[no subject]

[heatherm@eln.bc.ca]

Margaret Landesman raised an interesting question regarding Phil Davis'
study and Utah:  do the economics for OA look better when you take the
whole state into account, not just the ARL library?

Phil Davis' spreadsheet can be found at : 
http://dspace.library.cornell.edu/handle/1813/236

Note:  when interpreting this spreadsheet, please note that this is a
collaborative data-sharing exercise, based on what the author describes as
best efforts at estimating.  It is not peer-reviewed; it is meant to
stimulate thought, not prove anything.

A review of this data, however, suggests that the economics of OA make
sense either at the University of Utah or at the state level, as long as
Utah researchers work with reasonably-priced publishers, such as PLoS and
BioMedCentral.

Phil Davis' rough calculations for Utah take into account only the ARL
institution, University of Utah.  Note:  I don't know either Utah or ARL
that well - it's possible I've missed an institution I didn't recognize.  
The 'break-even' point where the University of Utah Library, on its own,
would pay the same under a fully author-pays system is estimate at $2,103.

>From my perspective, this means that if all the articles published by
University of Utah were paid for by the U of Utah library, at Public
Library of Science ($1,500) or BioMedCentral (about $600) rates, then the
University of Utah would save money, and everyone in Utah would have the
full benefit of all the research conducted in Utah.

If the state of Utah were to pay on behalf of the University of Utah -
which would make a great deal of sense, since everyone benefits - then
perhaps monies could be freed up for the University of Utah to take on
some of digitization, institutional repository, and preservation projects
need to attend to - not to mention the additional needs for information
literacy and reference help as the information explosion accelerates.

Phil's spreadsheet, incidentally, to me accidentally illustrates the
increasing need for information literacy and reference help with open
access.  Note how many people, even professional publishers who one would
think would know better, are treating this data as if it were based on a
much more comprehensive research undertaking than it was, and as if it
were proof, when the author has always been clear that the data is meant
to be manipulated and discussed, not taken as proof.

[Disclosure:  I work for a provincial library consortium].

cheers,

Heather Morrison