Re: Open Access and For-Pay Access (to the same IR materials)

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Not the demise of prepublication peer review for all journals, but the
rise of post-publication peer review for many and possibly most: i.e., a
pluralistic future.  Prepub peer review is a function of a desire to seek
publication that exceeds the number of outlets for consecrated
publication.  With the legs being cut out from the subscription model
(budget cuts, Open Access, etc.), the number of formal, traditional,
consecrated, call-them-what-you-will journals will decline, as capital
leaves the market.  But the number of authors will continue to rise.  
Where will they take their publications?  As Steven Harnad has long
pointed out, the Web makes simple publication (essentially posting) cheap
and easy.  We should expect to see a world in which everything gets
published, at little cost, but for the most part without the trimmings.

One contributor to this thread noted that "At the top end there will
always be a sector of the market that can afford and is willing to pay for
a premium service."  I agree completely.  The top--the shrinking top--will
be with us for some time, perhaps forever.  By analogy, for all the
success of the University of Phoenix, I don't see Harvard and Yale
disappearing anytime soon.  The question is one or proportion and
long-term trends.

Joe Esposito


On 5/1/05, T Scott Plutchak <tscott@uab.edu> wrote:
> I'm baffled by Joe's insistence that open access will inevitably lead to
> the demise of prepublication peer review.  Am I missing something?  PLoS
> and BioMedCentral use standard peer review mechanisms, as does my own
> Journal of the Medical Library Association.  An open access environment
> certainly facilitates postpublication review, but it doesn't mandate it.
> 
> T. Scott Plutchak
> Editor, Journal of the Medical Library Association
> Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> tscott@uab.edu