Six separate discussions were held at the Los Angeles and Berkeley campuses of the University of California during the Fall 1998 and Spring 1999 semesters. Participants were faculty members who also held positions as editors, co-editors, or associate editors of scholarly journals. Editors were identified from the UC Editors Database, ² supplemented by campus faculty self-identification processes. 364 invitations were sent (representing 138 editors from the Editors Database and an additional 226 self-identified editors). Four sessions were comprised of science and engineering faculty and two of humanities and social sciences faculty. Other participants at the sessions included UCB Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Carol Christ, UCLA Executive Vice Chancellor Rory Hume, UCB University Librarian Gerald R. Lowell, UCLA University Librarian Gloria Werner, CDL University Librarian Richard Lucier, and several other library staff observers.

Four similar sessions were held at UCLA with assistant professors and graduate students. These sessions did not differ substantially, other than a limit in experience upon which to draw, from discussions with faculty editors whose themes are summarized below.

Participants received an information packet containing discussion and background materials at the session. The packet included scenarios of potential alternative models for scholarly communication, which had also been sent to participants in advance, as well as some related articles. The scenarios were intended to provoke discussion, but not to provide a script for the sessions.

The issues identified below are aggregated from all of the discussion sessions and are based on observer notes. Most of these issues arose in multiple sessions. The categories listed below were extracted ex post facto based on the flow of the discussion and not on any predetermined outline.

Participants’ comments reflected their multiple roles as editors, authors, researchers, research advisors, and representatives of their disciplinary communities. The key element explored in all the sessions was the faculty editor attitude towards changes in scholarly communication. In particular, the discussions explored the question of whether there was a role for the University in any alternative future model for scholarly communication and, if so, what shape that role might take.

• There is particular value to digital publication for some fields, insofar as it provides access to sound files, images, 3-D imaging, animation, large data sets, and the like. This can readily be viewed as "added value" beyond what traditional publishing offers.
• There is a perceived prestige/credibility problem with digital publishing. Digital publications would have to start with very aggressive quality indicators. Acceptance will also be aided by the prestige and rigor of the societies that publish digitally.
• The assessment and review process is important; however, electronic journals can provide the same vetting process as traditional print journals. Younger scholars are already depending upon informal Internet publishing and trusting that peer review will adapt.
• Journals provide more than just the review process for papers – in particular, production values and the provision of a constraint factor. In some fields, for some scholars, dropping print is "unimaginable"; esthetic issues really matter.
• Some believe that digital publishing will exacerbate the tension between exponential increases in information of lower quality and the scholar's need to share quality information. Digital publishing's ability to support niche publications and variety while maintaining quality is crucial.
• Many of the concerns with electronic publications are interface issues (for example, browsing). The loss of "library as place" is a concern.
• Decontextualization is a worry: Piece-by-piece access loses the "shell," or context, that the traditional journal provides. The practice of students reading and using just "bits" of papers was viewed with alarm by some, but not by others who felt that that has always been the case.
• Archiving of electronic journals is clearly a major concern; some believe it will be resolved, but not all were convinced. Another long-term concern is maintaining the robustness of hyperlinks within electronic publications.
• Copyright issues must be addressed. There is a need for copyright 'guidance' (e.g. what rights need to be kept, what can be signed off, etc.) Editors have little or no authority in changing copyright policies, especially for journals published by commercial publishers.

• Some editors of scholarly publications find electronic publishing to be less expensive, due to reduced printing and mailing costs, both during the editorial process and in dissemination to readers.
• Societies rely on subsidization from journal sales. Startup costs of electronic publishing and the potential loss of subscriptions in an electronic era are concerns.
• Scholars recognize the need for new business models in an electronic era. Those models could include extensions of current practice, e.g. submission charges to help defray editorial costs.

