RE: Copyright and OA: New York Times and Chronicle of Higher Education

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

I think the two systems can coexist if the conventional journals are the
better ones. Then OA is an alternative choice for second rate articles,
and a far superior one to the present situation of very extensive poor
quality journals of low circulation.  But if the OA journals are better,
then the only top quality people who would want to publish conventionally
would be the ones without funding. If the OA journals are better, or cover
the full range, and offer discounted or free publishing fees when
necessary, then the only submissions to conventional journals would be
work which, though grant supported, is considered by the authors to not be
worth the money.
 
The current publication model of CHE, with an infuriatingly debased
version on line free, is one for which I hope there will be no future.
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Ann Okerson [mailto:ann.okerson@yale.edu] 
Sent: Mon 1/26/2004 7:31 AM 
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu 
Subject: Copyright and OA: New York Times and Chronicle of Higher Education

Following a lengthy and most useful piece in the NY Times Magazine this
weekend called "The Tyranny of Copyright?" January 25, 2004, by Robert S. 
Boynton (you can read this for free online if you register for the NY
Times), today's Chronicle of Higher Education (online) carries a
collection of views about the future of technology, by educational leaders
such as Ed Ayers (U Virginia) and Charles Vest (President, MIT). 
Additionally see several pieces on Open Access for scholarly journals. 
The Chronicle offers a mix of for-free and by subscription articles.

2 Routes to Open Access: Archives and Institutional Subscriptions
By LILA GUTERMAN

Publishers Fear Government Intervention
By LILA GUTERMAN

The Promise and Peril of 'Open Access': Free-subscription journals may
loosen commercial publishers' stranglehold on scientific research, but
skeptics say they're no panacea
By LILA GUTERMAN

These are good syntheses of the state of play today.  However, I was
surprised at the perspective that we will either choose traditional
business models (subscriptions) or Open Access (author and others pay up
front), as if this the outcome must be all one or the other, rather than
increasing diversity in both what is published and under what financial
model. After all, within its own gates, the Chronicle offers a mixed model
to readers, at least to some extent.

Ann Okerson/liblicense-l moderator