Reply to David Prosser

[Joseph Esposito <espositoj@gmail.com>]

David Prosser wrote:

"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."

JE:  This is not what I took exception to. My point is that evidence of a
future event is impossible; evidence takes place after the fact, when
cancellations begin.  All investments are based on predictions (usually
called forecasts).  Therefore evidence is irrelevant.  But more
importantly, from my perspective, is that it appears that some advocates
are being disingenuous.  The reason that this is "unfortunate" (the term I
originally used) is that increasingly OA advocaes are presenting specious
arguments.  No productive dialogue can take place in this environment.

It is in no traditional publisher's interest for OA to move forward.  
Nontraditional publishers are another matter, and I am not addressing
their situation.  Traditional publishing and OA are antithetical.  It is
therefore surprising to me that some traditional publishers are
accommodating OA.  As revenue declines, as it will, these organizations
will increasingly come under financial pressure.  People who advocated OA
within publishing companies will lose their jobs.  As they should.  On the
other hand, if my prediction proves to be incorrect, the traditional
publishers have lost nothing.  My prediction is based on a simple
assumption, that librarians are highly intelligent and will not pay for
what they can get for free.

Joe Esposito