[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: potential positive spiral in transition to open access



One has only to look at the DOAJ journals to see how many of them 
publish very spasmodically and may even have ceased entirely - I 
and a group of volunteers did an analysis of this last year 
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315106775122565)

Sally Morris
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 28 June 2007 07:23
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: re: potential positive spiral in transition to open access

The fallacy here is the assumption that without a publisher's 
staff overseeing and organizing the "volunteer" work of academic 
editors, it will get done in a timely fashion and produce a 
steady stream of publishable articles. All of my experience in 
forty years of publishing suggests that few scholars have the 
self-discipline and motivation to do this kind of work without 
external pressures. We have difficulty keeping some of our 
journals on schedule even with a lot of oversight!

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State Press


>Peter Banks wrote:
>
>I fail to see any rationale basis for zeroing in on
>subscriptionscosting more than $1,000.  [Peter goes on to say
>that my modelmakes no distinction between journals in this
>category].
>(from:http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0706/msg00082.html
)
>
>Comment:
>
>The rationale for focusing on subscriptions costing more
>than$1,000 US per year, in this particular example, is that this
>isthe cost of a year's hosting and support for a journal at
>thenon-profit Scholarly
>Exchange(http://www.scholarlyexchange.org/).
>
>A library paying subscriptions in this price range might be
>welladvised to inquire as to whether the journal could manage on
>avolunteer / in-kind support model.  My model assumes that only
>asmall fraction of journals in this price range (10%) would
>beable to manage.  Nevertheless, if even this small percentage
>ofjournals could transition in this fashion, there would
>besignificant savings over the library community as a whole,
>whichcould then be applied to other open access initiatives.
>
>How could such an expensive journal manage on a volunteer
>/in-kind support model, or how can you tell whether a
>journalcould successfully transition in this way?
>
>The key is whether the journal is essentially managing on such
>amodel now.  In peer-reviewed scholarly literature, authors,
>andpeer reviewers, are not paid.  Payment of editors varies
>widely;it can be a volunteer task, underpaid / paid at an
>honorariumlevel, or highly paid.  Support costs also vary.
>Some journalspay for office space; others enjoy free space at
>universities,and editors and others often work from their homes
>as well.
>
>Even if a journal is unlikely to be able to transition with
>justthe revenue from a single subscription, a polite inquiry
>wouldnot hurt. It would be helpful to advocacy efforts to change
>inscholarly communication to point out to the editors of
>suchjournals, that the cost of a single subscription is more
>thansufficient to fund one of the more substantial costs of
>managinga journal - hosting and support of the online version.
>
>Further comments on my blogpost, A Potential Positive Cycle:More
>Access, More Funds, are most
>welcome!http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/06/potential-positive-cycl
e-more-access.html
>
>Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone,and
>does not reflect the opinion or policy of BC ElectronicLibrary
>Network or Simon Fraser University Library.
>
>Heather Morrison, MLIS
>The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
>http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com