Re: practical solution

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Almost all libraries agree that they are too precariously 
situated to take responsibility for distributing money for OA 
publishing.

Rather, the reasonable suggestion is that money from the 
no-longer-necessary journal subscriptions be used to help pay for 
OA fees--but not directly by the library.

I consider it inevitable. No library is going to hold on to all 
of that-- the use is so obvious that I can not imagine a 
university administrator who does not recapture it. How the 
provost may reallocate it is a separate question and depends on 
many others than the librarians. It might be the existing 
departments, or to a central group to distribute it, or even to 
start a publishing center. The publishing center might even be in 
the library, as with GIS.)

On another list, Stevan Harnad wrote just a few days ago, on June 
28, "Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates"  at 
<http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind06&L=american-scientist-open-access-forum&F=l&S=&P=46735>

>If there were extra money to mandate and fund paid OA instead of
>self-archiving today ... that would be fine.

>But that outcome is highly unlikely, for many reasons (the chief
>of which being that 100% of the cash for funding publication is
>currently tied up in paying subscriptions, so the extra money
>would have to be found from elsewhere, in advance!).

He's wrong. this is still June/July. Librarians could right now 
cancel their most expensive (and not cost-effective) 
subscriptions for 2007, regardless of tradition; they could then 
inform the provost that they would like to apply about half this 
money to help faculty pay author fees, and would she please 
distribute the money.  (explaining that the other half will be 
used for long-standing library needs that he's been asking her to 
fund for years, and will no longer have to ask.)

Provosts are inherently experienced in the distribution of money, 
and I could not imagine one who would turn down the $50,000 or 
more, particularly as a permanent allocation. (And even more 
eagerly if she is promised additional increments, as more gets 
cancelled.)

The library then uses OA copies for document delivery for the 
year or two before that journal becomes OA, or (if the publisher 
is too slow to rescue it) finds its position taken by a title 
from a less expensive publisher, more attuned to OA--or 
collapses.  (I consider document delivery too awkward for a 
permanent solution except for low use titles, but it would bridge 
the gap, particularly considering the increasing availability of 
OA versions.)

We then have the start of a real solution--for 2007. It may 
unfortunately take longer if all the most expensive titles are in 
big deals, but they will expire, and then there will be a great 
many things to cancel--plan ahead now. The faculty will get used 
to it once they realize that there's money in it for them.

Libraries usually take years to consider things, but we've been 
considering OA for many years--now is the time to act. For once, 
let's lead the way. Let's show Stevan that we can.

Dr. David Goodman
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library
dgoodman@princeton.edu