Re: Fascinating quotation

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

I believe David's analysis is correct.  This is why it is almost never in
the interest of a publisher, whether commercial or not-for-profit, to make
publications available in any form of Open Access, including
self-archiving.  Librarians will reward the "good guys" who support OA
with cancellations.  The "almost" of this formulation points to why
publishers of very prestigious, core journals may indeed support limited
OA, since their leadership in this regard compels the publishers of
smaller or less central journals to follow suit, and it is the journals on
the periphery that are at risk.  In effect, support for OA by the big guys
results in cancellations for the little guys.  Interestingly, this is also
precisely what the now maligned Big Deal led to, except that OA now has
the support of many librarians.

Joe Esposito


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:13:12 EST, David Goodman <David.Goodman@liu.edu> wrote:
> Dear Mark,
> 
> You would have us believe that medical libraries never discontinue
> periodicals, and, if they did, availability elsewhere would not be a
> factor.
> 
> First, even for a truly first rate medical library like Cornell there are
> presumably some biomedicine related journals which you do not get, and for
> which you rely on document delivery, from, among other places, the nlm.
> Unless there is a sharp discriminating factor between the worthwhile and
> the worthless rather than an imperceptible transition, there must also be
> a few journals of about the same importance to which you do subscribe.  I
> wonder if you mean you would not drop even the most scientifically
> insignificant biomedical journal if 90% of its articles were CERTAINLY
> available on line at the nlm?
> 
> Second, there are many fields of some relation to medicine at least
> occasionally. A journal on the subject of bioethics, say, which you would
> certainly get, might have any article referring to any imaginable major or
> minor journal in philosophy. Surely you collect only the more important
> philosophy titles, not them all, and would discontinue them much more
> readily than titles in medicine, and availability elsewhere would be one
> ofthe factors.
> 
> Third, I think the same argument you make also applies to key libraries of
> major international status in their own subject fields.  Chemistry
> librarians regard their subject and its journals to be every bit as
> important as you view medicine. They too will not discontinue anything
> nontrivial in their central area until it becomes available otherwise--
> then, there is a level of low use and quality that they will consider.
> Further, just as philosophy is a subject of secondary importance to you,
> medicine might be a very secondary subject to them.
> 
> Finally, I can offer you direct proof that some medical research libraries
> would discontinue some medical titles.  They already have. All faculty in
> medical schools do research, but there are many medical schools supported
> by a considerably smaller library than yours. They, obviously, do not
> subscribe to some of the biomedical titles that you subscribe to.
> 
> Dr. David Goodman
> dgoodman@liu.edu