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

Re: In the news (Georgia State)

I wonder if we couldn't usefully play a little game here.

What would happen if libraries began to do precisely what Thomas Krichel says they should--that is, begin to cancel journals whose contents can largely be found through various open access sources?

Would we expect the publishers, both commercial and NFPs, to do nothing? Would they say, Well, the game is up. Let's get out of publishing and go into real estate or sell subprime mortgages, for which we are ideally suited.

Would we expect legal and regulatory challenges?

Would publishers adapt to the new environment by developing new services that do not require subscriptions for content? If so, who would pay for these services?

Would publishers get out of the editorial activity, including peer review, altogether? If so, what organizations would spring up and how would they be financed?

Would traditional peer review be deemed to decline in importance in an era of rapid-fire communications and commentary?

Would the net cost of scholarly communications borne by academic institutions be greater or less?

Even if we don't know the answers to some or all of these questions, should we push for the cancellations of the subscriptions anyway?

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 6:45 AM
Subject: RE: In the news (Georgia State)

Not wishing to split hairs, Joe, but Paul Ginsparg didn't separate certification and dissemination - the high energy physics community had done that already. For years they had shared preprints with the rest of the (fairly small) community. What arXiv did was make that process faster, cheaper and more convenient. That's why it didn't take a government mandate to force authors to use it.

As David notes there is still an interesting relationship between arXiv and journals - at least in high energy physics. Most of the readership comes from arXiv, but the libraries for the time being are still subscribing to the journals. For how much longer I wonder... the academics seem to understand the value that the journals add, so maybe forever!

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
Sent: 25 April 2008 00:41
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: In the news (Georgia State)

It seems to me that what Paul Ginsparg did in one stroke was
separate, or at least begin to separate, the publishing
functions of certification (what Ian addresses) from
dissemination.  Prior to arXiv, these two functions were bound
up with each other.  I am not saying that Ginsparg set out to
do this (How would I know?), but that is the effect of his
innovation.  Ian (rightly) notes that publishers still control
the certification function, but there is another point to be
made here, that in some instances the dissemination and
certification functions compete with each other.

For example, a poorly distributed journal or a journal
published in such a way as to make it difficult for readers to
find it (e.g., not indexed by Google) may nonetheless certify
an article and, by extension, its author; but the author may
still yearn for broader dissemination.  Such an author may, the
next time around, opt for a well-designed open access
repository that has been optimized for search engine indexing
and other Internet marketing techniques, with the hope that
open dissemination will ultimately lead to certification.  We
can call this the principle of certification through
acclamation; it is intended to supplant certification through
deliberation.

Publishers that stress the certification function alone are, in
my view, making a very big mistake.  Yes, publishers add
enormous value in the editorial process, more than most authors
could ever bring themselves to admit, but the real game is to
stroke an author's ego through dissemination. In other words,
the safe zone for a publisher is not the editorial fortress of
careful selection, peer review, copy editing, and the like, but
the sound of trumpets declaring that, yes, our magnificent
author has arrived.

The future of toll-access or traditional publishing lies with
marketing.  If an author comes to believe that an open access
service could lead to wider dissemination of his or her work,
publishers should fold their tents and go home, and no amount
of shrewd editorial practices can prevent this.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: In the news (Georgia State)


Thomas' reply raises some further questions:

1) Strictly speaking, arXiv is an electronic preprint server so
the papers there may not be the published version.  Are
researchers in physics happy to use that version?  Would
researchers in human medicine be happy to use a version of
unknown providence?  Would librarians be happy with that
situation?

2) The content that I am familiar with on arXiv almost always
associates a posted article with a journal.  Authors very
quickly add 'submitted to Physical Review E' or 'Published in
Classical and Quantum Gravity' (or whatever journal) to their
preprint. Why?  Well to get the authority / credibility /
imprimatur / brand identity of the journal.  This is tied to -
but not exclusively gained by - the peer review process of the
journal. It is very important to note that for many, many years
(going back to pre-web) journals have NOT been the method of
primary dissemination in some subjects. arXiv may provide
access to content, but trustworthiness and authority - for the
time being at least - still comes from journals (whatever
business model is used).  What would happen to academia if the
primary mechanism of identifying trustworthy content and
assessing the order in which to read papers was taken away?

3) As someone who represents society publishers I find Thomas'
final point very interesting.  I would be even more interested
to hear any ideas for mechanisms to facilitate the flow of
money away from library acquisition budgets to scholarly
societies. Any ideas?

Ian Russell
CEO, ALPSP