more on OA Now

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

I am grateful to everybody for pointing out the numerous sources which are
much further along than I suspected.  Anyway, although others may have
said as much, I offer further speculation on coalitions.

First my vision of the outcome is that in the long run, OA will 
be run by the major publishing houses.  Their reaction to this, 
however, will be like FDR's description of big business - 
reaction to policies that he felt had saved business after the 
depression: having fallen into the ocean in their dress clothes, 
they were saved from drowning but were furious that their top 
hats had floated away.

Here is a scenario: the Journal of Example published by Major 
Press charges a very large subscription fee to libraries.  They 
make an inordinate profit (four times what they make on their 
other publishing activities).  A coalition of 100 academic 
libraries tells them they will pay one quarter that fee for ten 
years if the journal is open access plus they will pay additional 
fees if the library users express interest in a bound volume as 
well.  The academic editorial board of JoE (also part of the 
coalition) agree that this makes sense even though a much smaller 
profit is involved for the publisher.  The threat, if they do not 
agree, is that the editors will jump to a new open access 
journal, the Example Journal published by Small press that is 
normally supported by authors' fees.

The coalition of libraries, editors and end-users will support 
Example J at the new proposed level. The author charges in 
Example J will be the same as for JoE or dispensed with 
althogether.  The case will be made to prospective authors of the 
value of the switch for dissemination of information and 
preservation of funding for libraries.  The funding sources for 
the library will support the move and allow the libraries to use 
the saved money for terminals, printers, etc.  The libraries may 
be surprised that they are paying for everybody's access but it 
is still a savings in money pending a global direct solution. 
Major press may not think that it is worthwhile to take a cut in 
profits and Small publisher may now have a contender as major 
journal because the coalition has that power (has the editors and 
the major workers in the field).

Is it up to the coalition to tell a publisher how much profit 
they can make?  Well, that is what you do when you decide the 
actual value of a product and what you are willing to pay for it. 
The current problem is simply that the end-user is also the 
reviewer and editor and tied into the marketability of the 
product, that is, the prestige.  Once the inherent value of the 
product is what is in competition, prices will be reasonable and 
OA will be the obvious if not necessarily unique means of 
production. Of course, at some point, one will ask what do we 
need the library for? At that point, funding agencies will 
realize that they are funding expertise of staff and availability 
of terminals, etc., and indirectly a system that provides 
information for everybody.  At this point a new coalition between 
government, universities and end-users will find a global 
systematic solution.

So the question is whether the big publishers can anticipate 
change and offer contracts with reasonable prices to maintain 
open access.  Will it have to be done by a coalition isolating 
target journals and bringing about change by adversarial actions? 
When can we start on this?

Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry