[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the Yale argument on open-choice
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: the Yale argument on open-choice
- From: "Matthew Cockerill" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:24:31 EDT
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
Is it not clear, though, hat price inflation is an expected consequence of the subscription model?
If the research community hands over ownership/exclusive rights to publishers, it is economically predictable that publishers (whether commercial or not-for-profit) will charge as much as they can in order to maximize their revenues. Given that the academic community *really* needs access to that research, there is virtually no upper bound on what publishers with enough market power can get away with charging for subscriptions . The natural solution to this is surely for the research community *not* to give away the ownership/exclusive rights to the research.
Under an open access publishing model, you immediately have a much more effective market. The customer (the research community) can choose the publication service that offers the best value, ensuring that prices are kept down. This kind of 'substitutability' generally doesn't exist with the subscription model - hence the problem of journal inflation.
On 20 Mar 2007, at 22:34, Rick Anderson wrote:
For all the many problems of the traditional model of user-pays publishing, it does one thing very well: it marries the production of information to the ability to consume it. In plain English, this is called living within a budget.I'm not even convinced that there are many problems with the traditional model of user-pays publishing. The model itself works great, as Joe points out. The problem is with price inflation. If all journal subscriptions cost $5 per year, no one would be complaining about the subscription model.
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries