Re: Library Roles Changing, Open Access Not Compelling

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

David,

I don't think there is a simple answer, but part of it is that 
PLoS One is not an Open Access service as envisioned by many 
members of the OA community.  PLoS One does not have the same 
kind of editorial review that the flagship PLoS journals do.  It 
does seem to me that authors are supportive of online posting 
(PloS One does more than that, of course), and the growth of 
openly available material everywhere points to that.  But just 
don't call it Open Access, whatever that is.

Here again, I reiterate:  people don't know what they think.  We 
shouldn't ask them.

Joe Esposito

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:37 PM, David Prosser <david.prosser@rluk.ac.uk> wrote:
> Interestingly, while apparently authors have no interest in 
> paying to publish in oa journals, PLoS One has become one of 
> the world's largest journals after a launch only about 4 years 
> ago.
>
> Is there a simple answer to that paradox?
>
> David
>
> On 15 Apr 2010, at 23:11, "Philip Davis" <pmd8@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>> One Report, Two Findings: Library Roles Changing, Open Access
>> Not Compelling
>>
>> by Kent Anderson
>> Scholarly Kitchen
>> April 15, 2010
>> http://j.mp/92pRAi
>>
>> quote:
>>
>> "It's been a fear among librarians for decades, a perception
>> among publishers for years, and now a survey shows it's now a
>> clear opinion among faculty and researchers -- libraries are
>> increasingly viewed as information purchasing agents inside
>> academic institutions rather than intellectual partners.
>>
>> An unrelated perception that's been argued for years is that
>> open access is of dubious value to scholars, with their
>> dedication to its ideals hardly rising above lip service."