Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

If I interpret what David is saying correctly, this means that 
scientists carry so much more political clout on most campuses 
that what they deem to be a priority use of funds will determine 
where they are re-directed, as opposed to the humanist scholars 
who might actually benefit from having more money spent on 
monograph purchases since, as the MLA report so clearly 
demonstrated, the monograph still is very much the "gold 
standard" for promotion and tenure in their fields. Isn't it time 
for the humanists to rebel?

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press


> We are not just more likely but certain to be able to have the 
> money used for subsidizing article publishing in open access 
> journals, because the money will be used for this purpose 
> whether we will or no.
>
> The faculty and administrators want money for the purpose, and 
> the savings by canceling journals is an exceedingly attractive 
> source. Furthermore, it is hard to argue otherwise, for 
> ultimately the money is being used for the same purpose, to 
> support scientific communication through journals. I cannot 
> imagine any administrator giving the library money to purchase 
> large commercial journals once the contents of these journals 
> will be available without payment, and I cannot imagine any 
> faculty that would not agree.
>
> The only real question is the degree that the control of this 
> money will be in the hands of the library.
>
> Unless libraries make serious plans for the use of this money by 
> supporting publication in distinctive ways, such as editing 
> faculty publications or subsidizing the local production of 
> journals, I do not think there could be a strong case for 
> retaining the money in the library budget. its the people 
> without specific attractive projects who lose out in budgeting.
>
> Strategically, Stevan Harnard is right that the best way of 
> keeping control the money will be to cancel the journals as soon 
> as practical, before we are compelled to, and immediately use 
> the money for appropriate ends. If we take action only 
> defensively, it is not likely that we will be able to retain or 
> control the money. With luck, we might be able to retain some of 
> it for books, but not if we wait until the money is removed over 
> our opposition or hesitancy.
>
> If the university expects to be able to pay for all publication 
> fees through a combination of internal and external funds, the 
> support should probably be administered in a routine way through 
> the research office, just as other research support is managed.
>
> If the university expects to be able to supply only part of the 
> money necessary, it would be much better administered outside 
> the library, because the library does not have the practical 
> power to deal with the demands of competing groups--it will be 
> much more hazardous than administering the division of 
> acquisition funds, because it will affect individual faculty 
> members very directly.
>
> There is no reason for libraries to expect funding for functions 
> they do not perform, and our best chance of retaining adequate 
> funding for our unique purposes of bibliographic and reference 
> assistance is to concentrate on this, and adapt our organization 
> to realities.
>
> I consider myself an optimist in this, for I think it will be
> possible for the profession to adapt.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
> dgoodman@princeton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:29 pm
> Subject: Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>
> >  Yes, it is true that "if and when institutions ever 'do' cancel
> >  subscriptions, that money will then be freed to pay for Gold OA
> >  costs." What still remains "speculative," however, is whether
> >  that is the actual use to which that "freed" money will be put.
> >
> >  University presses have long harbored the hope that "if and
> >  when" this scenario unfolds, the "freed" money will once again
> >  be devoted to purchasing monographs, whose sales have suffered
> >  mightily ever since the STM crisis began way back in the late
> > 1960s. But every librarian I have asked about this replies
> >  "ain't gonna happen." There are plenty of other needs that
> >  libraries have to which "freed" money can be
> >  devoted-digitization projects, archiving, licensing other
> >  electronic resources, etc. If they are reluctant to spend it on
> >  such a central resource as monographs, then what chance is
> >  there that they are likely to start subsidizing faculty who
> >  want to publish in Gold OA journals?
> >
> >  Would librarians on this list care to comment?
> >
> >  Sandy Thatcher
> >  Director, Penn State Press