One has only to look at the DOAJ journals to see how many of
them
publish very spasmodically and may even have ceased entirely
- I
and a group of volunteers did an analysis of this last year
(http://d
x.doi.org/10.1087/095315106775122565)
Sally Morris
Email: sally morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 28 June 2007 07:23
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: re: potential positive spiral in transition to open
access
The fallacy here is the assumption that without a
publisher's
staff overseeing and organizing the "volunteer"
work of academic
editors, it will get done in a timely fashion and produce a
steady stream of publishable articles. All of my experience
in
forty years of publishing suggests that few scholars have
the
self-discipline and motivation to do this kind of work
without
external pressures. We have difficulty keeping some of our
journals on schedule even with a lot of oversight!
Sandy Thatcher
Penn State Press
>Peter Banks wrote:
>
>I fail to see any rationale basis for zeroing in on
>subscriptionscosting more than $1,000. [Peter goes on
to say
>that my modelmakes no distinction between journals in
this
>category].
>(from:http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListA
rchives/0706/msg00082.html
)
>
>Comment:
>
>The rationale for focusing on subscriptions costing
more
>than$1,000 US per year, in this particular example, is
that this
>isthe cost of a year's hosting and support for a journal
at
>thenon-profit Scholarly
>Exchange(http://www.scholarl
yexchange.org/).
>
>A library paying subscriptions in this price range might
be
>welladvised to inquire as to whether the journal could
manage on
>avolunteer / in-kind support model. My model assumes
that only
>asmall fraction of journals in this price range (10%)
would
>beable to manage. Nevertheless, if even this small
percentage
>ofjournals could transition in this fashion, there
would
>besignificant savings over the library community as a
whole,
>whichcould then be applied to other open access
initiatives.
>
>How could such an expensive journal manage on a
volunteer
>/in-kind support model, or how can you tell whether a
>journalcould successfully transition in this way?
>
>The key is whether the journal is essentially managing
on such
>amodel now. In peer-reviewed scholarly literature,
authors,
>andpeer reviewers, are not paid. Payment of editors
varies
>widely;it can be a volunteer task, underpaid / paid at
an
>honorariumlevel, or highly paid. Support costs also
vary.
>Some journalspay for office space; others enjoy free
space at
>universities,and editors and others often work from
their homes
>as well.
>
>Even if a journal is unlikely to be able to transition
with
>justthe revenue from a single subscription, a polite
inquiry
>wouldnot hurt. It would be helpful to advocacy efforts
to change
>inscholarly communication to point out to the editors
of
>suchjournals, that the cost of a single subscription is
more
>thansufficient to fund one of the more substantial costs
of
>managinga journal - hosting and support of the online
version.
>
>Further comments on my blogpost, A Potential Positive
Cycle:More
>Access, More Funds, are most
>welcome!http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/06/p
otential-positive-cycl
e-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
ElectronicLibrary
>Network or Simon Fraser University Library.
>
>Heather Morrison, MLIS
>The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
>http://poeticecon
omics.blogspot.com
|
