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


Both David Prosser and Fred Friend responded eloquently to Ann's excellent
questions before I got to them today.  I agree with both David and Fred
that the transition to open access is gradual, but given the pace of
policy statements and market changes, it might accelerate at any moment.  
I also agree with Fred that the "plan for redistribution" Ann refers to is
likely to play out on institutional or disciplinary level, rather than a
global one.  We are all pushing on the system at many different pressure

David's comments refer specifically to the transition to open access that
publishers face.  PLoS hopes to be a resource for publishers that want to
migrate their journals to an open access model.  As a first step, we share
what we've learned from our first issues of PLoS Biology in a white paper,
"Publishing Open Access Journals".  It can be accessed via our Open Access
page: <http://www.plos.org/openaccess>; the direct link for download is:
<http://www.plos.org/downloads/oa_whitepaper.pdf>.. This is a living
document - we will add to it as we mature as a publisher, and hope others
will share their experiences, correct our misconceptions, etc.

Universities - where scholarly knowledge is generated, disseminated, and
applied - are of course critical in this transition, from the students, to
faculty, to librarians, and university leadership.  Faculty awareness of
open access is greater than ever, due in no small part to the libraries'
success in engaging faculty in the "serials crisis".  Build on this
awareness. Encourage faculty to leave high-priced journals' editorial
boards, as happened at the Journal of Algorithms.  Provide resources for
your faculty to create open access journals, as the University of Arizona
does for the Journal of Insect Science.  As Fred wrote, "it is the
responsibility of each institution to find the solution best suited to its
structure"; I would add they must also build on what others are doing as
much as possible.

Will open access result in an increase in a "net new outflow of dollars",
particularly for research intensive institutions?  Not likely. But lets do
the math: find out what the R & D funding level is at your institution;
find out what percentage of indirect costs goes to your library's budget
and where the rest goes; calculate how much it would cost to publish your
faculty's papers in open access journals (as the Wellcome Trust has).  
You can get those numbers.

Under open access, research intensive institutions are likely to end up
paying more than teaching colleges, for example, since they produce more
papers.  But, as Fred suggests, we must look at the global benefits, and
not just the individual costs.  It is unfortunate that many funding
agencies' budgets are flat and fewer research grants will be awarded. But
failure to disseminate as broadly as possible the research that is funded
cannot be blamed on flat budgets, nor can flat budgets be blamed on open
access.  Research grants, or the indirect funds they generate, can support
open access publication costs in addition to graduate student stipends,
lab supplies and equipment, travel, computers and software, page, color
and reprint charges, and all the other essential costs of doing research.  
We can make it happen. - Helen Doyle