Re: universities experiment with paying OA fees

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btinternet.com>]

I am glad that David Prosser does some hedging. It is not the 
author who is going to pay. It is the funder or university. Any 
university administered fee will surely result in some 
discrimination unless funding is unlimited. Unlimited funding -- 
the Wellcome situation as I see it is not going to be common, is 
it? Who will discriminate and how? I would love to hear David's 
ideal model because certainly it has yet to emerge in practice. I 
mean this seriously. Many OA evangelists reject the need for any 
explanations of how the totally OA future is going work as far as 
scholars are concerned -- though they aim for a totally OA 
future.

Not all scholars would like their heads of department or (horror) 
the provost's office deciding where they are able to publish. Is 
this what David means by "discussions on campus".

I am not aware that the major OA publishers explain their costs 
in detail and give explanations of why fees have gone up so much.


Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: universities experiment with paying OA fees


> Sandy
>
> As you know, in the subscription business model users of journals
> (both authors and readers) are insulated from the cost of the
> journals they use. This has led to the disconnect between price
> and quality or service.
>
> A shift to publication charges makes it possible that the users
> (while acting as authors) will see the costs and be able to make
> decisions on whether they are getting value for money.  This
> could have an effect on prices as users will have an incentive
> 'shop around' based on the level of service they want from the
> journal.  I hedge with 'possible' and 'could' because it is clear
> that if there is no transparency in the way the funds are set-up
> we could have the situation you describe.  If the university pays
> the publisher without the author knowing the costs involved then
> we have the potential for a continuation of the current
> dysfunctional market (albeit with wider access).
>
> One of the alleged disadvantages of such funds is that they will
> led to discussions on campus about what can be published, where,
> and at what cost. If we want the market to function then this is
> actually a good thing!
>
> Best wishes
>
> David
>
>