February 7, 1977

Executive Committee of the American Institute of Physics

Minutes of Meeting

Members Present: Philip M. Morse – Chairman, William A. Fowler, L. W. Fredrick, W. W. Havens, Jr., H. William Koch, Sidney Millman, Melba Phillips, Jarus W. Quinn

Absent: Robert T. Beyer

Nonvoting Participants: H. L. Anderson (MAL), M. H. Mueller (SOR), Jacques Ovadia (AAPM), Charles Morris (AVS)

AIP Staff Present: H. William Koch, Director; Sidney Millman, Secretary; G. F. Gilbert, Treasurer; R. H. Marks, Associate Director for Publishing; Lewis Slack, Associate Director for General Activities; Dorothy M. Lasky, Assistant to the Director

Chairman Morse called the meeting to order at 7:50 a.m.

1. Minutes

Upon motion made and passed, the draft minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of December 10, 1976, were approved with two minor corrections which will be included in the final minutes.

2. Status of Purchase of Woodbury Property

1. Zoning Application

   Koch reported that AIP has been informed that the zoning application is going as expected. Hearings are scheduled for March l or March 2, in Oyster Bay, Long Island. (Subsequent to the meeting, it was learned that the hearings have been postponed to March 22.) AIP expects to be represented by an attorney and Koch will probably be present, too. We do not anticipate any problem.

2. Financing

   Gilbert reminded the Committee that the acquisition cost of the property is $800,000 and that the staff subsequently got approval to spend an additional $30,000 for the purchase of the adjacent one-acre lot. The existing mortgage is $455,000, leaving a balance of $375,000. At the present time, we have approximately $768,000 in short-term investments which were not transferred to our Investment Advisory Account in anticipation of having to finance the Woodbury property and acquire capital equipment. In addition, we have an investment portfolio with a value, as of December 31, 1976, of $683,000.

3. General Schedule for Moves

   Koch stated that there are six basic questions to be resolved before we can make very firm plans on the relocation of the AIP staff:

   1. Zoning application: If it were not to go through, we would have to start all over again. At present, no one anticipates any problems.

   2. Capacity of the new building: Can we put 200 people in that building if we wanted to? We could then think of accommodating all our present staff in our headquarters building and the Woodbury building. This is a likely outcome.

   3. Can we extend the lease at 800 Second Avenue? We have been assured that we can get an extension from April 1977 for another year.

   4. Status of the computer program conversions: It would be undesirable to move the computer prematurely.

   5. Involvement of the UNIVAC in computer typesetting: Will the UNIVAC be intimately involved in that, or will it be limited to subscription fulfillment and accounting?

   6. Subscription agency input by computer tape: We are eager to accomplish that to reduce the cost of nonmember subscription fulfillment.

   For the summer of 1977, Metaxas and his Stony Brook group would be the first to move. This would be followed by the move of Dion Shea's office of the Society of Physics Students. Moving the nonmember subscription staff later in the summer of 1977 is also a possibility. In December of 1977, it may seem desirable to move the UNIVAC computer and possibly also the rest of the Subscription Fulfillment Division.

3. Status of Conversion of Computer Programs

Gilbert reported that the Subscription Fulfillment conversion is about 85% completed, and Accounting about 90%. Some technical difficulties have been encountered in the conversion of the Master History Record File update. These problems are related to the tape-to-disc utilization of sequential data. Arrangements are being made with UNIVAC management to retain the services of the UNIVAC systems analyst to work on this. It is estimated that it will take until the end of March to complete the conversion. APS bills for fiscal year 1977-78 will be completed on schedule on the new 90/30 computer; the processing of returns will be done either on the 90/30 computer or on the 9300 computer, depending on the time of completion of the conversion.

