RE: In the news (Georgia State)

["Nawin" <nawin.gupta@comcast.net>]

If I may comment on a few of the questions Joe poses.

One is forced to adapt to the changing environment.  Publishers 
are some of the most creative and resourceful people.  They will 
continue to rethink and respond by developing new services and 
business models.  Overall expenses associated with publishing may 
not change by much (except for volume related), but each new 
model will continue to create its own redistribution amongst key 
players.

Two of the preeminent journals in astronomy/astrophysics are 
doing well even though most of the articles they publish are 
readily available on arXiv (and other toll-free means).  They 
draw most of their revenues from author page charges (~75%). 
Another highly rated journal in humanities makes its articles 
available free-of-charge upon publication (no author fees), but 
still enjoys enough subscriptions to finance a viable publishing 
business partially because of the other content it publishes 
(book reviews, for example).

Subscribers should consider value of each subscription, and the 
"rightful" dissemination and ease of access to published 
knowledge it affords - often it goes way beyond accessing some 
version of only the major articles within a journal.

Nawin Gupta
nawin.gupta@comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J. Esposito
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 3:49 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: 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 
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