RE: Who gets hurt by Open Access?

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.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