4. Status of Investment Advisory Account

Gilbert distributed a memorandum from Bankers Trust Company dated February 2, 1977, which indicated that the AIP account had a good performance record during the calendar year 1976. He referred also to a recent luncheon meeting with the manager of the AIP investment portfolio. The recommendation of the manager is for a gradual increase in the percentage of the investment in bonds from the present 41% to about 50% bonds and 50% common stocks for the time being.

5. Search for Placement Officer

Slack reported that about a year ago a committee consisting of A. M. Clogston, J. F. Ebersole, and John C. Johnson as chairman, was appointed to assist in finding someone to head the Placement Division. Earlier informal efforts did not lead to a good full-time candidate. One highly qualified candidate, Joseph Budnick, Chairman of the University of Connecticut Physics Department, turned out to be available only on a part-time basis and is now acting for us as a consultant. He has been very helpful and is still a potential candidate for a full-time appointment.

It was decided to run ads in the November and December issues of Physics Today, announcing the opening. About 60 applications were received and the committee narrowed these down to three to be interviewed. Two were able to come to New York for interviews on February 4, and the committee recommended strongly in favor of one. It is apparent that some further negotiations will have to be conducted and we will also have to explore whether our ideas of the cost of the operation are going to have to change. In the meantime, Budnick was involved in the Placement activities at the Chicago meeting and will probably be available for consultation also at the upcoming Washington APS meeting in April.

Slack added that, of the 60 applications, there were about 20-25% which were unsuitable, about 50% were adequate and about 25% looked pretty good.

6. Second Class Mail Regulations

Koch reported that the Post Office has indicated willingness to accept the voluntary page charge concept and exclude from this problem all AIP and Society journals, except The Astrophysical Journal which is published by The University of Chicago Press. This means we will not be required to label our pages as "advertising" and will not have to pay a higher postage rate. The remaining issue concerns those journals the publishers of which feel they must have a mandatory page charge system. One is the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences whose attorney has been negotiating with the Post Office authorities. They are including a two-sentence paragraph in the acknowledgment section of each article to the effect that, "because of the Postal regulation, we hereby identify this article as 'advertisement.'"

At its meeting on February 4, these problems were discussed by the Publishing Policy Committee. This committee recommended that we go back to the wording we just deleted as a result of the Post Office challenge to The Astrophysical Journal, which included the words "… if honored." Koch suggested that the recommendation of the Publishing Policy Committee be adopted, and the following motion was passed without dissent:

MOVED that the statement on the masthead of AIP journals with respect to honoring page charges be restored with exactly the same wording as was used heretofore.

7. Request by Israeli Physical Society for AIP to Markey Their Conference Proceedings in North America

Marks reported that AIP has received a request from the Israeli Physical Society to market their Conference Proceedings in North America. The Israelis are going to handle the publication themselves and would like to achieve wide distribution of their Proceedings in the United States. Marks proposed to offer them a contract similar to the one we have with the Institute of Physics in London, which would cause AIP to just about break even.

Koch added that AIP made a similar proposal to the Japanese Physical Society some time ago, but they did not accept it because they considered our commission too high. He noted that marketing arrangements such as these make it easier for United States institutions to acquire this material from abroad. The following motion was then made and passed without dissent:

MOVED that the staff be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Israeli Physical Society to market their Conference Proceedings in North America.

8. Preparation for Audit of 1976 Financial Statement

Gilbert distributed a one-page timetable labeled “Preparation for Audit of 1976 Financial Statements” and noted that, in the past, AIP has accepted a qualified auditors statement. At this time, because of the magnitude of our operations and the purchase of property, we feel it is necessary for us to get a certified and unqualified statement. In the past, the auditors have accepted from AIP a lot of statistical data which are not part of a conventional auditors report and which will henceforth be eliminated. In the past, they did not confirm accounts payable and accounts receivable, but will do so this year. He did not anticipate that it will be a problem for AIP to get a certified statement, and also, it is a matter of coming up with a different format for our financial statement. He expected to have the auditors report available by May 31.

