Re:: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Janellyn's posting correctly illustrates the lack of close 
relationship between the related subjects of Journal Pricing, and 
Open Access.

I was discussing Open Access, and just Open Access as a system of 
OA Journals, which is by no means the only way to do it-- and 
certainly not the quickest.  I was explaining how one aspect of 
it, the transfer of funds, was at least possible, for there are 
those who think otherwise. I did not intend to show all the 
possible variations.

With respect to journal pricing, such a potential change does not 
have an effect on library renewals for 2007.

Any system of publishing will have difficulty in paying for the 
journals with low use and high cost. Just as libraries are 
vulnerable to prices charged for a journal, publishers are 
vulnerable to library cancellations. Libraries with multi-year 
contracts are helpless-- but only until the contracts expire.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library

dgoodman@princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: Janellyn P Kleiner <jkleiner@lsu.edu>
Date: Friday, May 5, 2006 2:06 am
Subject: RE: Institutional Journal Costs in an Open Access Environment
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> Springer & Elsevier are commercial publishers that must show a 
> profit - at least for share-holders. There will never be 
> sufficient money from author fees to support them or any other 
> major journal or major publishers with national and/or 
> international distribution. Information is today's product and 
> until something else replaces that in the future (and it most 
> likely will), there will always be costs related to it. At 
> least, in any future within our lifetime, I don't see "free 
> journals" as the only journals published in the future. 
> Certainly, some will be free, and eventually publishing may 
> well be replaced by something else: computer chips implanted in 
> our brains maybe? But, you'd still have to buy the chips.
>
> Faculty in the sciences have paid and many still pay page 
> charges or charges for special editorial services. These 
> charges have been supported by their departments or their 
> grants for decades as have their travel expenses to present 
> papers. Yes, we have Arxiv and some other similar activities, 
> but in today's world, for better our worse, even the physicists 
> can't do good work in isolation. I do think the role of 
> libraries is evolving and in the future may be more active as 
> an access center or distributor of information, but I do think 
> it will have a role if only as an expanded information commons 
> plus a special collections facility. It would be a terrible 
> mistake for university libraries to involve themselves in the 
> promotion/tenure practices of departments. I've worked in the 
> business world and academia and been involved in administration 
> for a long time. It is the grossest naivete to think these 
> commercial outfits are going to give up their profits without a 
> very long and extended fight. My guess is they'll evolve 
> another information product or service should OA start making 
> truly disturbing inroads on their profits because their very 
> existence depends on a substantial revenue stream.  Publishers 
> that may be damaged are small, speciality presses and, 
> unfortunately, scholarly association publishers.
>
> And, as for letting the Dean handle it, we handle a lot of very 
> touchy situations -- journal cancellations being the first that 
> comes to mind. We can defend ourselves successfully on library 
> matters and have had to with the budget "gods", but decisions 
> on support for authors' fees are out of the realm of any 
> library administrator.  If we were in some weird dimension 
> where libraries never had to pay for journals/information, it 
> would be more effective to give the library funds to the 
> academic departments where there is the knowledge and 
> experience needed to decide which faculty efforts should be 
> supported and which need help. I've been on enough editorial 
> boards and reviewed enough grants to know that the majority 
> should not be published and the proposals do not merit funding. 
> Many large universities, including mine, have internal peer 
> groups that review grants before they can be submitted to 
> external funding agencies.  In my library, we have faculty who 
> review grant proposals and publication drafts for those who 
> have no experience in those areas. The more successful faculty 
> then assist those who need and want the help. Both of these 
> practices have been very effective and led to success in both 
> publishing and funded grants. Universities would need such 
> internal peer groups in place in their disciplines before 
> committing funds for publishing. Libraries are not the place to 
> take on those responsibilities outside their own discipline. 
> I foresee a mix of OA and commercial publications for a long 
> time to come and market forces will determine the outcome. 
> That's not something that I necessarily favor but I think 
> that's the reality of the situation. Profit, as in everything, 
> is the motivating factor. Follow the money is as true in this 
> environment as in any other.
>
> And, strange as you may find it, we have already broached this 
> topic with our University budget officers. We provided the 
> arguments I summarized here. The money guys considered, decided 
> we were right, that this was not the responsibility of the 
> library, and no one took any money away. In fact, we got an 
> extra million this past year -- not because of this but because 
> we could justify our need. Numbers and logic are strong 
> persuaders when you deal with University budget administrators.
>
> Jane Kleiner
> Associate Dean of Libraries for Collection Services
> The LSU Libraries
> Louisiana State University
> Baton Rouge, LA 70803
> E-Mail: jkleiner@lsu.edu