RE: PLoS

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Anthony Watkinson and I are going to have to be satisfied with the fact
that we disagree on the possibilities of open access.  My bottom line is
that we have a choice between an unproven system (open access) and a
system that we know does not work.  As time passes the evidence that open
access works increases, as does the evidence that subscription-based
access does not.

I wanted to comment on Mr Watkinson's fix for the current system - namely
increased library budgets.  If money really was the answer then surely
Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc. would be happy with the current model.  They
are some of the best funded libraries in the world, and yet they believe
that the current system is untenable.  The average UK research library
takes about a third of the journals that the average US library takes.  
Can we realistically expect library funding in the UK to increase to the
level of US libraries?  And even if we did see a massive infusion of funds
we would still not be able to meet the information needs of the
researchers!!

Even if we could persuade the world's politicians to increase massively
library spending we would not solve the problem.  As has been pointed out,
the current journal's market is hugely dysfunctional.  What would there be
to stop the large commercial players from increasing the prices of their
'must have' material to soak up any increases in funding?  It is
interesting to see that in this time of budget cut-backs internationally,
Reed Elsevier has reported record profits and increased margins in their
journal's business (http://www.reedelsevier.com/index.cfm1991.htm).  
Extra money will not solve the dysfunctional nature of the market (but
open access might!).

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe

E-mail:	david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
Tel:	+44 (0) 1865 284 451
Mobile:	+44 (0) 7974 673 888
http://www.sparceurope.org