Gilbert reviewed the timetable in some detail. He noted, in answer to a question, that, in the case of work done for the Societies, the auditors prepare a detailed statement of account covering all of the operations with the Societies. He mentioned that NSF has looked at our prorations extensively, and audits our overhead rate schedule every year. Also, AIP has been audited by the Air Force and other Government agencies in the past.

Fowler reported that APS is changing its auditor from Conroy, Smith & Co., the AIP's auditor, to Main Lafrentz and Company. He also stated that the new auditor recommended that an Audit Committee be set up by APS, this committee to be quite separate from the APS Finance Committee. Koch thought that it might be appropriate to ask the AIP Fiscal Policy Committee, at its meeting scheduled for February 24, whether it thought AIP should also have a separate Audit Committee.

9. Potential for Data Bases in Staff Directory and Graduate Programs Book

Slack called attention to the two publications produced by the General Activities Branch: (1) the Directory of Physics and Astronomy Staff Members, and (2) a recently published book on Graduate Programs in Physics and Astronomy offered by a number of institutions in the United States. The latter was paid for out of page charges before we went to press, so all subsequent sales provide income over and above the costs. Dion Shea put together a summary of the data which are in these books and which suggests the kind of information that can be pulled together using data which are at hand. We are going to look into ways in which we can integrate these and study the possibility of producing a similar document about undergraduate departments that offer the physics major. That would be financed essentially in the same way. This information would be very useful for the kinds of demographic studies we and APS have been doing.

10. Report of Publishing Policy Committee Meeting February 4, 1977

1. Copyright

   Koch referred to his latest draft of a memorandum on copyright dated February 3, 1977, copies of which were distributed. He noted that this was a subject for discussion at the February 4 meeting of the Publishing Policy Committee. He pointed to some of the highlights of the new copyright law. He observed that copyright becomes effective immediately upon creation of a manuscript intended for publication. This concept has biased every aspect of the new law in favor of authors who write books. It is designed to inhibit systematic reproduction and photocopying. It is the goal of AIP to design our procedures to encourage photocopying and systematic reproduction and still protect the financial interests of the publisher and the professional interests of the authors.

   Koch reported that the Publishing Policy Committee went along with the recommendation of holding a one-day seminar on April 1 as part of the April 1, 2 Governing Board meeting program. He also recommended the consideration and adoption by the Governing Board of a series of publishing recommendations. The principal one is for AIP to have clear title to each journal article without having, in each instance, to go back to the author.

   One important question is, can the writings of a U.S. Government employee b[e] copyrighted? The AIP attorney differentiates between the U.S. Government report and the derivative of that report which is processed by the Society publisher and put into the form of an article, and is of the opinion that the derivative can be copyrighted by the author and therefore transferred to the publisher. He noted also that ERDA attorneys and the General Counsel for the Copyright Office feel that this is a legitimate position.

   The Publishing Policy Committee also approved the adoption of codes and standards to be printed on the first page of each article and standardized wording for the inside journal cover that describes policies and procedures. The purpose is to spell out that there are legitimate procedures to be followed. Industrial libraries are very jittery about infringing on copyright. When a library or archive wants to photocopy an article, the law says that the copyright notice must be on the reproduced item. If an author’s permission has not been obtained and rights have not been transferred to the journal owner, AIP or its Member Societies cannot put their copyright notice on the individual article. We are suggesting that AIP or a Member Society should have the right to put the copyright notice on every article, just to make it easy to photocopy. Reprint services are going to be called on more and more because they can produce copies more cheaply.

   The Member Society publishers will have to tell us what they want to be included in their journals. It would be desirable to make the procedures uniform for AIP journals. Whenever an article is to be included in a reprint book, we must, if the Executive Committee and Board so decide, go back to each author and get his permission. Koch thought that would not be burdensome—at least initially. On the other hand, if an article is included in a journal issue on which we negotiate translation rights with the Soviets, we do not want to have to go back to the individual authors.

