Ay, there's the rub...
Figuring out what, among all the things publishers do or
might
do, actually adds real value (i.e. value that people are
prepared
to pay for in this new environment) is the real challenge
Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
Email: sally morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Anthony Watkinson
Sent: 17 April 2007 23:19
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: The Value of OA (resend)
I agree with much of this analysis. However no publisher
adds
costs for the sake of it. They want to get the best editors
and
authors and want to provide the service they want. It is a
competitive situation. It is not a competitive situation for
libraries (in the same way) but libraries too want to
provide the
best service they can for the users.
The available money is not frozen. OA advocates have however
managed to convince university authorities, people in
government
and funding bodies that OA is intrinsically much cheaper to
run.
It would be a huge advantage for the academic community
(would it
not?) if the ARL (for example) campaigned for more money for
materials to match increased and increased research funding
worldwide instead of sitting on its hands as it does now.
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodmanPrinceton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: The Value of OA (resend)
> We can have it as either cheaper or more expensive
depending
> upon the quality we want. If we accept arXiv only
publication,
> with after-the-fact peer review, it can be very cheap
indeed;
> If we aim for the same price as the present system, we
should
> get the same quality. There is no inherent reason why
it should
> cost more one way than the other. It is not a question
of
> costs; it will only be a question of costs if you
insist on
> keeping the present system as a base and adding
additional
> complications.
>
> this is what the present publishers want to do. They
want to do
> everything as expensively as they now do it, and then
add on
> costs. There is no reason why anyone else should pay
the least
> attention. The money can be fixed, and the bidding be
for who
> can produce the best product for the price while making
it
> universally available. Elsevier will figure out how to
publish
> at competitive prices.
>
> It is a matter of redistributing the money,and concern
about
> this is also unnecessary. The academic system just like
the
> publishers wants to do everything as it now does, and
then
> consider the additional costs to do more. Frankly,
there is no
> reason to pay the least attention here either. If he
money
> available is frozen, and the minimum requirement is
that all
> publications be universally available in some form,
they will
> do it a best they can, and the best schools will
compete for
> who can do it best, just as they do with everything
else in the
> academic world. And Yale will figure out how to pay to
maintain
> its quality.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
> dgoodmanprinceton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositojgmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:39 pm
> Subject: Re: The Value of OA (resend)
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>
>> Tony, of course, can speak for himself. My view is
that we
>> are talking about (a) siphoning off of funds from
research and
>> (b) higher costs associated with an OA regime.
This last
>> point is the one that the economically challenged
don't seem
>> to understand as they debate the merits of Green
and Gold OA
>> when the world is already moving to Platinum.
>>
>> For the record: of course, a number of commercial
publishers
>> indeed are pigs and I have long been an advocate of
many forms
>> of OA publishing. I just don't believe it will be
any
>> cheaper.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Prosser"
<david.prosserbodley.ox.ac.uk>
>> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:14 PM
>> Subject: RE: The Value of OA (resend)
>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>> As my colloquialism has caused you such
disquiet I unreservedly
>>> withdraw it and am happy to replace it with
'very small'. I
>>> hope you find that less loaded. However, I do
still consider
>>> 1% 'very small' compared to 99%.
>>>
>>> Your post does raise the question of what the
cost of scholarly
>>> communication is to society. Are you
suggesting that 1-2% of
>>> research costs is significantly greater than
what society is
>>> paying under the current subscription-based
system? If not,
>>> then we are talking about a redirection of
existing funds,
>>> rather than a siphoning-off of funds that could
be used for
>>> more research.
>>>
>>> David
|
