Thomas,
You don't understand how IGOs can contract out and lose
money at
the same time? This is because they don't contract out
everything
they publish. This is because not everything they publish is
attractive to commercial publishers.
Repec, of course, is not a funding agency. My point was that
funding agencies, if they choose to take over responsibility
for
copyright for the work they fund, may end up facing
challenges
similar to those seen today in IGOs. This may, indeed,
include
"bureaucratic" layers (in my experience all large
organisations
end up with administrative layers), so perhaps this is one
of
many lessons they need to consider before they go down this
road.
I have to say, however, that as far as IGO publishing
operations
are concerned, we're as lean as any other not-for-profit
publisher I've come across. Why not come and visit us during
your
sabbatical year to find out? Besides, I'd love to learn more
about computers and the Internet.
Your last point shows that you've never read an article
published
in The Grey Journal about OECD's working papers and Repec
(1).
The essence of the article was this: OECD's authors used to
be
responsible for posting their working papers on Repec. The
result
was that just one out of our many working paper series was
posted
satisfactorily. Another had a proportion of the papers
posted,
but invariably the links pointed to our internal intranet
thereby
denying access to Repec users. The other series had not one
paper
posted between them. This suggest that if you leave
dissemination
to busy authors and their administrative support staff to be
done
as 'part of their time' (as you recommend), it might be done
pretty poorly. The article reports just one case, but I
wonder
what would be found if similar studies were done in other
institutions?
We now have one (very) competent person in the OECD
Publishing
division, loading our (now) seventeen working paper series
into a
database which feeds not just Repec, but also our own
iLibrary,
SourceOECD (and we have plans to feed more sites too). She
does
this as part of her working day - I estimate managing
working
papers takes around 40 hours of her time per year (~ a
week's
work) - but this is not to say it is done without cost. She
is
paid for this week's work as for all the other weeks she
puts in
for us.
Toby Green
(1) Green, Toby. A whiter shade of grey: a case study on how
OECD cleared up
the mess that was its working papers. The Grey Journal,
2006, Vol 2, Issue 2
p91.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l lists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Thomas Krichel
Sent: 02 November, 2007 12:24 AM
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: NIH Public Access Mandate Passes Senate
Toby.GREENoecd.org writes
> It is also true that most IGOs have contracted out the
> publishing of their research journals to specialist
journal
> publishers (often commercial) because they couldn't
provide the
> investment and support needed to develop the journals.
In some
> cases, reports are also contracted out to book
publishers for
> the same reasons. The pressure to outsource is
currently
> growing in IGOs.
>
> Virtually all IGOs run their publishing operations at a
loss
> and funding for these losses is getting harder and
harder to
> find as member governments squeeze budgets. In some
cases the
> posting of reports online for free has badly eroded the
revenue
> streams from selling publications, causing financial
problems.
> As with many university presses, it is often the
publishing
> operation that gets hit when the squeeze is on as this
activity
> is not considered 'core'.
I don't understand this.
The IGOs contract out the publishing operation to a
publisher.
The publisher sells the output, earns money from that, and
then
the IGO also pays the publisher again, to compensate them
from
having "suffered" profits from the sale of the
publication? Or
where else does the loss come from?
> Larger IGOs like World Bank, OECD and the main parts of
the UN
> have in-house publishing operations that work with the
authors
> to improve their original manuscripts and promote the
resultant
> reports. The financial squeeze means there is less
support for
> authors and fewer resources for promotion efforts.
(Promotion
> might not seem important, but what is the point of
putting out
> a report if no-one reads it?) It is also noticeable
that small
> IGOs are struggling to get their reports 'out there'
because
> they don't have the in-house resources and skills to
publish
> their work properly.
You have to fire the multiply layers of bureaucrats who
don't
know anything about computers and the Internet. That IGOs
are
wasteful is not a problem of the publishing system.
> Two things here: firstly, IGOs have employed publishing
staff
> to support authors - will funding agencies end up doing
the
> same?
You need only one competent person, she can do this as part
of
her time. Many of the 800+ RePEc archives are staffed by
simple
administrators. No need to fund this.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/ho
me/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
mostly offline 2007-11-01 to 20007-11-18 skype:
thomaskrichel
|
