Re: A Prophylactic Against the Edentation of the RCUK Policy Proposal

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

Of course it has to be a hypothesis because the evidence is not there. How
can it be otherwise? I am glad that you are not defending the argument
from physics put forward by some of your confreres. Everyone and every
business works on the basis of probabilities in such circumstances.
Perhaps a librarian can explain why they would continue to subscribe to a
journal when all the content was available free of charge.

The quotation from Raym Crow (whose work incidentally I admire) needs to
be taken in the context of his model in the same piece. To repeat - this
disaggregated model leaves almost no role for publishers, so adaptation
means giving up the role which academics want us to continue with or say
they say or so they act. Interestingly the OA journals as currently
constructed do not have a role either. There is some place under
certification for overlay journals but that is all.

Anthony
----- Original Message -----

From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:32 PM
Subject: RE: A Prophylactic Against the Edentation of the RCUK Policy
Proposal

> We appear to be agreed on the issue that started this exchange.  The
> original statement from Stevan that Joe took exception to - 'The
> argument that self-archiving will lead to journal cancellations and
> collapse, in contrast, is not based on objective fact but on
> *hypothesis*.' - is correct.  There is no evidence.
>
> For the rest, I think that the last two paragraphs of the quote from
> Raym Crow says it very well:
>
> "In any event, the systemic inertia inherent in the traditional
> scholarly publishing paradigm suggests that one need not fear the
> precipitous collapse of commercial academic publishers. The best of them
> will adapt and survive under new models and will continue to perform a
> valuable albeit changed role in scholarly communications."
>
> Publishers respond to changes in technology and changes in the market.
> In the last ten years we have seen a massive change in the technology -
> the internet - and we are currently seeing a massive change in the
> market - the funding bodies deciding that they wish to have wider
> dissemination of the research they fund.  Publishers will adapt and
> survive - no doubt aided by far-sighted consultants!
>
> David Prosser