RE: Springer blasts Open Choice criticism

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Dear Heather,

The suggestion of comparing ICAAP with Springer seems at first rather
absurd.

Like most science librarians, I tend to associate Springer with the
typically large, elaborate, and expensive titles with decades of
world-wide reputation, extremely high scientific standards. and notably
high production standards, especially for high resolution printed images.
But the same company, like most commercial publishers, also publishes
titles of considerably lower quality in the aspects mentioned. They are
mostly niche journals, published as well as the limited readership could
support.  (This correlates only partially with the distinction between
Springer-Verlag and Kluwer). It is quite possible that the production
values and expense associated with the best large journals in well-peopled
fields are not the ones suitable for smaller fields.

For some time I have considered that publishing a journal in areas with
few writers and few readers to be impossible without subsidy.  I thought
that the solution would be some other form of distribution:
self-publishing in a primitive way on the internet, publishing the
individual articles in some version of what has become known as D-space,
or placing them in some sort of organized and archival database or
repository. This has not been the subject of a discussion as intense as
that for more costly titles, but it is my impression that my view is
generally shared.

ICAAP demonstrates another possibility: it is apparently now possible to
publish at very low cost an e-journal that has similar production values
to a conventional journal. The actual quality of the articles will, as
always, depend upon the reputation and standards that the editor can
establish.
 
I will not discuss actual costs, for I do not know them. For small titles
it is difficult to estimate the value of the producers' time; for all it
is difficult to allocate the various costs. I think it reasonable to
assume that an enterprise the size of ICAAP could, even in the absence of
a dedicated volunteer, be managed by a single paid individual.
Traditionally, once you get to more than one person the administrative
costs start to rise.

I would not advise individuals to start new small titles. As long as
people still scan by journal, there will be much greater visibility in an
important journal. and thus it is in those journals that papers of
importance will and should be published. Particularly in applied areas
like librarianship, there are altogether too many small journals already,
and my advice to any society of publisher would be to combine them into
more visible units.

I think the ICAAP option is of most value to small societies that
currently have their journal published by commercially. They might find
this approach more within their capabilities than starting completely
anew. They will certainly do better than to remain with a commercial
publisher whose products few libraries can afford. I would even urge a
conventional publisher to encourage this, and subsequently devote its
efforts and revenues to the larger titles.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Heather Morrison
Sent: Fri 9/24/2004 9:39 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Springer blasts Open Choice criticism
 
Perhaps Springer should have a lot at ICAAP - the International Coalition
for the Advancement of Academic Publication, at Athabasca University:  
http://bluesky.icaap.org/journallist.php?show=isproduced, and rethink
their pricing strategy....
...

cheers,

Heather Morrison