Sandy Thatcher wrote:
The assumption underlying such scenarios is that savings
from
library subscriptions will be applied to supporting more
open
access publishing. That is just not the way universities
work, as
James O'Donnell and others have pointed out on this
listserv, so
any such schemes are doomed to failure unless they can find
a way
to make this shifting of funding work in the way they hope
it
will.
Comment:
Agreed. We should not simply make assumptions about how
savings
from transitioning to open access will be spent. We should
carefully develop and implement plans.
The nice thing about this approach - finding a journal that
is
expensive, but could manage on volunteer labour and in-kind
support - is that a supporting library could transition
funding
from the one, expensive, subscription, to full open access
support. It is all the other subscribing libraries that
need to
develop contingency plans for savings from this approach.
My
recommendation for all libraries is to at least begin such
contingency planning.
My original blogpost: a potential positive cycle: more
access,
more funds, is at:
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/06
/potential-positive-cycle-
more-access.html
Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author
alone,
and does not reflect the opinion or policy of BC Electronic
Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library.
Heather Morrison, MLIS
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticecon
omics.blogspot.com
|
