Re: universities experiment with paying OA fees

[Karl Bridges <kbridges@uvm.edu>]

OK, but...

Is there a potential problem in that, by changing to open access, 
libraries might be less willing to provide access and there would 
be resulting drop in the willingness of people in academia to 
accept publication in those venues as "legitimate"?

I have, for example, seen one or two instances in my career where 
the fact we didn't carry a particular journal caused departments 
to "downgrade" the value of those periodicals in terms of tenure 
decisions.  Seems stupid, but you do hear those "Well, if it was 
an important journal we'd carry it and the fact we don't means it 
must be less important." arguments. I also wonder about the whole 
issue of impact factors.  That matters quite a bit to some 
departments and lack of impact factor measures for OA 
publications is of some concern. Sort of off topic from what 
Sandy was getting at, but it seems a legitimate concern. (and I 
agree -- Joe for King!!!)


Quoting Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>:

> Naturally, I am all in favor of Joe's proposed solution! But Karl
> misunderstood me. I was talking about journals with already
> well-established reputations changing their business models from
> subscription-based to fee-based, so the problem Karl points out
> would not pertain. My point was, rather, that this shift in
> funding source will simply shift the tensions in universities
> from one point (currently, libraries and their budgets) to
> another (departments and administrative bodies charged with the
> allocation of fees to faculty competing for the limited pot of
> gold to support gold OA).
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>> I believe Karl has this exactly right.
>>
>> I would phrase it this way:  Access to information is not a major
>> problem most of the time; access to vehicles of certification can
>> be a large problem (because certification is selective).
>>
>> Authors thus need access to the brands of certification, which
>> are currently controlled mostly by publishers.  Brands are an
>> aspect of an attention economy.  We have learned to recognize
>> Coca Cola and Harold Varmus, as well as The Lancet and Nature.
>> Peer review in itself does not confer certification; peer review
>> in the context of respected brands does.
>>
>> An institution that wants to modify this situation needs to
>> develop or assert a brand for certification.  Theoretically,
>> Harvard's OA repository would associate the Harvard brand with
>> the articles deposited there.  This is what I call "provostial
>> publishing," in which the provost chooses the authors (by
>> choosing the faculty).  But not all provosts are dealt the same
>> hand; what works for Harvard won't work for less prestigious
>> institutions.
>>
>> The more rational policy (yes, this is my hobbyhorse) would be
>> for universities to increase their support for their university
>> presses, which combine the selectivity of editorial review with
>> the imprimatur of the institution.  I know of no university that
>> is pursuing this strategy (though some universities are very
>> proud, and rightly so, of their presses).
>>
>> Joe Esposito