Re: The Value of OA (resend)

[David Goodman <dgoodman@princeton.edu>]

We can have it as either cheaper or more expensive depending upon 
the quality we want. If we accept arXiv only publication, with 
after-the-fact peer review, it can be very cheap indeed; If we 
aim for the same price as the present system, we should get the 
same quality. There is no inherent reason why it should cost more 
one way than the other. It is not a question of costs; it will 
only be a question of costs if you insist on keeping the present 
system as a base and adding additional complications.

this is what the present publishers want to do. They want to do 
everything as expensively as they now do it, and then add on 
costs.  There is no reason why anyone else should pay the least 
attention. The money can be fixed, and the bidding be for who can 
produce the best product for the price while making it 
universally available. Elsevier will figure out how to publish at 
competitive prices.

It is a matter of redistributing the money,and concern about this 
is also unnecessary. The academic system just like the publishers 
wants to do everything as it now does, and then consider the 
additional costs to do more. Frankly, there is no reason to pay 
the least attention here either. If he money available is frozen, 
and the minimum requirement is that all publications be 
universally available in some form, they will do it a best they 
can, and the best schools will compete for who can do it best, 
just as they do with everything else in the academic world. And 
Yale will figure out how to pay to maintain its quality.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodman@princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:39 pm
Subject: Re: The Value of OA (resend)
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> 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