• The value of preprint servers as a feeder system to "overlay" electronic journals was noted; the concept was new, but intriguing, to many participants.
• There was considerable discussion about the non (or pre-) peer-reviewed aspect of the material on preprint servers. Some participants are very worried about this, fearing that the availability/proliferation of unrefereed papers will "perpetuate a place for poor publications." Others believe that the peer interaction that can occur in these systems is strong and can result in better work. [It was noted that these systems are already accepted by students as a fluid step on the way to more standard publication.] Acceptance of such a system appears to be strong in some disciplines; other disciplines do not have a "working paper" culture (either paper or electronic). The issue of the permanent archiving of errors also arose ("caveat lector").
• Other areas of concern with preprint servers are copyright, the sheer amounts of information, and whether presence on a preprint server constitutes prior publication. Many editorial boards are grappling with this last issue now.
• The LANL preprint server is generally highly regarded and in some fields acceptance of the LANL preprint servers is very high as an alternative to journals. It was noted, nonetheless, that the LANL "xxx" server has continuing deficiencies including lack of a solution to the long term archiving problem and lack of a certification process for publications, which is essential for junior faculty.

– in Electronic Print or Preprint Servers:
• Many of the participants were very supportive of the University managing an e-print server, leaving the refereeing process to journals. Other strongly felt that scholarly societies were better suited to the task, but that the University could provide a mirror site to help meet demand on society servers. Some reservations about timing were expressed - have enough others already stepped in to preprint activities? Many thought that the University could take on maintenance of links and archiving.
• Collaborative models, with societies or with other research institutions, should be investigated.
• It would be an advantage to developing countries if the University supported electronic (and more open) access.
• Other concerns include scalability, costs, disciplinary differences, and the inherent vulnerability in reliance on a single large system.

– in Technical Support and Infrastructure:
• The University could provide staff to assist with electronic submissions and training.
• Just what is the University role in the electronic realm, where many of the costs are distributed to the user for computers, printers, and adequate network connections? It was felt that in many digital systems, including some library and publication systems, it is the user that bears the transaction costs of negotiating through the system.

– in Journal Publishing:
• Faculty disagreed as to whether this was an appropriate role for the University. Some felt that scholarly societies were better equipped for the role and that the University could not compete in the scholarly publishing arena. But others felt that they could trust the University and that it was appropriate since it is the University (and its counterparts) that foot the bill for journals. The University is already investing in journals, through the work of its faculty and staff and library expenditures. Some who found the idea "troubling" had concerns that small societies and specialized research areas would get lost in any large organization. The potential for collaboration with societies and other institutions was recognized as a way to address some of these concerns.
• Many believed that developing a model or pilot journal publication to gain experience and possibly imitate/emulate would be an appropriate first step.
• Were the University to enter this arena, there would need to be assurances that the venture would not be privatized later.
• The University could subsidize electronic page charges.

– in Policy Issues:
• The University could assist in the promotion of common standards; faculty could develop practical standards regarding the use of preprint servers. These could include version control, protection of intellectual property (e.g., from plagiarism), linking to related materials, and the like.
• The University could insist that faculty retain substantial rights over their journal articles upon publication.
• Faculty advancement was a concern: should junior faculty publish in electronic journals at this stage? There is a need for UC policy affirming the worth of electronic journals.

– in Economic Matters:
• The University is trying to negotiate cooperative purchases systemwide in an effort to contain prices. This strategy is limited in its effect on long-term sustainability. As a publisher of a scholarly society journal, one editor expressed concern about being driven out of business by consortial buying practices. However, it was noted that the University is far more liberal in its negotiations with societies (as opposed to commercial publishers) and is in no way trying to compete with societies.
• The University could encourage faculty to publish only in reasonably priced journals.

1

The CDL is grateful for preparation assistance from Camille Wanat, UCB, Judith Graham, UCLA, and Cindy Shelton, UCLA.

2

The CDL and UCLA Libraries have created a database of UC editors of what are considered to be 2,000 of the top journals in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The database contains 318 separate faculty members from UC serving in senior editorial positions (executive, managing, associate, or regional editors) on 238 of the 1,966 surveyed titles. Based upon this analysis and data gathering effort, UC faculty have significant editorial authority for 12.1% of the top scholarly journals.