RE: Back to basics

[Jan Velterop <velterop@biomedcentral.com>]

Dean Anderson wrote:

> Libraries, in particular, create a dilemma for publishers. The mission 
> of libraries is to serve their patrons by providing an information 
> resource to as many people as possible. That means that libraries will 
> seek to make one copy of a subscription available to large numbers of 
> patrons. If this logic is followed to its ultimate conclusion, the 
> number of subscribers would dwindle down to one, and that one subscriber 
> would make the publication available to everyone else.

This is precisely the reasoning behind the early, country-wide BigDeal
arrangements. There would be one subscriber, paying a substantial amount,
and everybody in the country would have access. The reasoning behind Open
Access takes this a step further. Just one subscriber in the *world* would
be paying, a modest amount, for one article at the time, and making that
article available to the rest of the world. The ultimate inter-library
loan. Would it not be logical if that one subscriber were the author's
institution (or the author's funding body)?

Voila. Open Access. And at the same time, in my view, a demonstration that
Open Access has to be regarded as inherently sustainable.

Jan Velterop
BioMed Central