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

RE: Sabo Bill: Measure Calls for Wider Access to Federally

Phil Davis is right to suggest that there can be various acceptable ways
of paying for e-content, i.e., a variety of business models.  We all need
to work together to identify models that will *work,* whether they be the
kind of behind-the-scenes, up-front payment that the open access movement
supports, or some kind of subscriptions, or...

On a related note, Jan Velterop's posting below suggests that in open
access models, libraries will somehow *not* pay for e-content.  Yet I
would observe that at our institution we have paid and are paying for at
least some open access e-journals, through what look to me very much like
subscription prices, though they are called memberships.  We can call such
annual payments memberships, or founders fees or supporting fees, but in
the end they are a business model that feels like a subscription by a
different name.  Libraries who have budgets will be essential in paying 
for open access.  If we think that's not the case, we could be fooling 

**NOTE:  I'm not writing here about the pros and cons of open access, but
rather how we all will support ejournals in the present and future. These
two concepts seem often to get mixed up.**

Sincerely, Ann Okerson/Yale Library

>> PD: I'm not sure there needs to be the dichotomy between open-access 
>> and subscription-access as you set up.  As the original Public Library of 
>> Science proposed, open access to research would be available after 6 
>> months.  [snip] 
>> This would still enable publishers to make money on the value-added 
>> services they provide but still allow eventual open-access to the public.  
>> Many society publishers have already adopted this practice, [snip]
>> and libraries have confirmed that they are still willing to 
>> pay for the immediacy of good information.  
> JV: I'm sure libraries are prepared to pay for the immediacy of good
> information. But 'willing'? Do they really have a choice? Are they not
> also 'prepared' to pay for the largest and most expensive package deals?
>> Commercial publishers, however, have been very reticent to adopt this 
>> practice, undoubtedly because it would result in a massive correction 
>> in the prices they would be able to charge.
> JV: And not only commercial publishers, I might add. Some
> crypto-commercial societies fit this bill, too. It may not be a
> black-and-white situation, but it is very dark grey indeed.