Re: How to fund open access journals from available sources

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

Is there a body of knowledge that demonstrates the long-term economic
viability of the subscription-based method of providing access to
scholarly journal articles?

My understanding is that not only is there no such proof, but there is,
rather, a substantial body of evidence indicating a system that has been
in crisis for decades, with no resolution in sight.

What this means, from my point of view, is that we're all experimenting,
like it or not.

As for whether game theory principles apply to David Goodman's proposal
(75% of payments plus open access), I'm not so sure.  Libraries are by and
large not commercial entities; they can and do support projects they
believe are important.  The creation of digital libraries over the past
few years, most of which are open access, is one example.  Libraries
generally use a combination of inside and outside funding, because they
believe it is important to preserve particular collections as well as to
make them accessible; libraries see this as their role, because there is
information which is of value with little to no profit potential.

It would probably be a good idea to ask groups of libraries to consider
David Goodman's idea; many individual libraries would probably need to
have a strong sense of collective action before they could make any
commitment to this approach.  This consultation process could take some
time.  It is possible that some might need to revisit their administrative
processes at the local level.  This kind of thing is not impossible; any
administrative processes were invented by people, and can be changed by
people, even if it's not always easy.

Change can be difficult, sometimes very difficult.  Fortunately, we humans
do seem to be capable of change; otherwise we'd still be living in caves,
wouldn't we?

As a very imperfect analogy of change:  let's look back to about the 70's,
when we made the switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline, and to cars with
emission control devices.  There were many who were convinced that this
change was impossible, for economic reasons.  Looking back, does anyone
now wish we had all agreed this was just too hard, and given up?

hope this helps,

Heather

___
On 19-Apr-04, at 9:54 PM, D Anderson wrote:

> David Goodman's comments that "neither Phil nor I have any basis except
> speculation and analogy for the effect on libraries. He is using the
> possiblity of failure as a reason not to experiment," implies a belief
> that game theory and other theories of human behavior do not apply to
> David's scheme. Such theories are not speculation. They have proven 
> their validity over time.
>
> It is speculation to assume that this scheme would be the one exception 
> to the rules. There's nothing wrong with experimentation But valid
> experimentation is based on knowledge. The burden is to provide an
> empirical basis for expecting that this scheme would succeed, despite
> research conducted over many years showing otherwise.
>
> The key to achieving a practical solution to the problem of access is 
> to base the solution on a body of knowledge pertaining to the issues
> involved.
>
> Dean H. Anderson