Playing a little game (was Georgia State)

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Ted Bergstrom's study reports that articles published in the 
most-prestigious economics journals are more often self-archived 
than less-prestigious (and more expensive) journals [1].  This is 
similar to the findings of Jonathan Wren who reported that the 
likelihood of an article being found freely-available at a 
non-publisher's website increases with the journal's impact 
factor [2].

Is Thomas Krichel advocating a library market where only the 
worst and most expensive garner institutional support?  The 
market incentives seem backward. --Phil Davis

[1] Bergstrom TC, Lavaty R. How often to economists self-archive?
University of California, Santa Barbara,
2007:http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucsbecon/bergstrom/2007a.

[2] Wren JD. Open access and openly accessible: a study of scientific
publications shared via the Internet. BMJ 2005; 330(7500).
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7500/1128


Joseph J. Esposito wrote:
> I wonder if we couldn't usefully play a little game here.
>
> What would happen if libraries began to do precisely what Thomas
> Krichel says they should--that is, begin to cancel journals whose
> contents can largely be found through various open access sources?
>
> Would we expect the publishers, both commercial and NFPs, to do
> nothing? Would they say, Well, the game is up. Let's get out of
> publishing and go into real estate or sell subprime mortgages, for
> which we are ideally suited.
>
> Would we expect legal and regulatory challenges?
>
> Would publishers adapt to the new environment by developing new
> services that do not require subscriptions for content?  If so, who
> would pay for these services?
>
> Would publishers get out of the editorial activity, including peer
> review, altogether?  If so, what organizations would spring up and how
> would they be financed?
>
> Would traditional peer review be deemed to decline in importance in an
> era of rapid-fire communications and commentary?
>
> Would the net cost of scholarly communications borne by academic
> institutions be greater or less?
>
> Even if we don't know the answers to some or all of these questions,
> should we push for the cancellations of the subscriptions anyway?
>
> Joe Esposito