on 26 Jul 2001 Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, George Lundberg wrote:
>
> > i certainly can agree with one point
> > the market will decide
> > however i would not count on any "windfall savings" unless there is a
> > secure on-going revenue stream
> > and that is, of course, a fundamental problem with any "giveaway" product
>
> I am not quite sure what George means here (nor what he is taking me
> to mean):
>
> Note that most of this is hypothetical:
>
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
>
> The part that is not hypothetical but certain is:
>
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
>
> The (hypothetical) windfall savings would be those of the university
> libraries, from S/L/P cancellations, if (hypothetically) the online
> availability of the self-archived ("giveaway") version of all refereed
> articles (if/when most or all of them are indeed self-archived) were to
> cause a catastrophic drop in the demand (hence revenue streams) for the
> S/L/P version (on-paper, publisher's PDF, publisher's online
> enhancements). A portion (be it 10% or 30%) of those university
> windfall savings could then be used to pay the costs, on a per-paper
> submitted/accepted basis, to maintain the revenue streams for the sole
> remaining essential service from refereed journal publishers, namely,
> the implementation of peer review.
This free access argument continues a fraudulent promise of
exellence to disguise financial goals. University managers
are often at odds with faculty governance and the influence
of faculty associations. They gladly undermine the power of
faculty rooted in publications and publishing businesses.
Hardly hypothetical is the financial windfall _alreadly_
realized as a result of cancelations justified by photocopying
and the expansion of fair use. Universities cut library
spending in _half_ over the last 30 years. By this means they
increased their profitability as an examination of financial
statements and statistics easily demonstrates.
Hardly hypothetical is the wave of red tape, poor service,
reduced staffing and decimated collections. It is not only
users of journals who suffer but authorship, university press
publishers of monographs, database users, and the sponsors of
research and education. It is also librarians who prefer the
academic environment but were pushed out of it.
Clearly, it is the universities who have raised the economic
barrier of the budget to cut researchers off from information.
Clearly, universities did not use the "savings" extracted from
library budgets to pay for expanded benefits. If anything, the
average wait for interlibrary photocopies and the average
failure rate deteriorated.
Clearly, universities are hoarding financial assets while
letting intellectual concerns go to pot. There is nothing
hypothetical here.
Fortunately, defenders of copyright have saved the libraries
from complete destruction -- so far.
Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<[email protected]>
