RE: Funding OA

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

I should have said A key issue.  I agree that THE key factor is the
demand.  My perception, however, is that the problem is not exactly as
David describes it but rather the perception that new OA journals lack
prestige.  The concern seems to be how the journal looks to a review
committee for their grant.  My pitch to prospective authors is that
prestige comes from the papers published not from the publisher and that
PubMed and the internet have leveled the playing field.  I even suggest
puting in grant renewals that they chose to follow NIH guidelines by
publishing in our OA journal with a prestigous editorial board and one
eminent co-editor-in-chief.  I think the NIH could help by explicitly
encouraging study sections to look favorably on those who do chose OA
(assuming the paper is inherently good).

I feel, however, that part of prestige is presence and production values
that color the picture.  I think N&M has a unique niche in integrating
molecular science and traditional nutrition but we might be said to
compete somewhat with Cell Metabolism: a new journal but a spin-off of
Cell which is well established and whose hard copy version and website
have great impact.  In essence, we (or BMC)  are a start-up company trying
to compete with General Motors (generic term).  We (or BMC) can't go to a
bank with the prospect of big profits later.  An interesting example is:  
This month's Cell Metabolism has an ad "seeking two junior editors to join
a multidisciplinary team in our Cambridge, MA, office....offers an
attractive salary and benefits." N&M has one junior editor who is paid
from external funds.  Dr. Hussain and I are unpaid.  How many researcher's
can put in the kind of time that this takes for no money?

I agree with David that demand is key but there has to be a mechanism for
meeting the demand.  Basically, Cell Metabolism is not a good deal.  I
subscribe because it is part of my job.  It publishes a small number of
articles, a fraction of which are of interest to any single person.  It
presumably involves a large flow of money from libraries to Elsevier.  I
think offering a product that will compete with this is easy in terms of
value but will require a similar large flow of money to have presence.

I think one good way to solve a problem is to describe an ideal solution.  
I will give as analogy an exam given by Dr. Fred Sachs of SUNY Buffalo in
a course in cell biology.  The exam had four questions:

1. Describe any problem in cell biology whose solution will guarantee you 
a Nobel Prize.
2. Describe how you would solve this problem using any real or imaginary 
equipment or techniques no matter how far out or futuristic.
3. Describe how you could adapt exisitng equipment or techniques so as to 
approximate the answer to question 2.
4. Why aren't you doing this?

His report was that students were largely stuck on part 2, that is by
their imagination.  If they could answer question 2, they could come up
with something for question 3.

My last message was background for the question of whether we can come up
with an ideal solution for the financial or organizational problem in OA.  
(I am working on the demand problem but will be glad to hear suggestions
on that too). Regards, RF

Richard D. Feinman Professor of Biochemistry
Co-editor-in-chief, Nutrition & Metabolism
Department of Biochemistry
SUNY Downstate Medical Center

____

"David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
Sent by: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
08/13/05 09:23 AM
Please respond to liblicense-l

The key factor in causing a delay in OA is not funding. 

The key factor seems to be getting authors to insist upon it.  The surface
reason they do not, is that they do not find the process trivially easy.
(Those who think it is easy may be right, but the authors don't.)

The more fundamental reason is that many authors do not consider it
important to have an audience outside their own research community, and
thus consider readership and even citations from outside their associates
to be irrelevant.  (Most people outside their own field may think them
wrong, but they disregard such outsiders.)

The non-financial benefits of OA, however important, may not be sufficient
to induce funders to require and pay for true 100% non-embargoed mandatory
OA to the published items. (They should be thought sufficient, but that
does not seem to be the case.) When advocates of OA disagree about how to
fund it, or how much funding will be necessary, they are concerned about
the secondary factors of managing the transition and ensuring
sustainability. They all believe that a way to fund the necessary features
will be found-- there are many possible models.

However, in some cases cost might promote adoption.  It should be possible
to construct a system that will provide major cost savings--not 25%, which
is merely three years price inflation.  If so, funding agencies might
choose to require it, rather than pay (directly or indirectly) the current
level of publishing or subscription fees.

Such a system might not involve organizations like the traditional
publishers or the traditional libraries. That is not a factor in
considring whether it might be more helpful to the potential users and the
authors as well.
 
Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University