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

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

David's post is very interesting.  I urge all publishers to pay close
attention to his point #4 concerning the availability of backfiles.

But to the four perspecitves on OA I would add a fifth:  those who believe
OA will evolve inevitably but will not look anything like traditional
journals--that is, they will develop as a new medium.  I have attempted to
make this point before:

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/esposito/index.html

Joe Esposito

On 7/17/05, David Goodman <David.Goodman@liu.edu> wrote:
> 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