   Havens stated that it is the article as published in the journal that most members of the Publishing Policy Committee felt would be desirable to have copied and distributed widely in the best possible mechanism as an article. That is taken care of by the proposed recommendations. If parts of an article are going to be used out of context, the author’s permission should be obtained. He also felt that the reprint book just mentioned by Koch is an added complication and should be negotiated separately.

   Referring to the requirement of obtaining the authorization of the author’s institution, Koch stated that it will take time for the authors to get used to this concept and to find out who at their institution is authorized to transfer the rights. We will have to explore this further and have statements on it drawn up for inclusion in Physics Today. We should also discuss it at the April l seminar.

   Quinn remarked that, in the case of "work for hire," the institution could decide that its employees could not copyright their published articles but the institution itself would obtain the copyright. Koch agreed that these things will have to be clarified and he requested authorization to arrange for the one-day seminar, and also to prepare and distribute to all members of the Governing Board a fourth version of his February 3 draft. Marks added that our present policy fits into the framework of the new law. The main difference is that we now formally have to ask the author to transfer his copyright rights to the publishing Society.

   After discussion [of] various proposed changes in wording of the recommendations proposed by the Publishing Policy Committee, the following two motions were passed without dissent:

   1. MOVED that a Seminar on Copyright Matters be authorized for April 1, 1977.

   2. MOVED that the AIP Executive Committee, based on discussions and recommendations of the Publishing Policy Committee, recommend to the Governing Board the adoption of the following procedures in order to encourage systematic reproduction and the wide dissemination of physics articles in AIP journals.

   (The wording which follows is based on the recommendations supplied by Koch in his February 3 memorandum, mentioned above, on modifications suggested during the meeting, and on changes recommended by AIP’s copyright attorney.)

   1. A general requirement of a written transfer of rights under copyright to the extent transferable from writer and/or his institution to the journal publisher at time of submission of manuscript. The transfer would become effective if and when an article derived from the manuscript is accepted for publication. Rare exceptions would be allowed that may require omission of the publisher’s copyright notice on the article or an assignment of the publisher’s copyright.

   2. Adoption of codes and standards for first page of each article that would include:

      1. Title of journal (= ISSN code)
      2. Copyright notice (= copyright symbol plus year plus copyright owner)
      3. Volume number
      4. Inclusive pages
      5. Charge per article in dollars or code
      6. Publisher to whom payment is to be made
      7. Republisher’s Identification Number 

   3. Adoption of standardized wording for inside journal cover that describes policies and procedures as follows:

      1. Notice of Copyright for Journal Issue –

         Copyright © 197X, American Institute of Physics (AIP). All Rights Reserved.

         Reproduction in another publication of figures, tables, abstracts or other brief excerpts from an article is permitted, provided the author's consent is obtained, the AIP is notified and the proper acknowledgment of the source is included. Republication of whole articles requires the prior written consent of at least one of the authors and of AIP.

         Permission is granted to make single copies of whole articles or excerpts for an individual's personal use. Systematic or multiple reproduction of any material in this journal is permitted only under license from AIP. Address inquiries and notices to Director, Publications Division, American Institute of Physics. 335 East 45 Street, New York, N. Y. 10017.

      2. Ownership of Copyright of Journal Article –

         The American Institute of Physics (AIP) should have the sole right to authorize the original publication as well as further reproduction or other use of articles and abstracts published in this journal. This authorization is needed to assure the efficient dissemination of articles and abstracts under the conditions stated with the copyright notice above.

         Accordingly, the AIP Governing Board has established the requirement for inclusion of the following statement in the original letter of submission of an article manuscript, duly signed by the authorized representatives of the institutions or by the writers of the manuscript:

         The attached manuscript entitled                                  by                    is submitted for publication in the                   journal. Submission carries with it representations that the manuscript is original, that it does not violate the copyright of others, that those who submit it for publication have the right to do so, that they have not previously assigned the copyright to others, and that the manuscript in its original or edited form has not been previously published and is not being currently offered to others for publication. Further, that at the time of submission copyright in the manuscript, to the extent that it is transferable, is transferred to the American Institute of Physics on the understanding that the transfer shall become effective only if and when the journal editor accepts the manuscript or the article derived therefrom for publication.

