RE: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)

["Nawin Gupta" <nawin@nawingupta.com>]

The report acknowledges need for varying embargoes for different 
disciplines under this catch-and-release policy (never heard it 
described as such before - thanks Joe), but frequency may also 
require some consideration.  In medical sciences where 12-month 
(or less) embargo is generally expected, in my experience impact 
on subscriptions does vary depending on journal frequency 
(weeklies - monthlies - quarterlies).

On another point, I am pleased the report recognizes importance 
of VoR - "the final published article, stewarded by the publisher 
- is the definitive version of a journal article," and notes that 
VoR can reside on publisher's website.  For some of the reasons 
noted in the report - such as post-publication corrections and 
modifications - the VoR should only be on the publisher's 
website, with all other versions online providing a link to the 
VoR (thank you CrossRef for introducing CrossMark service).

Nawin Gupta
INFORMED PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS, INC.
nawin@nawingupta.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 6:05 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)

Any change in policy will affect someone or something.  I find it 
curious that there is little attention being paid to the 
implications of the embargo.  The assumption is that the 
economics of the "system" can be maintained provided that 
everybody agrees to protect the revenues of current issues.  If 
all publishers were current issues publishers, and if all revenue 
derived from journals were for current issues, then this might 
seem like a matter of no importance.  But I suggest that 
librarians look around to see if they are indeed paying money for 
materials that are not current issues.  What will happen to those 
materials and the services that deliver them?

This is catch-and-release publishing:  invest in a product, but 
then return it to the wild.  It is humane, but ultimately 
unsustainable, and, of course, that which is unsustainable cannot 
be sustained.

In a separate post, Sandy Thatcher comments that the implications 
for monographs has not yet been taken up.  Typically, monograph 
publishers earn 55-60% of their revenue from their backlists.  A 
catch-and-release policy will literally stop the entire monograph 
industry in its tracks.  Presumably humanities faculty need not 
publish a book any more in order to receive tenure and promotion.

Joe Esposito

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Sally Morris
<sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I fully agree with Sandy about the significance of the report. 
> It is hugely encouraging that the majority of players all 
> endorse an evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) approach 
> towards a shared objective of maximizing access to research 
> scholarship without harming the value-added publishing process.
>
> It is encouraging that the OSTP saw fit to seek advice from 
> such a balanced group - which certainly doesn't happen 
> everywhere - and I very much hope that they, and the various 
> research funding agencies, will heed the group's advice.
>
> Sally Morris