RE: potential positive spiral in transition to open access

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

One has only to look at the DOAJ journals to see how many of them 
publish very spasmodically and may even have ceased entirely - I 
and a group of volunteers did an analysis of this last year 
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/095315106775122565)

Sally Morris
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 28 June 2007 07:23
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: re: potential positive spiral in transition to open access

The fallacy here is the assumption that without a publisher's 
staff overseeing and organizing the "volunteer" work of academic 
editors, it will get done in a timely fashion and produce a 
steady stream of publishable articles. All of my experience in 
forty years of publishing suggests that few scholars have the 
self-discipline and motivation to do this kind of work without 
external pressures. We have difficulty keeping some of our 
journals on schedule even with a lot of oversight!

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State Press


>Peter Banks wrote:
>
>I fail to see any rationale basis for zeroing in on
>subscriptionscosting more than $1,000.  [Peter goes on to say
>that my modelmakes no distinction between journals in this
>category].
>(from:http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0706/msg00082.html
)
>
>Comment:
>
>The rationale for focusing on subscriptions costing more
>than$1,000 US per year, in this particular example, is that this
>isthe cost of a year's hosting and support for a journal at
>thenon-profit Scholarly
>Exchange(http://www.scholarlyexchange.org/).
>
>A library paying subscriptions in this price range might be
>welladvised to inquire as to whether the journal could manage on
>avolunteer / in-kind support model.  My model assumes that only
>asmall fraction of journals in this price range (10%) would
>beable to manage.  Nevertheless, if even this small percentage
>ofjournals could transition in this fashion, there would
>besignificant savings over the library community as a whole,
>whichcould then be applied to other open access initiatives.
>
>How could such an expensive journal manage on a volunteer
>/in-kind support model, or how can you tell whether a
>journalcould successfully transition in this way?
>
>The key is whether the journal is essentially managing on such
>amodel now.  In peer-reviewed scholarly literature, authors,
>andpeer reviewers, are not paid.  Payment of editors varies
>widely;it can be a volunteer task, underpaid / paid at an
>honorariumlevel, or highly paid.  Support costs also vary.
>Some journalspay for office space; others enjoy free space at
>universities,and editors and others often work from their homes
>as well.
>
>Even if a journal is unlikely to be able to transition with
>justthe revenue from a single subscription, a polite inquiry
>wouldnot hurt. It would be helpful to advocacy efforts to change
>inscholarly communication to point out to the editors of
>suchjournals, that the cost of a single subscription is more
>thansufficient to fund one of the more substantial costs of
>managinga journal - hosting and support of the online version.
>
>Further comments on my blogpost, A Potential Positive Cycle:More
>Access, More Funds, are most
>welcome!http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/06/potential-positive-cycl
e-more-access.html
>
>Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone,and
>does not reflect the opinion or policy of BC ElectronicLibrary
>Network or Simon Fraser University Library.
>
>Heather Morrison, MLIS
>The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
>http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com