RE: Cost of Open Access Journals: Other Observations

["Richard Poynder" <aotg20@dsl.pipex.com>]

I am not a librarian; nor am I an academic. This, then, is an outsider�s
perspective (and possibly an ignorant one!). However, I would be
interested in any feedback.

Historically researchers viewed the library as primarily fulfilling a
service function. The role of the librarian was to ensure that the
researchers (and others) in an institution had access to the necessary
print (and then also electronic, and other) resources. Initially these
resources were provided centrally (in the library), but increasingly they
are being delivered to the desktop of the user. In other words,
researchers specify what resources should be acquired, and how they should
be delivered, and then instruct the librarian to go off and service them
accordingly.

Two things have changed. Firstly, journal prices reached a level at which
the discrepancy between the money that the institution gave to librarians
to service researchers' information needs, and the cost of doing so became
unsustainable. Secondly, the increasing ability to deliver journals
electronically exacerbated the journal pricing problem, but simultaneously
provided a possible solution (Open Access).

Since OA involves a fundamental change to the way that the scholarly
communications process operates it has understandably raised questions,
not just about the process itself, but about the various players in that
process. Most obviously, it has sparked a lot of debate about the role of
publishers.

What I have seen far less of (maybe I am looking in the wrong places?) is
discussion of the implications that this has on the role of librarians. I
am wondering if what I perceive to be growing tension between researchers
and librarians is in fact rising anger amongst researchers that librarians
are seeking to go beyond their traditional role of service provider, and
are now seeking to "interfere" in parts of the scholarly communications
process where they have no valid role.

After all, offering up some of the library budget to pay for researchers
to publish their papers (as in paying membership fees to OA publishers
like BioMed Central) can be interpreted two ways: 1) Well done for helping
out; thanks for the money, or 2) Who do you guys think you are, meddling
in a part of the system that you have no right to meddle in? Your role is
to provision us with the product of the scholarly communication process
(i.e. give us the journals); you have no role at the front-end (the
publication of the papers that make up those journals). We're now worried
about what other parts of the system you want to interfere with, so back
off!

I wonder, then, what the long-term implications of Open Access are for
librarians, and what their function in the scholarly communications
process in the future should be/will be? And how does/will this affect
their relationship with researchers?

Are these issues being discussed? If so, where? Or do I misunderstand the
situation: maybe there is no inherent conflict between researchers and
librarians here? But if not, why does there appear to be growing tension
between these two groups over OA?

Richard Poynder
Freelance Journalist
www.richardpoynder.com
 
>>>>