made up of some board members and other members of your association. Such a panel might consist of a veteran scholar in your field, a young scholar who is just establishing a reputation in your field, a highly respected author, representatives of key sub-specialties in your field, and a representative of the international community. A subject-specialist librarian knowledgeable about data resources and alternative publication models would also be a useful member of the group.
Please adapt the checklist to your own needs and add your own questions as well.
The Value of Alternatives
Declaring Independence is SPARC's most recent advocacy initiative. SPARC's Alternatives program is a complementary project that has for the last three years supported high-quality, non-profit journals launched as alternatives to commercial titles. The Alternatives program is based on two beliefs:
- If authors have superior alternatives to existing high-priced journals, they will ultimately move to the outlet that better satisfies their need for both recognition and broad dissemination, and
- If publishers have market support for bold (but inherently risky) new ventures, they are more likely to make the investment.
We have seen both of these ideas succeed with a number of SPARC Alternative journals. Although journal prices can be calculated a number of ways — price per article, price per page, price per character — SPARC partner journals are steadily building a stable of authors and papers that will make them competitive no matter how prices are calculated. Before the SPARC partner journal Evolutionary Ecology Research (EER), for example, there was only Evolutionary Ecology (EE), a journal published eight times annually whose price jumped 19 percent per year during a twelve-year period. There were no options for a researcher except to continue submitting to and subscribing to that journal.
Now, many libraries have switched to EER. EER was founded after the editor and entire editorial board of EE resigned to protest its pricing and policies; they founded EER to compete with their former journal. While EE has published a limited number of issues in 1999 and 2000 (presumably because their authors chose to publish in EER), EER published eight complete, on-time issues each year. Perhaps in reaction to the challenge posed by EER, EE reduced its price this year to $560. Meanwhile, EER continues to charge just $305 for a combined print and electronic subscription, attracts the most prestigious authors in the field, and is covered in the major indexing services. There are several other success stories like this one, such as that of Organic Letters, an American Chemical Society journal that competes with the commercially published Tetrahedron Letters. (For more details, see http://www.arl.org/sparc/ATG.pdf or [formerly http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=f02] for news reports about SPARC.)
But alternative journals are just one aspect of the competition issue — and only a piece of SPARC's overall focus. For instance, the Create Change initiative (created with the Association of Research Libraries and the Association of College and Research Libraries) provides libraries with the data and ideas needed to interact with faculty on ways to work together to solve the serials crisis. This is an advocacy-centric approach that has been adopted by several dozen American universities and has also launched in Canada and the United Kingdom. At SPARC we recognize that focusing on journals is just one means of helping scientists become engaged in the near-term and long-term process of change in scholarly publishing. As the scientific communication marketplace shifts from "old bookes" to "new bytes," it is useful to remember that any sort of monopoly is undesirable.
Even the CEOs of commercial STM journal publishing houses are acknowledging SPARC's role in price controls. In a recent conference call to analysts, John Wiley & Sons CEO Will Pesce acknowledged that SPARC has made a difference in the way professional publishers do business today. As reported in Professional Publishing Report (June 29, 2001), Pesce said that SPARC has prompted STM journal publishers over the past several years to make customer-friendly improvements in their own products. "Financially, Pesce said that Wiley has held back on price increases for journals in the last two years — a major sticking point — because of this [the SPARC] movement," according to Professional Publishing Report.
Through Declaring Independence and our other initiatives, SPARC seeks to create a vibrant, competitive marketplace that squeezes out inefficiencies. This marketplace should focus on the researcher in his role as creator and disseminator of scientific communication. The scientist, after all, is the reason this debate exists in the first place: creators, in Chaucer's time and ours, of "al this new science that men lere."
As SPARC's Associate Enterprise Director, Alison Buckholtz leads its advocacy and communications efforts. In this role, she is responsible for SPARC's Declaring Independence and Create Change intiatives as well as SPARC's media and member relations program; its bimonthly e-news bulletin; SPARC Fora; and support of related SPARC-friendly scholarly communications initiatives. She is now involved in the launch of SPARC Europe, announced earlier this month. You may reach her by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Mary M. Case's paper, "Capitalizing on Competition: The Economic Underpinnings of SPARC," forthcoming from the MIT Press, formed the basis of the sections relating to competition and economics of scholarly publishing.
"Whither Competition?" by Rick Johnson, Nature.com: http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/johnson.html
Evolutionary Ecology Research: http://www.evolutionary-ecology.com
Policy Perspectives/ Pew Higher Education Roundtable: [formerly http://www.arl.org/scomm/pew/pewrept.html]
Professional Publishing Report, Vol. 5, No. 13, June 29, 2001
Links from this article
Letter from Ted Bergstrom, Professor of Economics at the University of California Santa Barbara http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/
Create Change initiative http://www.createchange.org
Declaring Independence: A Guide to Creating Community-Controlled Science Journals http://www.arl.org/sparc/DI/
"The Impact of Publisher Mergers on Journal Prices: An Update" (ARL Bimonthly Report 207, December 1999) http://www.arl.org/newsltr/207/jrnlprices.html
Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Dspace http://web.mit.edu/dspace/
Open Archives Initiative http://www.openarchives.org
Public Library of Science http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org
Public Library of Science open letter http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/plosLetter.htm
"Scientific Publishing: A Mathematician's Viewpoint," Notices of AMS, Volume 47, Number 7, pages 770-774, August 2000. http://www.ams.org/notices/200007/forum-birman.ps or [formerly http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=f34]
SPARC's Alternatives program http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=c1
News Reports about SPARC http://www.arl.org/sparc/ATG.pdf
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming http://www.cwi.nl/projects/alp/TPLP/tplp.html