RE: How to fund open access journals from available sources

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

Dear colleagues,

I remain interested in seeing actual contrary evidence, rather than a
general assertion that the tragedy of the commons will inevitably cause
non-cooperation.  Using game theory, it is easy to postulate extreme
situations with simple parameters that give unambiguous negative answers.

Not enough is known to apply game theory or even economic analysis in our
circumstances with complete confidence, if only because there is obvious
disagreement on what the values of the presumably relevant parameters are.
The extent to which the parties can and will share information is
uncertain, and this is a known critical factor in game theory. The costs
and the funding are uncertain, which are surely known critical factors in
economic analysis. The extent of cooperation between traditionally opposed
groups is uncertain; the acceptability of the alternatives is uncertain.  
Even the extent of the desire to maintain a workable system seems not to
be certain.

Have any quantitative papers dealing with this specific subject in this
context been published?  The excellent review on game theory to which we
have been referred (P. Kollock. Social dilemmas: the anatomy of
cooperation. Ann. Rev. of Sociology. 1998, 24:183-214) indicates the
complexity of the subject, and the variety of possible models, including a
brief discussion of alternative solutions to apparent t-o-t-c situations.
The actual question, I think, is whether there are conditions under which
libraries would not defect. There have been times libraries cooperated,
and times they haven't.  (Including some times when libraries have not
cooperated because they thought they were too rich to need to do so--which
is probably not the case here. Rather, I might say that it seems to be
proposed we not cooperate because we are too poor to do so, and, if so, we
do need a much less expensive alternative than mine.)

A few corrections/clarifications.

1.  There is nothing necessary about the 70% figure. One strength of my
proposal is that the amounts to be obtained from the authors/sponsors, on
one part, and the libraries on the other, is variable. Probably some
journals can be sustained on author contributions alone, as does the
Journal of clinical Investigation according to their posting to the Nature
forum:  http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/14.html

2. Not all of Physical Review has been successful with author
contributions, and they now are primarily a feature of the most
prestigious section, Physical Review Letters.

3. I obviously was not correct in suggesting that the library portions be
considered as contributions or donations. In spite of the multiple
meanings, I think memberships must be the word. As I understand the
objection, to meet the legal constraints, the membership must purchase
something not freely obtainable. I agree that finding something
appropriate and sufficient has proven a problem in the past to publishers;
I'll make some suggestions later; maybe librarians can do better.

4. I agree that my proposal might not be indefinitely stable, that some
libraries probably will eventually defect. (How rapidly others would I do
not know; surely it would depend upon the economic circumstances at the
time. If I tried to predict that, I would indeed be naive.) It may well
prove to be stable long enough for a better way to shift costs to be
developed, and then fail slowly without disaster, journal by journal.
Those who are sure otherwise are invited to provide their quantitative
demonstration. Those who merely suspect otherwise, presumably agree that
we need to find out.  My proposal, at least, cannot be less stable than
the present system, where the effect of continuing positive feedback on
journal prices is quite predictable--though even here it is a little
difficult to predict just when the collapse will occur.  (I doubt that
Rick thinks journals can be produced at $5/yr each, and I remind Carl that
many have lost money in publishing scientific material, from the 16th
century to the present. The point of OA is not only to lower costs but to
make material easily available. It would be worth doing even at equal
cost, and even a 10% savings would fund many needed projects, like
scholarly books and image databases.)
 
The problem with experiment is to avoid disaster if it fails. The usual
approach seems to be to try on a small scale--in our case, journal by
journal.I consider the possibility of this among the advantages over a
repository-based solution.  It is very hard to realistically experiment
with a system that can only operate as a global replacement.

What Heather should consider, I'd say, is what her budget would be like if
she needed to pay only 70% of the cost of the journals her university has
NOT canceled. The library might even be able to restore a few of the ones
it did cancel.

I wonder that the possibility of experimentation on a small and reversible
scale is seen so negatively. Since we are working towards the same goal, I
think we might want to try further to find some common ground.

David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From:  owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Phil Davis
Sent:  Wed 4/21/2004 4:13 PM
To:  liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject:  Re: How to fund open access journals from available sources

Heather, I think you completely missed Dean's argument and point.  No one
doubts that library budgets cannot sustain current journal inflation.  
His argument (very succinctly stated) was that the burden of proof is on
David to illustrate why he thinks his model of voluntary payments will be
successful, despite overwhelming contrary evidence from economists and
sociologists.  Dean is not proposing an untested theory he just made up,
but a body of knowledge that is accepted as truth by academics in those
fields.

To further the evidence stacked against the success of this proposal,
state libraries are unable to make payments for services that they aren't
legally required to make.  In essence, they cannot make voluntary
donations using public tax dollars.  If you are supporting such a
solution, you need to realize that state institutions will be unable to
participate.

No one doubts the benefits of providing access to information to as wide
an audience as possible.  If we are to support a new model of academic
publishing, it should at least stand up to scrutiny and logic.  But if you
a firm believer of a voluntary payment model, you are welcome to begin
experimenting with your own budget and start making voluntary payments to
the titles that the University of British Columbia libraries have
cancelled over the last two decades.

--Phil Davis