to some of these titles, cancel all the paper except for two and save one in the north and one in the south for archiving purposes.
Evelyn Goldfield: That will cost the publishers money.
Richard Lucier: Right, it will cost the publishers money. That is correct.
Robert de Levie, Georgetown University: You have talked about journals. How about books?
Richard Lucier: It depends on what kind of books you are talking about. I think that digital technology can be very useful for reference books and reference databases. If you are talking about certain kinds of scholarly treatises in the humanities, I don't think we are going to see widespread replacement there at all in the immediate future. I think the digital technologies are going to take much greater hold in the sciences early on. The humanities, and less so the social sciences, are probably 5 to 10 years behind.
Robert de Levie: Even though those books nowadays are produced mostly in digital form?
Richard Lucier: Yes.
Robert de Levie: You mentioned $2.5 million gained. Is that because you reduced the number of subscriptions from nine to one, and what is the offsetting cost of not knowing whether 5 years from now you will have to buy the paper copies anyway?
Richard Lucier: We won't because we won't have gotten rid of all of the paper. We are making certain that we maintain in storage facilities—we have a storage facility in the north and the south—paper copies should we need to do that.
The $2 million plus was gained by expanded access. So, for example, you might have had 30 ACS subscriptions at Berkeley and at LA but only 5 at Riverside and 8 at Santa Cruz, and now everybody at all nine campuses is getting access to all as well as the fact that the access for, let us say, Berkeley alone, which may have subscribed to all of them, costs less because we went as part of a consortium. So, there are savings in those two areas.
Gintaris Reklaitis, Purdue University: One of the most important and underappreciated resources in the entire publications review process is the reviewers. Clearly as the publications process continues to expand, the demands on the reviewers will also. Do any of the business models that you are examining for scientific publication take into account this important resource and how we might stimulate it to handle this expansion?
Richard Lucier: The model where the university moves into publishing very much takes advantage of that resource, which is part of the university already. Essentially what we do now for the most part is give it away the commercial publishers at no cost so that they can then add a huge mark up to it when we buy back that information that has been peer reviewed by our faculty, and so it makes perfect sense for the university or federations of universities to do that together.
My problem with the Highwire model is that it is one university, and science and scholarship cut across universities too much, and it makes much more sense in my opinion to try to federate this in some way across groups of universities rather than try to go solo, and that is why UC isn't pursuing that particular strategy.