corrigenda (inclu role of ILL)

[brs4@lehigh.edu]

(1.) Before I receive half a million emails criticizing my comments about
the ideological fervor surrounding open access, let me repeat that OA is a
good thing, including OA to tables of contents for overlay journals. (This
subtlety of my comments will be missed, that's for sure.)

However, the cold reality of who will pay for such journals comes into
play, thus my comments about toll access to the table of contents if such
tolls are kept very low. Note that all the content will be free anyhow,
just not necessarily accessible for free in the organized way that a table
of contents provides.

(2.) Print subscriptions are indeed one way to fund an *OA* model of
overlay, as has been pointed out to me. However, if indeed the world is
going e-only (a significant *if*), then where does the money for peer
review, editing, etc. come from? Thus we must take toll-access overlays
seriously.

(3.)  Concerning my comment below, which might seem a bit confusing in the
context, two clarifications.

> Generous ILL and licensing provisions can obviate the problem that
> people see with toll-access being a barrier to dissemination of
> knowledge. (Regarding ILL's role, again see my presentation.)

First, independently of the whole issue of OA, we must continue to
maintain robust ILL rights and provisions. Second, ILL on the face of it
would not be needed with overlay journals, since their content is freely
accessible at a repository(ies). However, should there be a delay in
processing by the repository in archiving post-prints, temporary archiving
of post-prints on the publisher's own website, plus ILL provisions on a
rush basis should be part of the system. That is, someone who needs
something immediately can get it via their ILL dept (which will look for a
place that has the overlay t. of c. with the publisher archived content),
realizing that in a short period of time the content will be posted to the
repository.

Brian Simboli