Re: Open Access and For-Pay Access (to the same IR materials)

[brs4@lehigh.edu]

David,

Thanks for comments below. I've been adding lots of material to the
webpage in the last few days, some of which may address the concerns you
express. The model may well be compatible with author charges, as I've
indicated very recently on the webpage. It may be a way to keep those
charges relatively low compared to what they would be otherwise. What by
the way is the funding source of arxiv.org? The repository infrastructure
for this model is in my view already in place, contingent on the
willingness of arxiv.org to serve such a function as a key part of this
model. Brian Simboli


Quoting David Stern <david.e.stern@yale.edu>:

> Brian's model describes a scenario in which Navigational interfaces are
> marketed rather than the actual data. Enhanced access is the real value.  
> This seems reasonable, if we want to remove the existing copyright
> blockage to non-commercial material. He leaves the identification of funds
> to support the data repositories out of his model, and these costs may be
> insignificant if inexpensive collaborative archival platforms are
> developed. It is important to recognize that even these reduced repository
> costs will require new funding paths and models. (Perhaps direct
> government funding a la arXiv? But this is for another message.)
> 
> Regardless, if I read his proposal correctly, I think there is an
> underlying problem with his model:
> 
> A primary intention of new scholarly distribution models is to identify
> revenue to support the peer review process, the most important part of
> scholarly communication.
> 
> Under Brian's model, a non-commercial developer might be able to produce a
> less expensive version of navigational tools and drive down these costs.  
> This is a good initiative, as a portion of the savings could be
> re-directed toward peer review subsidies through some unstated pathway.
> 
> However, these navigational tools are often owned by entities unrelated to
> the peer review process -- and therefore the majority of the revenue will
> not be re-directed toward subsidizing the essential peer review costs.  
> Perhaps we have done exactly the opposite of what we need: we do want to
> separate the support of peer review and data delivery -- but this model
> will emphasize the use of institutional subsidies for revised delivery and
> navigation mechanisms rather than the peer review process.
> 
> Perhaps there is another unrelated plan for subsidizing the peer review
> process?
> 
> It seems that this plan provides a model for organizations to pay for the
> navigational tools, but leaves out the related and high priority support
> plans for repositories and peer review.  These are parts of the existing
> subscription model and need to be addressed by any new subscription model.
> 
> David Stern 
> Director of Science Libraries and Information Services 
> Kline Science Library 
> 219 Prospect Street P.O. Box 208111 New Haven, CT  06520-8111
> david.e.stern@yale.edu