Re: Quality and mandated open access

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

I did not, in fact, question "whether quality can be sustained 
with mandated open access." I asked how it could be maintained 
were nonprofit and for-profit publishers to cease providing 
traditional peer review services.

Also, I fail to see how the growth of the DOAJ has any relevance 
to the question of quality, any more than the increasing number 
of names in the White Pages attests to the character or lack of 
it for those residents listed.


Peter Banks
pbanks@bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com


On 10/8/06 5:05 PM, "Heather Morrison" <heatherm@eln.bc.ca> wrote:

> Peter Banks, in:  re:  October issue of the SPARC Open Access
> Newsletter, questions whether quality can be sustained with
> mandated open access.
>
> There is already substantial evidence that the answer is yes.
>
> There are over 2,400 fully open access, peer reviewed journals
> listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the
> number of titles has been growing fairly consistently at the rate
> of about 1.5 per calendar day.  Peer review and open access are
> quite compatible. http://www.doaj.org
>
> Self-archiving rates of 100% in some sub-areas of physics has
> been compatible with ongoing subscriptions.  This may seem
> counter- intuitive, from an economic point of view.  However,
> academic publishing is different from an economic viewpoint,
> because the customers and suppliers are largely the same group of
> people (researchers, their students and institutions).  Faculty
> understand very well the role of their journals, are very
> involved in decisions about subscriptions, and do not look for
> cancellations when articles are freely available thanks to
> self-archiving.
>
> The article in the October SPARC Open Access Newsletter Peter
> Banks was referring to, Open Access and Quality, can be found at:
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/10-02-06.htm#quality
>
> Heather Morrison
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com