[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access?
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>, <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access?
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:48:38 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Publishers should be expected to defend the interests of those who own them. In many cases this will be a scientific society, in which case the publisher's aim is not to produce journals, but to disseminate the work in the field of the society. Some society publishers are allowed to make the error that all they need care about is the financial success of the journal. if this autonomous behavior cannot be changed, the members of the society would be better off without them. A corporate publisher owned by either stockholders or an individual, might choose either to maximize long term stability and income, or short term income only. If it acts to ensure growth and permanence, it will thrive in any publishing environment. If it maximizes only short term income, any academic organization should distance itself, for its goals are not compatible with the world of teaching and research. Its products should be avoided by both authors and libraries, for such a publisher is the most likely of all to fail. Some of Joe's advice will help identify such publishers. A library does not exist for its own sake. I think librarians generally understand this, and do not (now) buy only to increase their statistics. A library acquires material to serve its users, and for a research library this includes all of the research community now and in the future, but its present local users in particular. A library must juggle the needs of many segments of their community, if many do not now do it optimally, they should learn how. Authors do know their interests, which is to do first-rate scholarship, and obtain tenure, promotion, large grants, and many research students. What they do not seem to know is how libraries and publishers can best help them in this. They do as their own advisors did. Both librarians and publishers can assist them to find a system of research communication that fits their present needs. Some things can be easily predicted: nothing substitutes for getting he best papers, Some things appear highly probable: for example, that a publisher will do well to cooperate with the NIH. And some important things no one can predict, or give advice based on anything but imagination--for example, whether a given society will do better to remain autonomous or to consolidate. 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: Thu 7/21/2005 6:13 PM To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access? Joe: ... However, our main point of disagreement comes in your last paragraph (and we may have to accept that we will never agree on it). You say ' Publishers should defend THEIR interests, just as librarians and authors do theirs, as one would expect.' That's fine, but I have argued that for some publishers - especially small publishers - open access may well be in their interests. It may be their best bet to retain a sustainable, independent existence. And I am sure that many society publishers would rather find a way to turn their journal(s) into open access journal(s) than to take your first option of selling out. David -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito Sent: 20 July 2005 22:54 To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: Re: Who gets hurt by Open Access? No, not at all. My advice to small publishers is (a) seek consolidation, whether by selling out to a larger company or by developing publishing consortia (b) be very careful about working with aggregators, whose success often undermines subscriptions (c) steer clear of Open Access, including declining to publish authors who self-archive (d) if the journal is owned by a professional society, regularly inform the membership how much higher their dues will be if publishing revenues drop (e) petition elected representatives to get the NIH and other governmental bodies to get out of publishing (f) seek new revenue streams by repackaging material (new sales channels, licensed archives, etc.) (g) most importantly, make every effort to publish the finest work in the field--there is no substitute for editorial excellence (h) begin to experiment with INEXPENSIVE author-pays hosting schemes, something between arXiv and BMC, which strip away most of the costs associated with editorial review (e.g., prepublication peer review) (i) aggressively pursue search-engine marketing, bypassing library portals (j) actively market the journal's role in certification to its readership (k) be wary of marketing plans whose success is largely built upon price increases. This list can go on and on. There is a great deal that a publisher, big or small, could do. What they should NOT do is put valuable time into OA. Publishers should defend THEIR interests, just as librarians and authors do theirs, as one would expect. Joe Esposito
- Prev by Date: Re: Who gets hurt by Open Access?
- Next by Date: Ecological Society of America Price Reudctions
- Previous by thread: Re: Who gets hurt by Open Access?
- Next by thread: RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access?
- Index(es):