Re: A Prophylactic Against the Edentation of the RCUK Policy Proposal

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

I think most publishers see author-paid journals as an alternative
business model to user-paid journals. I am using these terms for
convenience not because I believe all authors will have to pay or that any
user will have to pay. There are some publishers like me who feel that
both models have their disadvantages but that the author pays model has
more disadvantages both for publishers and authors. David's analysis is
most useful. I do know of a case where a journal has moved to complete OA
with a subsidised "introductory" author pays model while maintaining a
subscription for the print version that enables the subsidy; some
librarians do feel that they should offer support by maintaining print for
at least a year. Of course this is nothing to do with institutional
repositories.

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:36 PM
Subject: RE: A Prophylactic Against the Edentation of the RCUK Policy
Proposal

> As a librarian, I would subscribe to a journal all of whose content is
> available free if:
>
> 1/ the material were difficult to find in its free form--as is now usually
> the case or
>
> 2/ the version available free were of unknown quality (as is now usually
> the case) or
>
> 3/ there were serious doubts about the free access remaining available.
> (and this has happenned to a few titles.)
>
> 4/ the journal were published under a scheme such that key features or
> backfiles required a current subscription (relatively rare, because such
> feature prove to be rarely worth the money.)
>
> 5/ the contents were so important or interesting that a paper copy was
> wanted and used (which is the case for relatively few titles--maybe 10% of
> a typical research collection) or
>
> 6/ I were collecting for a complete archival collection, in which case I
> would certainly also want paper if available (many libraries think they
> are, but many fewer actually have collections of that quality and
> completeness. in a subject) or
>
> 7/ The journal were published by a society that was thought to merit
> library support for its publishing ventures in general (there are a few
> such, generally less than 1% of the budget.)
>
> The more interesting case, is whether I as a librarian would subscribe to
> a journal where 1/4, or 1/3, or 3/4 of the material were available OA. We
> will see these before we see 100%, and the results will indicate the
> future course better than any guesses I might now make.  Nonetheless, I do
> intend making such guesses at intermediate states. My criterion will have
> to be based on what I myself as a librarian would do, and whether most
> librarians are more or less conservative than I am.
>
> An interesting further factor which will inform us, is that the different
> subject fiels will move through these stages at different times. Hence the
> interest in the high energy physics data, although everyone understands
> the limitations due to the exceptional nature of publication and research
> in that field. Exceptional it may be, but it's the only discipline- scale
> data we have.
>
> There now seem to be 4 camps, not 2:
>
> o Those who wish for OA, and think it progressing nicely, and a sure
>   thing.
> o Those who wish for OA, and think it progressing slowly with many hazards
>   ahead
> o Those who do not wish for OA, and fear its apparent progress
> o Those who do not wish for OA, and are pleased it is not doing very well
>
> Dr. David Goodman
> Associate Professor
> Palmer School of Library and Information Science
> Long Island University
> dgoodman@liu.edu