RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

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

Hi Joe

A couple of quick points, if I may.  You wrote:

'In an alternate universe, where the NIH acted thoughtfully and=20
responsibly, the NIH would fund and develop the means to review=20
and publish material based on NIH research.'

NIH already does fund the means to review and publish material=20
based on NIH research.  NIH grantees can use part of their funds=20
to pay publication charges in open access journals.  In the UK=20
the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council (our=20
equivalent of the NIH) also allow grant-money to pay for open=20
access publishing.  No need to invoke an alternative universe.

'Over time less money will go into maintaining the current=20
system; smaller publishers, especially small not-for-profit=20
publishers, will suffer most.'

Is this true?  Robust figures on revenue and costs per paper are=20
hard to get, but Elsevier 'needs' something like $4000-5000=20
revenue per paper.  The American Physical Society 'needs'=20
something like =A31500-2000 revenue per paper.  If there is a=20
squeeze on the current system, which of these two is better=20
placed to survive the squeeze?  Of course, some small=20
not-for-profits 'need' more than the Elsevier figure.  They will=20
need to look carefully at what they do and how they do it.  My=20
advice, for what it's worth, would be to study publishers such as=20
the APS and Hindawi (who make a profit on $800 per paper or so).

'The overall costs of scholarly communications will rise.'

Maybe, but don't the overall costs of scholarly communication=20
rise anyway each year - that's certainly the feeling most=20
librarians have! Alternatively, and less flippantly, it's=20
entirely possible that if we can create a new, functioning market=20
then at least we may get better value for money.

Best wishes

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
http://www.sparceurope.org
---2071850956-941602607-1186081999=:1715--