         Proposals for exceptions to this transfer of copyright should be addressed to Director, Publications Division, AIP.

2. Recommendation to List APS on The Physics of Fluids Masthead

   Marks reported that the Publishing Policy Committee recommended that the American Physical Society be listed as a cooperating Society on the masthead of The Physics of Fluids. APS is already listed as a cooperating Society on the Journal of Applied Physics and Applied Physics Letters mastheads. Likewise, the Optical Society is listed on APL. The following motion was passed, with Havens and Fowler abstaining:

   MOVED that the American Physical Society be listed as a Cooperating Society on the masthead of The Physics of Fluids.

3. Computer-Based Photocomposition

   Marks called attention to a document entitled "Developments in Computer Photocomposition" which was previously distributed to the Executive Committee. Three different methods are described: the ATEX system, the UNIX system, and the offer from Science Typographers. This was discussed in some detail at the Publishing Policy Committee meeting. UNIVAC was not enthusiastic about the third alternative even though it is based on adapting the Science Typographers system to the UNIVAC computer. AIP's feeling was that it would take a matter of years to make it a reality. The Publishing Policy Committee recommended the purchase of the ATEX photocomposition system with three stipulations: (A) that it can be used for article heads and all photocomposed items presently being handled by our in-house datapoint system, (B) that the installation of this system will complement and not interfere with the APS experiment on UNIX, and (C) that it can be financed out of our present operating budget. The purchase price of the ATEX photocomposition system is $325,000. Our present budget for datapoint systems can handle purchase of the equipment if amortized over five years. Moreover, it is a production system that can be further developed; it is not an experimental system. Part of this purchase price includes the software for mathematics. We are also going to use it for Physics Today and for our heads. Seventeen large publishing firms are already using the ATEX system. Marks asked for authorization to make such a proposal to the Governing Board at its April 2 meeting.

   Havens reported that cooperation between AIP and the APS UNIX system is now working out very well. APS is very pleased with the Metaxas and Metzner groups. He stated that he is in favor of this proposal but did not quite understand the relation between equipment rental and current computer operating funds, and the projected inclusion of Physics Today. Marks replied that the ATEX system can do all the things we are doing on the datapoint system without increasing our cost. As a bonus, we can add Physics Today to it.

   Morse asked what would happen if, two years from now, the UNIX system turns out to be superior to ATEX. Marks thought that, in that case, AIP could sell the ATEX system without any problem. However, he did not foresee that happening. Havens added that there is sufficient volume of publications in AIP that would need only the simple mathematics package that would keep the ATEX system operating.

   The following motion was made by Havens, seconded by Fredrick, and passed without dissent:

   MOVED that the Executive Committee recommend to the Governing Board purchase of the ATEX photocomposition system.

11. Discussion of a Proposal for Executive Committee Review of Major Institute Programs

Havens opened the discussion by noting that, at the Woods Hole Executive Committee meeting, there was some discussion about reviewing the Manpower Statistics program in some depth. However, all of the programs of the General Activities Branch were reviewed publicly at the relatively large Assembly of Society Officers held in October. That seemed to answer the purpose which had been discussed at Woods Hole but, in his opinion, it did not. They were given a once-over-lightly and, since it was a public meeting, embarrassing questions could not be asked very easily. He believed the purpose to be served by the Executive Committee is somewhat different. He therefore proposed a program of regularly examining in detail the major expenditure programs of AIP, with one such program being scheduled for review when convenient, possibly at the next Executive Committee meeting after April 1. The requisite information could be prepared by the principals involved. This would serve to educate the Executive Committee. Each of the programs could be thus reviewed on the average of once in two years.

