RE: Berlin-3 Open Access Conference, Southampton, Feb 28 - Mar 1 2005

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

There are two different dichotomies at work here. One, which afflicts --or
possibly benefits-- the entire academic world is the distinction between
faculty and faculty-who-have-become-administrators. I need not belabor the
point to this audience, except to remind them that almost always libraries
and their needs end up on the bottom, as all concerned have learned that
libraries are willing to let themselves be satisfied with by hyperbolic
complimentary language, rather than cash.

The other, applicable to a number of contributions to this discussion, is
the distinction between faculty-as-authors and faculty-as-readers (I use
"faculty" to stand for researchers at all levels.) It is certainly the
case, as everyone from Anthony Watkinson to Stevan Harnad has said, that
as authors, researchers do not care very much about OA. Indeed, they do
not care much about general access of any sort. They care about being
published in the best-reputed journals, but it's not because these
journals have larger readerships, but because they have higher status.
They want their departmental colleagues and the university administrators
to see their published work, and they want their immediate associates
whose work is in the same exact subfield to see the work, regardless of
format.  Beyond that, they do not really care.  They can't--they must be
starting the next paper.  Thus, no matter how much they may approve of OA,
they won't actually bother.  This implies that it will need to be built
into the publication system-- which is fortunately not the same as saying
it will require a governmental mandate.

As readers, faculty certainly do care about OA. It is legendary that they
expect to have everything they want immediately available. No university
is large enough or rich enough to provide this in all subjects, although
some well-funded specialized research centers can in fields where there is
a small well-defined literature. Few have this luxury. In can be
supplemented, at high labor costs, by specialized document delivery
services-- but even for the best, 24 hours can be a long time when you are
waiting to see whether someone has anticipated your results, or just why a
reviewer takes exception to your paper or grant application, And it is
obvious from the arithmetic that buying journal articles electronically
one at a time cannot cost less than buying them in journal packages.

Very few in this discussion have even mentioned the other readers. There
are the small-scale researchers in minor schools, the independent workers,
the people in specialized institutes interested in allied fields, the
professional graduate now a practitioner--and the students. Rare indeed is
the institution which will work as hard or as fast for an undergraduate as
for a professor. In metropolitan areas especially, there are students and
faculty from a mix of institutions, and also library facilities from a mix
of institutions--when they do not match, the barriers can be very high.
Interested laymen are another disregarded but critical group: how can we
possibly expect to get increased funding except from the taxpayers, and we
should be doing everything we can to keep them aware of our work.  If some
material is too sophisticated, they will not be convinced until they see
it.

Students and researchers need to find their own literature--it is an
integral part of research and research training. But they should need only
find it in the sense of identify it.  Physically locating it despite the
barriers that have been erected should not be a component of research or
education. 

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

I write as one having experience to some degree in all the roles
discussed--except, fortunately, administration.