Professor J. Lederberg
Department of Genetics
University of Wisconsin
Madison 6, Wisconsin

November 16, 1956

Mr, Thompson Webd
Director, University of Wisconsin Press

Dear Mr, Webbs

On the phone yesterday I preposed a series of cooperative "University of
Wisconsin Monographs", I did net expect « considered opinion from you at that
time, but I am pleased that you brought up questions that would apply. At
thia tine, I am presenting this proposal more fully, for consideration by the
University Publications Committee and yourself,

The proposal ie that the Prese undertake to collaborate (at the initdative
ef each prospective auther) with various scholarly journals, Selected contri~
butions would be published concurrently in ite journal, in customary fashion,
and separately under the Press! imprint. For economy, the same press run might
be used, but bound in a distinctive cover, I will not discuss many relevant
details that must be deeided tut which do not affect the inherent feasibility
of the plan, The main objective is to secure the advantages of periodical and
book publication at the sane tine, with the least inpsirment of custenary
practios in each, Only a limited mumber of titles would be suiteble for this
enterpriset they would be chosen in the light of their monographic character,
anticipated demand, and existing gape in material for graduate instruction,

1. Why collaboration? The proposal implies certain inadequacies in the
separate forms of publication, The scolarly journal is a traditional vehicle
for “short monographe"s the major expense is borne by the specialised sabscribers,
who constitute a fixed certain and essential audience, However, periodical
publications are not readily accessible to a wider or later audience, who may
have a special concern in an occasional article of more general or enduring ine .
verest, or of special relevance for advanced instruction, On the other hand,
the "book" ie less certain to reach the specialist colleagues, Furthermore,
eurrent costes are almost prohibitive for the independent publication and distri-
wution of short monegraphs, of say about 50 pages.

2. Why not reprints? The indicated shortcomings of the periodical can
sonetines be met by reprinte distributed free by the author, Yor most articles
this is a nearly tolerable burden, For exceptional titles of monographie
charecter, when the demand exceeds a few hundred copies, the expense and mechani-
cal difficulties become formidable obstacles, Journals and Publishers evolved
in the first place as more effective alternatives to the personal distribution
by an author of his own work, Such necessary functions as sales and advertising
cannot be executed on an individual basis without prejudicing the scholarly
efficiency of the author,

Some journals (e,¢., Physiological Reviews) have accepted the responsibility
of selling reprints directly, for a certain interval after the publication,
They cannot be seid to do an efficient job of it. Most journals would not wish
to offer every article, on the one hand, or have to discriminate which articles
Mr. Thompson Webb-«page 2--Hovember 16, 1956

should be kept on sale on the other. This must be considered as a reasonable
alternative to the "University Monograph" proposal, but the journals have not
gone very far on thelr own initiative,

one's

3. "Should the University Press peddle some’ reprints?" For some
reason, this is likely to be said in a disparaging tone-<-perhaps the fact that
reprints are distributed gratuitously tends to depreciate them, Reprints are
as much a vehicle of sholarly communication today as any other form of publicae
tion, They are not a very effective method and just because of their inefficien«
cy, | am proposing an alternative for the most urgent cases, The scholarly
content of a reprint is measured by ite intellectual input, not its price or
unbound condition, The University Preea should "peddle reprints" for the sane
reason it "peddles" any other creative work! the dissemination of knowledge and

understanding,

4, Is there sufficient creative value? It can be argued that eo-publication
has lees creative value than originals after all it serves to extend the value
of an existing work, rather than make a new one, This can be conceded, and I
would not propose that the Press anticipate an operating loss on co-publication?
unlike more specialised work, the justification for including an article in the
series will be precisely that the anticipated demand exceeds the scope of the
original journal, Furthermore, the mech smaller investment of Press capital ani
working time in the series should be teken into account in weighing ite merits
against those of independent works,

I mmy add that members of this faculty have no difficulty in "marketing"
their manuscripte--some of them have to fight the book agente away. Does anything
else speak more eloquently for the potential demand? Most of us simply don't
have the time to write “books", in addition to keeping up with current writing of
research articles and reviews, Speaking Hr myself, one reason I have hesitated
to write at greater length has been the extent to which a "book" on bacterial
genetics would be a rehash of other contributions already available to a more
limited audience via the journals,

The Press would, of course, retain its traditional discretion in the choice
of articles and could consult with the author prior to their completion, While
the policy might be liberalised later, I propose the series primarily for contri-
butions from this faculty; such a series might be expected to be consonant with
the prestige of the university, 4An added merit may be its help to the faculty to
become better acquainted with the work of its own members,

5. Cooperation from the Journals, Not every journal will be agreeable te
furnishing an extra press-run for co-pablication, However, this practice would
be no more disadvantageous to them than the furnishing of reprints, The majority
of journals are nonprofit enterprises and responsible to society members1 I
anticipate that most of these will be happy to collaborate with a university press
for the wider dissemination of their academic output, For authors who are inter
ested, the willingness of a journal to cooperate would be a consideration in
choosing where to submit an article,

In the long run, of course, any profits should be shared with the journals--
they would learn to demand it anyhow. It is not unreasonable that such profite
should help to improve the scope of existing review journals,
Mr, Thompson Webb-~page 3-~November 16, 1956

6, Suitable articles, It would not be difficult to list many examples of
papers that would have been appropriate candidates for co-publication when
they were orginally written, and which have remained in demand long after
personal reprint stocks were exhausted, Here are two random examples?

Brink, R, A, and D, C, Cooper 1947 The endosperm in seed development.
Originally published? Botanical Review, 13, 423-51.

Bisenhart, ©, and Wilson, P. W, 1943 Statistical Hethods and control
in bacteriology. Originally published! Bacteriological Reviews,
7, 57-137.

Most other contributions would not be quite so longy doubtless there will
be a lower limit of length below which the fixed costs would make the unit price
prohibitive, Asa guess, many of the articles I have in mind would be 35-75
peges long, and should be saleable at $,60 ~ $1.50,

7. Personal addendum, My thoughts on this question were initiated by
current preoceupation with a fairly comprehensive review on Sacterial Recomm
bination which I am preparing for Bacteriological Reviews. I know from personal
experience and the interest of publishers that there is a severe demand for
teaching material in bacterial genetics; this review would/s§uivalent to
several chapters in a book I might otherwise be tempted to write, Why should
this work be done twice? Of course the merits of the general proposal are inde-~
pendent of, and possibly excead, those of my own intended contribution, Other
colleagues may have material currently in prospect that would be equally or
more appropriate, and might well be solicited in a pilot test of the Monographs

proposal,
Sincerely yours,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics