Re: 100% Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: a critique

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

David,

It would be just as irresponsible for libraries not to plan for a 
move to open access as it would for publishers not to do so.

The function of publishing is not merely putting ink on paper, 
just as the core function of libraries is not putting journals on 
shelves. In both cases, the real function is to connect users 
with information that enables them to solve problems.

Anyone who thinks that having 100% OA via mandated deposit 
accomplishes that by itself is living a fantasy. The resulting 
collection of multiple versions of preprints, postprints, 
published papers, and God knows what else will fulfill Sturgeon's 
law that "90% of everything is crud." (Actually, Sturgeon 
probably said 99%, and likely used a more colorful Anglo-Saxon 
word than "crud," but listserves need to be a least PG-13)

If 100% occurred, the challenge to both publishers and libraries 
will be to create powerful tools (far more powerful than Google 
Scholar) to mine, filter, and aggregate information that is truly 
useful for the user. Forget Web 2.0--we need Web 3.0 or 4.0.

That is where savvy publishers would begin to put their 
energy--not in preparing to move to a user-pays business model 
that would be a sure-bet failure for many of them.

Happy Thanksgiving, by the way!

Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
Fairfax, VA 22030
pbanks@bankspub.com


On 11/21/06 6:48 PM, "David Goodman" <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU> wrote:

> I am very pleased to see Stevan's long-awaited agreement about 
> 100%. The next question, asked by the Ware survey but not 
> Beckett & Inger, is what will happen at 95% and at 90%, which 
> are levels which is practice can be reached by mandatory 
> self-archiving, as CERN has demonstrated.
>
> It seems Stevan would make a rather conservative librarian, for 
> about half of libraries would cancel earlier than 100%. Ware 
> found (question 15) that 52 percent of libraries would cancel 
> by somewhere between 90 and 99%.
>
> But that too is not the exact situation that will be posed in 
> real life, which is: if at 90% OA, libraries see half of their 
> similar libraries cancelling, would they cancel as well? And, 
> since libraries do not make the decision how much money they 
> can spend, if libary funders --institutions, boards-- 
> legislatures--see half of comparable libraries canceling, would 
> they continue to allot money for the subscriptions that some 
> libraries might nonetheless want to continue? (This has been 
> sometimes referred to as the tipping-point problem.)
>
> Of course, we are far from this situation, but I pity the 
> publisher who does not start realistic planning for it now. 
> Stevan, and I, don't need to, and neither perhaps do 
> libraries--we can await the event. Publishers can't.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
> dgoodman@princeton.edu
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> Date: Monday, November 20, 2006 10:22 pm
> Subject: Re: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: a critique
> To: AmSci Forum <american-scientist-open-access-forum@amsci.org>
>
>> For those (like me) who happen to think that 100% OA
>> self-archiving is likely eventually to cause cancellations,
>> downsizing, and a transition to the OA cost-recovery, but that
>> there is as yet no evidence of this, and that it is a matter of
>> complete uncertainty how fast the self-archiving will grow, how
>> soon the cancellation pressure will be felt, and how strong the
>> cancellation pressure will be -- this study did not provide any
>> new information.
>>
>> For those empiricists (for whom I have some sympathy too), who
>> simply say there is no evidence at all yet that self-archiving
>> causes cancellations -- and that even in the few fields where
>> self-archiving has been at or near 100% for some years there is
>> still no such evidence -- it is likewise true that this study has
>> not provided any new evidence: neither about *whether* there will
>> be cancellations, nor, if so, about when and how much.
>>
>> Stevan Harnad