RE: Tenure and journals (RE: Elsevier profit)

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

Fytton, I do understand that this is the conundrum, indeed. The disconnect
between the author and reader side of the equation. But authors are also
readers and readers also authors, so it would be good to seek to connect
the two again. Our input-paid open access model is an attempt to do just
that. To take away the monopoly-element that makes prices as high as they
are and dissemination as limited as it is.

The open access journals have no impact factors yet (though they are being
tracked by ISI). That's nothing to do with being open access and all with
being young. But it doesn't mean they have no impact. I just sent a
response to Harvey Brenneise on this list about this, therefore I won't
repeat that particular argument now.

It's still a fairly slow process, but understanding of the benefits of
open access and receptiveness to the concept are growing tremendously.
Many more people are now thinking about it and considering the options.
That's a major gain. Just one or two years ago the automatism with which
the choice was made for traditional journals was nigh universal. Now many
authors may still, on balance, choose to publish in traditional journals,
but after long consideration and certainly not automatically anymore. The
fact that thinking comes before action is not something I would object to,
as I'm confident that the action will come. Some are just earlier adaptors
than others. We are working incredibly hard on making open access a
success, but we cannot ignore the fact that it takes time and won't be
achieved overnight. The progress we are making is undeniable, though.

Best, Jan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fytton Rowland [mailto:J.F.Rowland@lboro.ac.uk]
> Sent: 02 April 2003 23:41
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Tenure and journals (RE: Elsevier profit)
> 
> 
> This is about the authorship end of the process, not the library purchase
> end - one of the key problems that reformers of the scientific
> communication process have always faced is the lack of linkage between the
> two that exists within institutions.
> 
> It is the academic leadership of the university (specifically, in our
> case, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research) who insists on publication in
> the leading journals.  If open access journals had the impact factor I
> don't suppose he'd mind us using them, but they don't, do they?  It is a
> chicken-and-egg problem.

[SNIP]

> Fytton.