[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Publishers' view/reply to David Prosser
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Re: Publishers' view/reply to David Prosser
- From: "Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <chief-exec@alpsp.org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 08:01:01 EST
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Curiously, there seems to be remarkably little evidence of author demand for Open Access publication according to all the studies I have seen. There's a straw poll running on the ALPSP discussion list at the moment, and so far no society publisher has reported demand from a single society member. In the end, it is author behaviour which will drive change Sally Morris, Chief Executive Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers E-mail: chief-exec@alpsp.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; "Anthony Watkinson " <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>; <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 11:32 PM Subject: RE: Publishers' view/reply to David Prosser > Even more to the point is that this is all a second-order problem. Once we > are resolved to distribute the literature without direct cost to the user, > and have devised the mechanisms for doing this, we are surely clever > enough to redistribute the funding. With respect to the UK and other > countries where the funding for science research, teaching, and education > is relatively centralized, this should be a particularly easy job. In > countries like the US, where the sources of support are much more diverse, > it will require more political ingenuity. > > There are two equally viable methods for distributing the literature, one > of relatively high cost, which is author paid funding of new and existing > journals, and the much more inexpensive system represented by ArXiv, and > Harnad's proposals. I ask those who doubt the financial viability of the > author-paid route to consider the most likely practical alternative, which > would essentially replace instead of modify the present journal system. > Personally, I think there is a good chance the necessary adjustments can > be made to retain the auxiliary benefits of present-day journals. But if > not, I think most working scientists would be prepared to accepy an > ArXiv-like solution, even if not as a first choice. > > Dr. David Goodman > Associate Professor > Palmer School of Library and Information Science > Long Island University > dgoodman@liu.edu
- Prev by Date: Re: 2nd Nordic Conference on Scholarly Communication .agendas/Watkinson
- Next by Date: Re: Administration Sets Forth a Limited View on Privacy
- Previous by thread: RE: Publishers' view/reply to David Prosser
- Next by thread: Re: Publishers' view/reply to David Prosser
- Index(es):