Re: In the news (Georgia State)

I wonder if we couldn't usefully play a little game here.

What would happen if libraries began to do precisely what
Thomas 
Krichel says they should--that is, begin to cancel journals
whose 
contents can largely be found through various open access 
sources?

Would we expect the publishers, both commercial and NFPs, to
do 
nothing? Would they say, Well, the game is up. Let's get out
of 
publishing and go into real
estate or sell subprime mortgages, 
for which we are ideally suited.

Would we expect legal and regulatory challenges?

Would publishers adapt to the new environment by developing
new 
services that do not require subscriptions for content?  If
so, 
who would pay for these services?

Would publishers get out of the editorial activity,
including 
peer review, altogether?  If so, what organizations would
spring 
up and how would they be financed?

Would traditional peer review be deemed to decline in
importance 
in an era of rapid-fire communications and commentary?

Would the net cost of scholarly communications borne by
academic 
institutions be greater or less?

Even if we don't know the answers to some or all of these 
questions, should we push for the cancellations of the 
subscriptions anyway?

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russellcytherean.co.uk>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: RE: In the news (Georgia State)

> Not wishing to split hairs, Joe, but Paul Ginsparg
didn't 
> separate certification and dissemination - the high
energy 
> physics community had done that already.  For years
they had 
> shared preprints with the rest of the (fairly small)
community. 
> What arXiv did was make that process faster, cheaper
and more 
> convenient.  That's why it didn't take a government
mandate to 
> force authors to use it.
>
> As David notes there is still an interesting
relationship 
> between arXiv and journals - at least in high energy
physics. 
> Most of the readership comes from arXiv, but the
libraries for 
> the time being are still subscribing to the journals. 
For how 
> much longer I wonder... the academics seem to
understand the 
> value that the journals add, so maybe forever!
>
> Ian
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-
>> llists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
>> Sent: 25 April 2008 00:41
>> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>> Subject: Re: In the news (Georgia State)
>>
>> It seems to me that what Paul Ginsparg did in one
stroke was
>> separate, or at least begin to separate, the
publishing
>> functions of certification (what Ian addresses)
from
>> dissemination.  Prior to arXiv, these two functions
were bound
>> up with each other.  I am not saying that Ginsparg
set out to
>> do this (How would I know?), but that is the effect
of his
>> innovation.  Ian (rightly) notes that publishers
still control
>> the certification function, but there is another
point to be
>> made here, that in some instances the dissemination
and
>> certification functions compete with each other.
>>
>> For example, a poorly distributed journal or a
journal
>> published in such a way as to make it difficult for
readers to
>> find it (e.g., not indexed by Google) may
nonetheless certify
>> an article and, by extension, its author; but the
author may
>> still yearn for broader dissemination.  Such an
author may, the
>> next time around, opt for a well-designed open
access
>> repository that has been optimized for search
engine indexing
>> and other Internet marketing techniques, with the
hope that
>> open dissemination will ultimately lead to
certification.  We
>> can call this the principle of certification
through
>> acclamation; it is intended to supplant
certification through
>> deliberation.
>>
>> Publishers that stress the certification function
alone are, in
>> my view, making a very big mistake.  Yes,
publishers add
>> enormous value in the editorial process, more than
most authors
>> could ever bring themselves to admit, but the real
game is to
>> stroke an author's ego through dissemination. In
other words,
>> the safe zone for a publisher is not the editorial
fortress of
>> careful selection, peer review, copy editing, and
the like, but
>> the sound of trumpets declaring that, yes, our
magnificent
>> author has arrived.
>>
>> The future of toll-access or traditional publishing
lies with
>> marketing.  If an author comes to believe that an
open access
>> service could lead to wider dissemination of his or
her work,
>> publishers should fold their tents and go home, and
no amount
>> of shrewd editorial practices can prevent this.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russellcytherean.co.uk>
>> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:58 PM
>> Subject: RE: In the news (Georgia State)
>>
>>> Thomas' reply raises some further questions:
>>>
>>> 1) Strictly speaking, arXiv is an electronic
preprint server so
>>> the papers there may not be the published
version.  Are
>>> researchers in physics happy to use that
version?  Would
>>> researchers in human medicine be happy to use a
version of
>>> unknown providence?  Would librarians be happy
with that
>>> situation?
>>>
>>> 2) The content that I am familiar with on arXiv
almost always
>>> associates a posted article with a journal. 
Authors very
>>> quickly add 'submitted to Physical Review E' or
'Published in
>>> Classical and Quantum Gravity' (or whatever
journal) to their
>>> preprint. Why?  Well to get the authority /
credibility /
>>> imprimatur / brand identity of the journal. 
This is tied to -
>>> but not exclusively gained by - the peer review
process of the
>>> journal. It is very important to note that for
many, many years
>>> (going back to pre-web) journals have NOT been
the method of
>>> primary dissemination in some subjects. arXiv
may provide
>>> access to content, but trustworthiness and
authority - for the
>>> time being at least - still comes from journals
(whatever
>>> business model is used).  What would happen to
academia if the
>>> primary mechanism of identifying trustworthy
content and
>>> assessing the order in which to read papers was
taken away?
>>>
>>> 3) As someone who represents society publishers
I find Thomas'
>>> final point very interesting.  I would be even
more interested
>>> to hear any ideas for mechanisms to facilitate
the flow of
>>> money away from library acquisition budgets to
scholarly
>>> societies. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Ian Russell
>>> CEO, ALPSP