Re: 100% Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: a critique

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

My question here, then, is a simple one:  If it's "not realistic to expect
them to engage in this kind of charity," what significance is there in the
claim (correct, as far as I know) regularly put forth by David Prosser and
Steven Harnad that there is no "evidence" that OA results in cancellations?
The evidence would appear to be irrelevant.  Why then make such a shibboleth
out of it?  It seems to me simply to be a distraction.  Why not instead put
the time and effort into doing important research, publishing good work,
finding multiple ways to find value in high-quality work, and identifying
means to increase dissemination of work to a readership who is in a position
to appreciate it?  This doesn't rule out OA activity, but it doesn't sound
the end of traditional publishing either.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHANNES VELTEROP" <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: 100% Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: a critique

David does hit the nail on the head. Even if librarians would be 
able to afford paying for a subscription to material that's 
openly and freely available elsewhere, its not realistic to 
expect them to engage in this kind of charity, and even if they 
wish to, they will not be allowed to by their masters.  Some, 
perhaps, can afford to sit back and wait. Publishers can't, but 
I'm not sure if librarians (esp. serials librarians) can afford 
to just sit and wait, either. David may agree. After all, he put 
a 'perhaps' in his sentence. Their role is one of intermediary, 
and doesn't full OA, with subscriptions cancelled, seriously 
disintermediate them?

Jan Velterop

----- Original Message ----

From: David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November, 2006 8:44:16 PM
Subject: 100% Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: a critique

I am very pleased to see Stevan's long-awaited agreement about 100%.

The next question, asked by the Ware survey but not Beckett &
Inger, is what will happen at 95% and at 90%, which are levels,
which is practice can be reached by mandatory self-archiving, as
CERN has demonstrated.

It seems Stevan would make a rather conservative librarian, for
about half of libraries would cancel earlier than 100%. Ware
found (question 15) that 52 percent of libraries would cancel by
somewhere between 90 and 99%.

But that too is not the exact situation that will be posed in
Areal life, which is: if at 90% OA, libraries see half of their
similar libraries cancelling, would they cancel as well? And,
since libraries do not make the decision how much money they can
spend, if libary funders -- institutions, boards, legislatures --
see half of comparable libraries canceling, would they continue
to allot money for the subscriptions that some libraries might
nonetheless want to continue? (This has been sometimes referred
to as the tipping-point problem.)

Of course, we are far from this situation, but I pity the
publisher who does not start realistic planning for it now.
Stevan, and I, don't need to, and neither perhaps do
libraries--we can await the event. Publishers can't.

David Goodman