Subscription to Open Access Transition

Joe

Well, in this case there ain't no global warming - yet!  We
have 
a proposed mechanism (as the proportion of free material 
approaches 100% there will be a fall in subscriptions) but
to 
date the evidence - unfortunately only in one subject area -

shows that hasn't happened.  Thoughtful people with
experience in 
the field might find that odd, but it's true and so I'm
afraid 
people will continue to talk about it.  They will also point
out 
that the melting subscriptions we have seen over the past
two 
decades have had nothing at all to do with self-archiving.

Now, does that mean that sensible publishers shouldn't
worry? 
No, of course not.  As you say, they have a responsibility
to 
model potential futures and changes in the publishing
environment 
and to take action based on what they see is the most likely

direction of change.  If I were still a publisher I would be

looking to move my journals to open access as soon as I
could as 
I think the open access business models offer a stronger 
long-term future than subscription models.  But I would hope
that 
I would base my decisions on evidence as well as experience.

David

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 26 July 2006 22:29
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Subscription to Open Access Transition

David, can't we at least drop the "there ain't no
global warming" 
argument? People make forecasts, and they should.  Some will

prove to be correct, others wrong.  Thoughtful people with 
experience in the field look at physics and say, Ah!  I can
see 
where this is leading.  And they act accordingly.  Sally and
her 
group are making an entirely appropriate determination that
over 
time they will be up to their noses in sea water. If they
are 
wrong, they lose nothing.  If they are right and don't act
on it, 
they lose everything.

Joe Esposito

On 7/25/06, David Prosser <david.prosserbodley.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Sally, The reason that physics is 'trotted' out is
because it 
> is a piece of evidence and evidence trumps theoretical 
> concerns. Is there one piece of evidence that has been
made 
> public that can attribute any of the 3-5% annual
decline in 
> subscriptions over the past 20 years to self-archiving?
 I 
> don't think there is.
>
> Naturally we can all construct scenarios in which the
market 
> will change and publishers have every right to do so. 
(I would 
> say that small publishers should be doing more of it.) 
But to 
> date the only evidence we have of the effect of
self-archiving 
> on subscription is that there is no effect.  Until that
changes 
> you shouldn't be surprised that people will bring up
physics to 
> counter claims that the sky is falling down.
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail:  david.prosserbodley.ox.ac.uk