RE: Reply to David Prosser

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

I don't want to get into a 'who said what debate' as that is tedious for
readers and now, thanks to the beautifully cleaned-up archive, we can see
exactly what was said.  (By the way, let me take this opportunity to thank
Ann for undertaking that piece of spring cleaning!)
 
Instead let's move the debate forward a little.  Joe says:
 
'It is in no traditional publisher's interest for OA to move forward.'
 
Now, of course, this may or may not be true for the large publishers who
are nursing large profit margins, but let's remember that probably half of
all journals are published by small (often society) publishers who only
publish one or two title each.  I think that for increasing numbers of
these publishers open access could be in their interests.  These
publishers do not have the size or clout to put together big deals that
tie-in library budgets for 3-5 years.  Instead, they have to compete for
an ever-smaller amount of 'left over' money in the library budgets (as an
increasing proportion gets spent on a small number of big deals).  In the
current model I think they are at risk.
 
Open access, especially with an 'author' pays model, might help them.
Rather than competing for ever smaller proportions of flat or slowly
increasing library budgets they would be competing for ever increasing
research budgets.  This is what many society publishers did in the past
(in the form of page charges), but open access changes the equation as it
gives authors added dissemination and impact and so they may be willing to
spend part of their research funds on publication.  (And we can argue
about whether or not open access does or does not increase dissemination
and impact until the cows come home - I think the evidence is becoming
overwhelming.)
 
It is probably not a coincidence that most of the experiments in open
access to date (and certainly before Springer's 'Open Choice' initiative)
came from the small, society publishers.
 
(I'm not normally this shameless at self-promotion, but here's a paper I
wrote expanding this argument a couple of years ago.  Comments would be
welcome.
http://www.sparceurope.org/resources/Big%20Squeeze%20-%20final.pdf)
 
David 
 
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: 14 July 2005 23:01
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Reply to David Prosser
 
David Prosser wrote:
 
"We appear to be agreed on the issue that started this exchange.  The
original statement from Stevan that Joe took exception to - 'The argument
that self-archiving will lead to journal cancellations and collapse, in
contrast, is not based on objective fact but on *hypothesis*.' - is
correct.  There is no evidence."
 
JE:  This is not what I took exception to. My point is that evidence of a
future event is impossible; evidence takes place after the fact, when
cancellations begin.  All investments are based on predictions (usually
called forecasts).  Therefore evidence is irrelevant.  But more
importantly, from my perspective, is that it appears that some advocates
are being disingenuous.  The reason that this is "unfortunate" (the term I
originally used) is that increasingly OA advocaes are presenting specious
arguments.  No productive dialogue can take place in this environment.
 
It is in no traditional publisher's interest for OA to move forward.  
Nontraditional publishers are another matter, and I am not addressing
their situation.  Traditional publishing and OA are antithetical.  It is
therefore surprising to me that some traditional publishers are
accommodating OA.  As revenue declines, as it will, these organizations
will increasingly come under financial pressure.  People who advocated OA
within publishing companies will lose their jobs.  As they should.  On the
other hand, if my prediction proves to be incorrect, the traditional
publishers have lost nothing.  My prediction is based on a simple
assumption, that librarians are highly intelligent and will not pay for
what they can get for free.
 
Joe Esposito