Re: Funding OA (Long-Term)

[JOHANNES VELTEROP <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

Adam Hodgkin says (with the caveat that it is an
over-simplification) that "the scientific and scholarly research
market is by and large driven by Producers." He is completely
right, of course, and it always was thus. "Publish or Perish"
rather than "Read or Rot". The absurdity in the system was the
fact that subscriptions were seen to be reader-paid (though not
really, since the intermediary, the librarian, paid). A perhaps
necessary absurdity when there was only print. But an unnecessary
one now.

And subscriptions were always 'just-in-case' when it comes to
readership. Tales abound of new journal issues not even being
opened for months. And pressure on librarians to take
subscriptions to journals was often exerted chiefly by faculty
who published in them, or felt that they might at one point.
Usage-based perceptions of a journal's value may just be
substituting one absurdity for the next.

Also, journal articles have characteristics that are not dissimilar to advertisements. Authors trying to 'sell' their ideas in
exchange for recognition and citations (which are, after all, the
currency authors need for their careers and for future funding).
Of course, articles also contain information for the reader. So
do advertisements, which are nonetheless typically paid for by
the advertiser (though one wonders in the case of some glossy
magazines).

All this points in the direction of a user-paid (user-side paid)
open access publishing model making the most sense. Providing a
natural brake on over-production and a natural opening up of
readership. The question should not be open access yea or nea,
but how to get there from where we are now.

Jan Velterop