RE: OA Now

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

The perfectly reasonable drive for more access to scientific 
information does not require a movement to OA journals.

In my field (Endocrinology) at least, there are far more highly 
cited OA papers from non-OA journals than from OA journals. 
According to ISI, there were 421709 citations in Endocrinology 
and Metabolism in 2004. 35.3% of the total citations came from 
only 4 journals--Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and 
Metabolism, Endocrinolgy, Diabetes, and Diabetes Care. The first 
two journals, from the Endocrine Society, publish reviewed 
manuscripts upon acceptance. The Society's Rapid Electronic 
Publication makes research papers accessible to subscribers up to 
12 weeks before the print and online journals are published. 
Diabetes and Diabetes Care are freely accessible 3 months after 
publication, and accepted manuscripts may be placed on acceptance 
in any institutional reposity. A Rapid Electronic Publishing 
option is likely soon. An institutional subscription to any of 
these journals is less than $1000--a bit less than the "price of 
a Toyota Camry" so often mentioned as the standard journal price 
in the general media.

By comparison, BMC Endocrine Disorders is not even ranked by ISI. 
It may well be a good journal, but the statistics aren't there to 
cause authors to choose it.

Thus the desire for freer access to information has been met 
within a traditional, sustainable, and proven business model. 
Researchers have asked for more rapid and open access within the 
framwork of existing publishing models, and their requests have 
been met responsibly. It's not surprising that there is not a 
clamoring for a movement to other journals.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> David.Goodman@liu.edu 03/28/06 7:44 PM >>>

Dear Richard,

Your last paragraph proposes a perfectly sensible course of
action, and similar policies were even possible in the print era.
The University of California adopted just such a policy in 2003,
with the enthuastic support of its faculty* -- who then proceeded
to ignore it.

It is often an easy question what a university ought to do, but
It's quite another matter getting them to do it.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu
dgoodman@princeton.edu

* http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/lists.htm#actions

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Richard Feinman
Sent: Mon 3/27/2006 6:43 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: OA Now

>How could this be done? A coalition of librarians, editors and
>end-users could demand that existing publishers do this or could
>move operations to an existing journal.  In other words, the
>prestige of a journal is dependent on the collective opinions of
>end-users, authors, reviewers and editors (many of whom are the
>same people).  A group decision to define an OA journal as the
>premier journal in a field is within their power. Journals that
> refused to compete would be avoided by this group.

>When could this be done?  How about now?

>Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry
> (718) 871-1374
> FAX: (718) 270-3316