Phillips asked how this procedure would be related to the function of the advisory committees that are supposed to report to the Governing Board. She thought that the committees would have to be involved somewhere in the process. Koch agreed that it would be a very great help, if the Executive Committee wanted to have a separate review of specific programs, to coordinate such reviews with the advisory committee meetings since staff preparation would be needed in each case.

Morse noted that the Governing Board has allocated some of its responsibility to the Executive Committee. How far does one want to allocate the responsibility? Do the members of the Executive Committee feel they need to do any more than trust the separate committees entirely, or would they like to have a look in more detail at the working of some of these programs? Havens took, as an example for discussion, the Committee on History of Physics. He noted that, if we were to follow the recommendations of that committee, the whole net income of the Institute would be put into the History program. Therefore, the Executive Committee has to be informed about all of the AIP Activities to arrive at an appropriate balance. Morse thought that half of the time of somewhere between two and three Executive Committee meetings each year should be devoted to these programs, with members of the appropriate advisory committees and program managers being invited.

12. Report on Center for History of Physics Fund Drive

Slack reviewed briefly some of the fund-raising activities and noted that the Friends of the Center launched an endowment drive about a year ago. By the end of last year, monies had been received toward the endowment from about 50 individuals and six foundations and corporations—about half of those approached. Some pledged money to be sent in over a period extending for several years. Regular Friends’ contributions amounted to about $13,000 this past year. E. R. Piore’s special efforts resulted in the receipt of about $30,000 which is appropriate for the endowment fund. Additional money raised through Piore's efforts includes $50,000 from the Sloan Foundation, to be used for specific projects.

13. Status of Member Society Action on Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Millman reported that the amendment proposing to remove the dollar value from the member assessment charge in the AIP Constitution had received four "yes" votes from the American Physical Society, the Optical Society, The Society of Rheology, and the American Vacuum Society; and one "no" vote from the Acoustical Society as of this date. Fredrick then added that the American Astronomical Society had also recently voted against it. This is sufficient to defeat the proposed amendment. (Official notifications of the negative vote by AAS, as well as a negative vote by the American Association of Physics Teachers, were received by the Secretary subsequent to the meeting.)

Morse raised the question as to whether another amendment should be proposed to the Governing Board, and whether the AIP staff should be instructed to present it to the Executive Committee for its recommendation to the Board. Quinn wondered whether asking for more money can be justified. He noted that the excess of income over expense in the last year was high. Part of that money could have been used to increase the budget for the Center for History of Physics if the Executive Committee had deemed it desirable. Phillips asked whether we can say where the present $60,000 goes before we ask for an additional $60,000. No action was taken on the proposal for another amendment to increase the member assessment charge.

14. Plans for Fall Corporate Associates Meeting – Date for Fall Governing Board Meeting

Koch reported that the last Corporate Associates meeting was generally regarded as so successful that the Advisory Committee on Corporate Associates recommended that next fall’s meeting be held at another industrial laboratory. Dorothy Lasky and he planned to visit two such laboratories in the San Francisco Bay area. He has already had some discussions with the appropriate representatives of IBM in San Jose and Xerox in Palo Alto. He thought that the IBM location is a more likely prospect. If so, he will propose that the Assembly of Society Officers, Governing Board and Executive Committee meetings be held back-to-back with the Corporate Associates meeting during a four-day period. The possible dates under discussion are the latter part of the week of September 26, or the. week of October 24. The Executive Committee agreed on the tentative dates of Thursday, October 27, through Saturday, October 29, for the series of meetings. This will probably be preceded by a meeting of the Executive Committee on Wednesday evening, October 26.

15. Proposals for April Governing Board Meeting

Koch suggested that, with the Seminar on Copyright Matters scheduled for Friday, April 1, the Executive Committee meeting be held on the evening of Thursday, March 31. The Governing Board meeting could start at the end of the seminar and go into Saturday, April 2. There were no objections.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.