Re: How to fund open access journals from available sources

[heatherm@eln.bc.ca]

The full costs - and means - of preserving information in electronic form,
whether in peer- reviewed journals or any other format, are not yet
completely figured out by anyone, IMHO. In fact, I hear the microfilming
industry has been doing well the past few years.

Preservation is definitely an issue for peer-reviewed journals,
particularly in electronic format, regardless of whether they are open
access or toll access.

It seems to me that the need for preservation is another good reason for
open access, if only because it allows for a multiple copy (not version)
approach, under the LOCKSS (lots of copies keep stuff safe) principle.  
For example, if a copy of an article, whether originally published in a
toll or open access journal, is also deposited in an institutional
repository, there is some hope that the institution will ensure the
preservation of the work in which it has a vested interest, even if the
original publisher does not, or cannot, look after this in the longer
term.  Open access and the current state of technology also makes it quite
feasible for authors to keep their own collected works; there is more than
one reason why it will benefit authors to do this, but this course does
seem wise from a preservation perspective, as authors will obviously have
good reasons to ensure that their own works remain intact.

The need for preservation also suggests, to me, again following the LOCKSS
principle, that it would be wise for libraries, or at least some
libraries, to turn (or return) to storing copies of journals on our own
servers, rather than relying exclusively on web-based access.

cheers,

Heather Morrison