beautiful but not a panacea

["Dr. James J. O'Donnell" <provost@georgetown.edu>]

Heather Morrison wrote:

> James O'Donnell, Toby Green, Joe Esposito, and David Prosser have all
> expressed concern for the smaller publishers, a concern I share as well.

Heather, you have quite mistaken my point and I should ask you to reread
my note.  David Goodman had asserted that one way to keep costs down was
for low overhead small journals to publish.  I wrote to say that there was
some superficial truth to that proposition, but that there is still no
such thing as a free lunch and that small may be beautiful but it is not a
panacea.

I will comment also about another note on the list today that suggested
there were four classes of OA positions:  support all out, support
skeptical, oppose mildly, oppose strongly.  I think that also mistakes the
clear direction of discussion on this list.  We all support the widest and
freest possible access to scholarly and scientific information, without
reservation.  At that point there are only two camps:  those who believe
in OPEN ACCESS -- that this goal can be reached quickly, easily, and as it
were magically, with a particular business model or two in mind; and those
who believe in open access -- that it's not that simple, that there are
real costs that have to be paid, and that thought and care and patience
and acceptance of diversity of models and the influence of the market will
be necessary, and even that the existing publishing industry may not be
obsolete.  But the key point is simple and clear:  Everybody supports open
access.  We should keep that in mind.

Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown University