RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access?

["Gherman, Paul M" <paul.gherman@vanderbilt.edu>]

Possibly societies and libraries might join forces and jointly support
Open Access journals through agreements. We each have faculty in key roles
in their societies that could help develop a model of cooperation.

A cooperative project between libraries and societies has been in place
for several years called ETANA on ancient Near Eastern Studies.
www.etana.org - It is a cooperative project between multiple societies in
ancient Near Eastern studies and several universities. We have secured
several grants to develop the project. Although we do not intend to
publish open access journals, we are engaged in offering access to
scholarly information. Similar projects could be developed between
societies and universities to foster publishing ventures to the academic
community's benefit.  There does not need to be winner and losers as we
move forward.

Gherman, Paul M
University Librarian
Vanderbilt University
Email: paul.gherman@Vanderbilt.Edu
__________________

--On Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:51 PM -0400 David Goodman 
<David.Goodman@liu.edu> wrote:

> The best solution for the smaller society publishers was the original
> solution due to Varmus: that the essential roles of the scientific
> societies should be subsidized directly, instead of forcing them to rely
> on making a profit by publishing, which, quite apart from OA, is not
> that reliable for most societies. There is no reason to think that the
> limited resources of a small society make it an efficient publisher.
>
> The other possibility-- in some fields --is to convert to OA journals.
> This should be particular appealing to those journals that already have
> page charges, because they merely need to be increased. This will
> naturally only be feasible for first rate journals in subject fields
> where there are large grants.
>
> The only solution for good journals in fields where researchers do not
> have large grants is a subsidy for publication. This is what happens
> even now, but indirectly.  If a journal or society is worth subsidizing,
> it is better to subsidize it explicitly than to rely on grants to
> produce indirect costs, to give some of that to the library, which will
> give some of it for the journal, with the understanding that perhaps
> some of the journal's profit will be used for the important but
> non-publishing functions of the society.
>
> The reason this had persisted is because the sums involved have been
> relatively small, as compared to the really expensive subject fields.  
> Thus the money can make its way down the chain without any clarity about
> who is ultimately paying for what. This inherently produces uneconomic
> solutions and inefficient use of what money there is for the smaller
> fields. Inefficient as it is, this persists because the money can indeed
> be hidden in the overall structure.  But once the structure becomes
> unstable, the items hidden in the cracks become revealed.
>
> Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and
> Information Science Long Island University dgoodman@liu.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of David Prosser
> Sent: Tue 7/19/2005 7:34 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access?
>
> JE:  It is precisely the smaller publishers who have the most to
> lose with OA.
>
> DP:  So, your advice to small publishers is to hang on in there,
> put up with the decline in their subscription base as libraries
> have less and less 'free money' to play with (left over from
> increased spending on big deals) and wait for - well wait for
> what?  What's the business model that is going to allow them
> their best chance of survival in an environment that is dominated
> by a handful of very large players?
>
> David Prosser