Authors and OA (RE: Mandating OA around the corner)

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

> The real problem with Harnadian OA (author self-archiving, for example) is
> that it doesn't work *for authors.* This is the key point.  It is authors
> who have a huge stake in the status quo, as the journals they publish in
> are the means of determining professional advancement. 
 
Joe raises an essential issue here.  For what it's worth, I'm working on a
piece right now for Serials Review that discusses this point -- that it's
one thing to come up with an OA model that pleases publishers, librarians
and the general public, and quite another to come up with a model that
will actually attract authors.  

Self-archiving, for example, sounds like a great solution only until you
consider all of its ramifications.  It's not just a matter of
credentialling, though Joe is absolutely right that credentialling is of
central concern to authors.  By asking authors not only to do original
research and write their papers but also to put them in a functional
(maybe even attractive, and definitely ADA-compliant) online format, to
maintain them in a universally-accessible online space, to be responsible
for the maintenance of the necessary hardware and to keep the software
up-to-date, to administer durable links, to carry the articles with them
as they move from institution to institution (or provide for a permanent
home someplace else) -- all of this will create an economic opportunity
for someone ("Anyone! please!," I hear the authors cry) who is willing to
provide those services, thus freeing up the authors to do their real work.  
They will do so at a price, of course.

We might not call such service providers "publishers," but that's what
they'll actually be.  Then the question will be who should pay them for
those services.  And so it all begins again...
 
---
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
Univ. of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273