Joe, It is the 'hand to mouth' existence of many
not-for-profit
societies that puts them at most risk in the current
subscription-based model. With a growing proportion of
library
funds being tied-into big deals from a small number of large
publishers, there is less left for the NFPs. With limited
flexibility in cancelling big deals some libraries
struggling to
meet their budgets may turn to those journals that they can
cancel with financial impunity - those from the NFPs.
Certainly, the move of a growing number of NFPs to enter
into
publishing deals with commercial publishers has been nothing
to
do with the 'threat' of open access, but the inability of
the
NFPs to compete in the subscription environment. Conspiracy
theorists might find the commercial publishers' enthusiasm
for a
move to big deals a more fertile ground for their musings
than
open access.
For some imaginative NFPs open access actually gives them a
potential strategy for survival against the big squeeze from
the
bid deal - especially as they can tap into new revenue
sources
(e.g. Wellcome Trust funding).
(I developed some of these ideas more fully in a paper a
couple
of years ago:
http://dandini.ingentaselect.com/vl=
1227975/cl=15/nw=1/rpsv/cw/alpsp/0953151
3/v17n1/s4/p17)
David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail: david.prosser bodley.ox.ac.uk
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 18 April 2006 00:58
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Dramatic Growth of Open Access
The number of open access journals is growing--true. The
number
of proprietary journals (aka "toll-access
journals") is also
growing. The number of OA articles in primarily proprietary
journals is growing. And the number of unauthorized
articles
from proprietary journals that are available on the public
Web
("leakage") is growing. I suspect the growth
rate for this last
category (leakage) is the fastest-growing of all, but that
is a
speculation. Growth, growth, growth, growth: why is
everybody
saying this is a zero-sum game?
Meanwhile, I happened to read that the CEO of Reed Elsevier
(which publishes much more than science journals, of course)
was
awarded a bonus of around $3 million dollars this year.
Sales
are strong, profit is up. OA hasn't much touched the big
guys.
It's the little guys who can get hurt, the not-for-profit
society
publishers, many of whom live hand to mouth, in part because
of
their less restrictive access policies, in part because of
their
less aggressive pricing. Are there any conspiracty
theorists on
this list who wonder if OA is a plot by the commercial
houses to
put their NFP competition out of business?
Joe Esposito
|