Re: The Value of OA (resend)

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

Tony, of course, can speak for himself.  My view is that we are 
talking about (a) siphoning off of funds from research and (b) 
higher costs associated with an OA regime.  This last point is 
the one that the economically challenged don't seem to understand 
as they debate the merits of Green and Gold OA when the world is 
already moving to Platinum.

For the record:  of course, a number of commercial publishers 
indeed are pigs and I have long been an advocate of many forms of 
OA publishing.  I just don't believe it will be any cheaper.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: The Value of OA (resend)

> Tony
>
> As my colloquialism has caused you such disquiet I unreservedly 
> withdraw it and am happy to replace it with 'very small'.  I 
> hope you find that less loaded.  However, I do still consider 
> 1% 'very small' compared to 99%.
>
> Your post does raise the question of what the cost of scholarly 
> communication is to society.  Are you suggesting that 1-2% of 
> research costs is significantly greater than what society is 
> paying under the current subscription-based system?  If not, 
> then we are talking about a redirection of existing funds, 
> rather than a siphoning-off of funds that could be used for 
> more research.
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Mcsean, Tony (ELS)
> Sent: 07 April 2007 13:55
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: The Value of OA (resend)
>
> "Peanuts" is a loaded term.  The best estimate we have of OA
> costs' impact on medical research funding is that of Mark Wolpert
> of the Wellcome Trust who estimated that their programme would
> cost between one and two percent of grant funding.  This estmate
> still leaves a pretty big margin for error, but if 1% of medical
> research funding is "peanuts" then my definition of "wealth"
> needs recasting.  As Rick Anderson said, there is serious money
> involved and we need to have an evidence base that it produces
> the best value.
>
> This debate should be conducted on the basis of research evidence
> and intelligent deduction.  Calling millions of pounds "peanuts"
> does no credit to the argument that it's aligned with, and brings
> the whole discussion down.
>
> And a happy easter to all.
>
> Tony McSean
> Director of Library Relations
> Elsevier
> London NW1 7BY
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
> Sent: 05 April 2007 23:41
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: The Value of OA
>
> Peter
>
> The amount of time, money, and energy that has gone into the open
> access debate is peanuts compared to the amount of time, money,
> and energy that has gone into actual cancer research.  The idea
> that promoting open access is somehow retarding progress in
> cancer research is a non-starter.
>
> (Incidentally, the amount of money spent on open access is
> probably no larger than the amount of money spent by funders on
> journal page charges. However, you rarely see anybody question
> how much further we would be if all the money that has gone into
> page charges had instead been applied to actual cancer research!)
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
> http://www.sparceurope.org