RE: Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty

[David Stern <david.e.stern@yale.edu>]

Phil is correct in stating that we must find a way to adequately 
support the peer review system.

This can be accomplished either through modified versions of the 
existing indirect (subscription or author charges) model and/or 
through a new direct subsidy.  A direct subsidy would remove the 
inefficiencies and probably provide better understanding and 
control of the real and minimally required costs.

Separating peer review from distribution is the key.  Support 
them in different ways, but understand their complementary 
functions.

David Stern
Director of Science Libraries and Information Services
Kline Science Library
New Haven, CT  06520-8111
david.e.stern@yale.edu


At 06:25 PM 3/22/2007, Phil Davis wrote:
>Rick Anderson wrote:
>
>>For what it's worth, here's my evidence-based prediction: if and
>>when an entire journal's content is made publicly available at no
>>charge and with no embargo, only a fool will continue to pay for a
>>subscription to it.
>
>I probably won't be the first to bring up examples from astrophysics
>and other disciplines that are fully (or nearly completely)
>represented in the arXiv.  Their continued existence poses a
>conundrum if we view the journal solely as a vehicle for
>disseminating research findings.  All articles can find a journal
>that will publish them.
>
>The most valuable function of the journal is in the evaluation and
>reward system.  Journals, by their degree of selectivity and
>exclusion, concentrate high-quality articles in a small number of
>publications, and signal to the readers what is important and should
>be attended to.  As authors give away freely their work to be
>published, there is a transfer of prestige back to the author. The
>more selective the journal, the more prestige is transferred in return.
>
>Like a parasite that must keep its host alive, repositories are
>dependent upon the evaluation system of the journal.  Kill the host,
>and self-archiving becomes meaningless.  Coexistence is possible,
>but we should not view this relationship as a peaceful
>coexistence.  It is a parasitic relationship.
>
>--Phil Davis