That is one way but it requires a completely different economic
model. It is not clear to me how to get from here to there in
one swoop even if one wanted to. The complexities of serving
authors in many different circumstances and under a variety of
different national and institututional constraints is daunting.
While minimizing cost to the reader may increase use, which is in
the authors interest and the best interests of science it has to
be done with all of the other constraints in mind such as having
somewhere of quality to publish in future.
I expect you will see some hybids that free the material that is
fully paid up front. But in our case that could further
complicate what may be the most complex pricing scheme that is
openly available so that you know what you are paying and can
decide if you are being treated fairly in pricing. Its a trde
off: skip the price negotiation and go staight to the license or
spend your timne hassling over price so the license seems small.
On the one side you pay marketing people and on the other
lawyers. I would like to minimize both. FRED
David Goodman wrote:
Thank you for your appreciative reply. In my opinion, the best way
to get the lawyers out of the loop and reduce the cost of
administration is to make the material
openly available using some version of BOAI. You can then
rely on the statutory provisions of copyright law for the protection
of your rights and those of your authors.
As an preliminary step, you might consider adopting the least
complicated licensing and pricing scheme you can devise. (As you say,
"To see what AGU is doing go to http://www.AGU.org";)
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Fred
Spilhaus wrote:
David: Your observation is interesting from the point of view of
the small and mid-size publishing society. I find that the cost
of negotiating the first license, analogous to contract
administration I presume, which is clearly identifiable, can be a
large fraction of the subscription price for a relatively small
journal.
Until we figure out how to get the lawyers out of this loop I
forsee a real increse in cost at our side as well. My deepest
concern is that changing models that we must experiment with will
continue to drag us into more complex relationships that will
further increase legal, audit and other non-productive overhead
charges.
David Goodman wrote:
Over the short run the general cost of providing
service from electronic resources is about the same as paper.
What is saved on check-in, binding, and so so on, is spent on
contract administration, computer services, and so on. In the long run,
it is correct that there is a savings to be expected in the net size of
science library buildings. Already I have observed several academic
departments reclaim library space for other needs,
This is one of the reasons I am aware
of the possibility academic administrators might do likewise with
acquisition funds. (my personal view, as always)
--
Fred Spilhaus Executive Director, AGU
2000 Florida Avenue NW Washington DC 20009 USA
Phone: +1 202 777 7510 Fax: +1 202 328 0566
E-mail [email protected]
To see what AGU is doing go to http://www.AGU.org
Dr. David Goodman
Princeton University &
Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU
[email protected]
--
Fred Spilhaus Executive Director, AGU
2000 Florida Avenue NW Washington DC 20009 USA
Phone: +1 202 777 7510 Fax: +1 202 328 0566
E-mail [email protected]
To see what AGU is doing go to http://www.AGU.org
