RE: The Value of OA (resend)

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Tony

As my colloquialism has caused you such disquiet I unreservedly 
withdraw it and am happy to replace it with 'very small'.  I hope 
you find that less loaded.  However, I do still consider 1% 'very 
small' compared to 99%.

Your post does raise the question of what the cost of scholarly 
communication is to society.  Are you suggesting that 1-2% of 
research costs is significantly greater than what society is 
paying under the current subscription-based system?  If not, then 
we are talking about a redirection of existing funds, rather than 
a siphoning-off of funds that could be used for more research.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Mcsean, Tony (ELS)
Sent: 07 April 2007 13:55
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: The Value of OA (resend)

"Peanuts" is a loaded term.  The best estimate we have of OA 
costs' impact on medical research funding is that of Mark Wolpert 
of the Wellcome Trust who estimated that their programme would 
cost between one and two percent of grant funding.  This estmate 
still leaves a pretty big margin for error, but if 1% of medical 
research funding is "peanuts" then my definition of "wealth" 
needs recasting.  As Rick Anderson said, there is serious money 
involved and we need to have an evidence base that it produces 
the best value.

This debate should be conducted on the basis of research evidence 
and intelligent deduction.  Calling millions of pounds "peanuts" 
does no credit to the argument that it's aligned with, and brings 
the whole discussion down.

And a happy easter to all.

Tony McSean
Director of Library Relations
Elsevier
London NW1 7BY

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 05 April 2007 23:41
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: The Value of OA

Peter

The amount of time, money, and energy that has gone into the open
access debate is peanuts compared to the amount of time, money,
and energy that has gone into actual cancer research.  The idea
that promoting open access is somehow retarding progress in
cancer research is a non-starter.

(Incidentally, the amount of money spent on open access is
probably no larger than the amount of money spent by funders on
journal page charges. However, you rarely see anybody question
how much further we would be if all the money that has gone into
page charges had instead been applied to actual cancer research!)

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
http://www.sparceurope.org