College and Research Libraries Editorial More Alternatives for Scholarly Publishing In the March editorial, I discussed resource sharing as a possible alterna- tive to rising serials prices. I now offer two other alternatives: a revised balance between quantity and quality as criteria for judgment in the academy and a rede- sign of scholarly publishing. Knowledge expands. In response, jour- nal markets have become increasingly more specialized. Increases in pages, twigs from existing titles, entirely new titles, and additional issues are legitimate sources of price increases. Yet many believe that ex- isting systems encourage and reward the proliferation of knowledge by dividing it into the smallest publishable units. Col- lege and university administrators-and I include myself in their number-find quantity easier to judge than quality. Yet the clear result of that comfortable attitude is more articles in more serials at a greater cost, and the misunderstanding discussed in this issue's letters to the editor seems a likely, if not natural, consequence of the emphasis on quantity. Quality should reign. A recent revi- sion of National Science Foundation grant proposal requirements requests a list of up to five most relevant and five additional publications in place of the usual complete list. This change would emphasize quality in the merit review process. Similarly, Harvard Medical School now allows promotion to profes- sor to be judged on no more than ten papers, associate professor on seven, and assistant on five. 1 Excellence is to take precedence over numbers. These initiatives toward quality as a more im- portant criterion than quantity offer hope. The academy should publish. The ad- vent of electronic publishing offers hope for restructuring scholarly publishing. Currently, university faculty are the pri- mary authors of scholarly articles. Espe- cially in the sciences, government funding supports the research reported in these articles. However, the articles themselves are exported to foreign pub- lishers, who sell them back to the origi- nating academic institutions and their libraries at a substantial premium. While the history of this arrangement is reason- able, its continuation is not. In the last issue of C&RL, Paul Metz and Paul Gher- man described the establishment of a corporation of scholarly publishing as an alternative. Electronics simplify. The expensive typesetting equipment and the atten- dant-poorly paid-but expert operators are rapidly ceding to electronic publica- tion systems. The advent of relatively inexpensive desktop publishing, with its ability to support a variety of typefaces and character sets, makes it possible for colleges, universities, and societies to take up again their responsibilities for print journals. Even more exciting is the prospect that many journals and even books will be published electronically. As knowledge becomes more and more specialized, many kinds of resources will be saved. Only the subspecialist will download or print out an article in the subspecialty, whereas currently such ar- ticles are delivered to all, regardless of interest. Actions count. Librarians must ac- tively work toward adopting these solu- tions. Talk to college and university colleagues and administrators about the consequences of quantity over quality as a criterion. Tie those concerns into your presentations about the need for more 393 394 College & Research Libraries September 1991 serials monies. Discuss the possibilities of electronic publication and prepare for its acceptance as legitimate credit in ac- ademia. Through action, hopes can turn into realities. GLORIANA ST. CLAIR REFERENCE 1. Ann Okerson, "NSF Grant Proposal Requirement Revised," ARL Newsletter 154:1-2 (Jan. 4, 1991). .. .. .. College & Research Libraries is running a series about the current serials crisis. The series includes a March article by Kenneth Marks, Steven Nielsen, Craig Petersen, and Peter Wagner, a May article by Eldred Smith, a July article by Paul Metz and Paul Gherman, a September article by Ann Okerson, and a November panel of commentators. IN FORTHCOMING ISSUES OF COLLEGE & RESEARCH UBRARIES Librarians' Satisfaction with Faculty Status by Marjorie A. Benedict The Library as a Marketplace of Ideas by Ronald J. Heckart Academic Librarians and the Library and Information Science Monograph: An Exploratory Study by Peter Hernon Automation in East Asian Libraries in the United States: A Review and Assessment by Sarah Su-erh Elman Assessment of Learning Outcomes: A Measure of Progress in Library Literacy by Arlene Greer, Lee Weston, and Mary Aim Citations in Hypermedia: Maintaining Critical Links by Corinne Jorgensen and Peter Jorgensen Research Notes Keyword Searching in an Online Public Access Catalog: Characteristics of Users and Nonusers by Pat Ensor