RE: The Value of OA (resend)

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

Ay, there's the rub...

Figuring out what, among all the things publishers do or might 
do, actually adds real value (i.e. value that people are prepared 
to pay for in this new environment) is the real challenge

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Watkinson
Sent: 17 April 2007 23:19
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: The Value of OA (resend)

I agree with much of this analysis. However no publisher adds 
costs for the sake of it. They want to get the best editors and 
authors and want to provide the service they want. It is a 
competitive situation. It is not a competitive situation for 
libraries (in the same way) but libraries too want to provide the 
best service they can for the users.

The available money is not frozen. OA advocates have however 
managed to convince university authorities, people in government 
and funding bodies that OA is intrinsically much cheaper to run. 
It would be a huge advantage for the academic community (would it 
not?) if the ARL (for example) campaigned for more money for 
materials to match increased and increased research funding 
worldwide instead of sitting on its hands as it does now.

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: The Value of OA (resend)

> 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