Re: a preservation experience

[Keith Seitter <kseitter@ametsoc.org>]

Steve,

Please do not misinterpret what I was trying to say.  I am not against the
concept of open access publishing in favor of subscription based
approaches.

What I am saying is that whenever I try to think through a business model
that provides for Eileen's five independent organizations or institutions
having adequate long-term funding for archiving, I end up coming back to
some mechanism that would have them receiving funds in exchange for
providing access to their archived materials.  It is hard to see how to
make this work, however, in an environment in which open access publishing
prevails.

I realize it may be hard to read this and not interpret it as an argument
against open access, but that is not my intent.  What I am saying is that
open access makes Eileen's already difficult requirements for an archive
solution even harder to achieve.  It is going to take some very creative
thinking to move us toward the twin goals of open access and a stable
long-term archive.  (Rather than "twin" goals perhaps I should say
"married" goals, because they were not born together but we must, I think,
bring them to a compatible union.)

Keith Seitter
Deputy Executive Director
American Meteorological Society

At 08:54 PM 11/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> Keith, So you're not in favour of open access publishing :-) You are
> entitled to say so. Before discriminating against OA publishing in the
> context of preservation, can you elaborate in what sense the subscription
> model has an advantage as far as preservation is concerned?
>
> As far as I can see, open access publishers such as BioMed Central are
> directing a part of the author fee to the production of preservable
> digital formats, and the documents produced in this way are distributed,
> and accessible, in multiple archives. It's a pretty good start as far as
> preservation is concerned.
>
> Steve Hitchcock
> Email: sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> Tel:  +44 (0)23 8059 3256     Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
>
> At 17:46 06/11/03 -0500, you wrote:
> > I have also been giving a lot of thought to Eileen Fenton's excellent
> > message.
> >
> > It seems to me that the fundamental issue embedded here for a long-term
> > archiving solution (or solutions) is the need for one or more business
> > models that can lead to stable long-term funding for the effort.  This is
> > not to dismiss the technological issues (or the other issues on Eileen's
> > list) surrounding this topic, but to suggest that we have made more
> > progress in identifying possible technological solutions than we have in
> > outlining business models that result in a steady and adequate flow of
> > resources to the institutions and organizations that we will be relying on
> > to preserve the content for future generations.
> >
> > What I am really struggling with now is how to reconcile the need for a
> > sustainable funding model for the archive with the recent, and
> > understandable, push for open access publishing.  I'm sure we all see the
> > value of open access for the communities we serve, just as we understand
> > the critical need for preservation of that content.  The business models
> > that provide for open access publishing may not be mutually exclusive with
> > the business models that would help to support a long-term archive, but I
> > am having trouble imagining a framework that provides for both.
> >
> > Keith Seitter