Re: What if open access publishers close down

[jan velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Jim,

We agree. The 'what if' question is a realistic one. But not really for
open access publishers. What if large conventional publishers' article
databases disappear? You're absolutely right to raise that issue. The open
access publishers at least make it possible, just by virtue of the
material being 'open access', that material is archived, duplicated,
further disseminated, without restrictions, and there IS comfort in
redundancy. We would like all open access publishers to commit to
depositing all their material in open archives as well, and we are
campaigning for that. The access control of the conventional publishers'
databases and the often spelled-out contractual stipulation that the
material may not be permanently archived by the licensees, presents
dramatically greater dangers of the material being lost. There are
examples already of early electronic journals published and discontinued
by some of the largest conventional publishers that have simply
disappeared. Even if the material is found somewhere now, it's not clear
if the original publisher doesn't want to make it available anymore,
whether copyright rules make it possible at all for anyone else to
'rescue' the material. One specific lost (medical) journal we have tried
to rescue and make available freely, but so far we are being held back by
copyright considerations. This simply would have been a fully avoidable
situation in an open access environment.

Jan

On Saturday, Jan 18, 2003, at 21:51 Europe/London, James A. Robinson 
wrote:

> [llicense: If this is too off-topic, someone smack me]
>
>> BioMed Central does what it can to ensure that the material published
>> remains openly and freely available in all eventualities. But David is
>> right in pointing out that the preservation of science literature has
>> always been a library responsibility, not a publisher one.
>
> Which is why I wasn't directing those questions at any specific Open
> Access publisher.  I was (and am still) asking the librarians on this
> list. :-)
>
>> We are realistic at BioMed Central, and provide for eventualities, 
>> but we plan for success. What Jim suggests seems to me like planning 
>> for failure, although I'm sure he doesn't intend it that way.
>
> I do intend it that way, but not as a slight against BioMed Central.  
> I'm not familier enough with the world of publishing to know whether or
> not there are ever sudden massive collapses of a publisher's product.
> This RoweCom incident, where money meant for services has gone AWOL, got
> me to wondering what the plans are if a publisher goes WorldCom.

[SNIP]

> It strikes me that the best solution is to make copies while they are
> available.  With licensed material, you're subject to agreements between
> multiple parties.  You probably are not allowed to make an openly
> available copy of such a site, or use it as a base for building another
> site (hence something like LOCKSS which archives copies and has it's own
> access control model).  With Open Access, the license has already been
> made, and indicates you may make a fully functional archive of the
> original.  Has anyone thought about taking advantage of that? Or is
> something like LOCKSS all that is needed?
>
>> open access. By a sustainable model we mean an economic model that is
>> not reliant on one subsidy or grant. They can be withdrawn or used up
>> and sometimes raise questions of independence and level playing fields.
>> We have seen what happened to PubSci. A sustainable model is built on a
>> reasonable price for a truly valued and necessary service, paid per
>> deliverable unit (an article peer-reviewed and published with open
>> access, in our case).
>
> What you seem to be talking about here is sustainable economic
> revolution. What I'm talking about is less intellectual. :-)  I'm
> talking about disaster scenerio planning.
>
> Jim