RE: How to fund open access journals from available sources

["Irving Rockwood" <IRockwood@ala-choice.org>]

This is a very cogent and diplomatic response to David Goodman's
well-intentioned but, I fear, unrealistic proposal. What came to my mind
when I first read David's proposal was a question. What do you suppose
might be the effect on the average academic library if it suddenly had to
replace all or most of its current university funding with voluntary
contributions? How would such a proposal be greeted in the academic
library community?

As I see it, what is needed, if Open Access is to succeed, is a business
model that at a very minimum possesses what we used to call in my grad
school days, "face validity". Which is to say, a model that "looks like it
could work". Most important, that model--or more likely models--needs to
work across the full and diverse range of publications found in today's
scholary publishing environment. There is a significant difference in the
financial underpinnings of journals like Brain Research, scholarly
magazines like Nature, professional society news journals like PS (from
the American Political Science Association), the secondary A&I literature,
and review journals like Choice. One business model does not currently fit
all of these publications, and it is unlikely to do so in the future.

What that new model or models would look like, I don't really know. The
things I am sure of at this point are:

--Relying on voluntary contributions isn't going to do it...and hardly
anybody would like the consequences if it were tried. How many NPR
listeners turn the volume "up" during the annual fund drive? And who is
going to make all those phone calls? And send out all those coffee mugs?

--A business model whose roots are based on research funding practice in
the sciences and medicine is unlikely to work nearly as well in the social
sciences and humanities where those norms are quite different.

As a publisher, I am not at all certain that Open Access is the solution
to the scholarly communication crisis. Count me agnostic at this point.
But I do have a suggestion to offer. If, as I believe, the real challenge
facing us is that of finding a sustainable model for scholarly
communication, doesn't it make sense to invite everyone to the table for
an open-ended dialogue? Not just librarians, not even just librarians and
faculty, but librarians, faculty, and publishers? Consorting with the
enemy? Maybe. Essential? I think so. And it could happen if we want it to,
could it not?

Sincerely,
Irving E. Rockwood
Editor & Publisher
CHOICE
100 Riverview Center
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 347-6933 x19
(860) 704-0465 fax
irockwood@ala-choice.org
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Davis [mailto:pmd8@cornell.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 07:08 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: How to fund open access journals from available sources

The success of David's Open Access funding proposal relies on voluntary
payments by those who currently participate in the market, and the
minimization of "free loading" -- individuals that derive benefit from the
system without paying into it.

Voluntary systems can work very well in small groups where there is
intense peer-pressure to conform to the good of everyone, since those who
don't conform and act purely selfishly are publicly scorned or shunned.

This model however starts breaking down in larger groups (and one could
argue that the sheer number as well as geographic dispersion of libraries
and authors makes it harder to apply peer pressure).  Individuals start
working in their own selfish interest.

But even in a tightly-knit group where there is pressure to "do the right
thing" (a phrase we keep hearing regarding OA), there is always pressure
to defect.  Libraries could begin to reduce their voluntary contribution
to journals from David's proposed 75% to 50% because they claim their
budget was just slashed again.  Or from 50% to 0%.  And if that journal
were Open Access, what would be the harm to their reader communities?  
Those librarians would not lose the respect of her peers because of
pragmatic pressures -- it was what they had to do to balance their budget.  
In the same way, if my peers were not sending contributions to journals to
help pay for their own article publications, would I make a voluntary
payment?  Not if I didn't want to feel like a "sucker".

The likelihood of success of a voluntary payment model in large systems
relies on the individual interests of authors and libraries to be in line
with the best interests of all possible readers.  What is in the selfish
interests of individual authors and libraries is not always what is in the
best interest of the entire universe of readers.  Until these interests
coincide, I can't say there is much evidence to suggest voluntary payments
will work.

[SNIP]

--Phil Davis

At 10:15 PM 4/14/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>How to fund open access journals from available sources
>
>This is the outline of a plan using available money without requiring
>changes in the academic world to provide funding for true open access
>journals. It is based on the example of a single publication produced
>by a non-profit society. (This plan is inspired, in part, by Ross 
>Atkinson's earlier posting on this list, and by discussions with the 
>students in my doctoral seminar at the Palmer School of Library and 
>Information Science.)
>
>There are three components: voluntary payments by libraries, voluntary
>charges to authors/universities/sponsors, and economies arising from
>open access publication.
>
[SNIP]
>
>Dr. David Goodman
>dgoodman@liu.edu