It may not have been clear that I do in fact agree with Steve. I certainly meant my remark about perceived fairness to apply only to the current publishing environment. Even a partial success for open access should change things for the better--in spite of any transitional complications.
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > I'm not sure what 'fair' means, but David seems to be somewhat defeatist > here. There has been a switch in thinking away from the role of the serials > crisis in motivating open access and instead focussing on author-centric > motivations like impact and assessment. But for those who are concerned > about the serials crisis an interesting study would be a McCabe-like > analysis of the following: > > IF the entire peer reviewed literature was openly accessible from > institutional archives, what would be the effect on journal prices and > (arguable) publisher monopolies? > > It would not be the same answer as McCabe gives now. Nor would it be the > same if 'open access journals' were to be substituted for 'institutional > archives' in the scenario, for although the journal prices would reduce to > zero, fears have begun to surface elsewhere about new publisher monopolies > that would result. > > I don't want to speculate on journal prices, but my guess is that some of > the market drivers that McCabe reveals would be affected and price pressure > could be reversed, most obviously by increased competition. > > The result might have an interesting effect on decision-makers in > institutions, if not on authors. > > Steve Hitchcock > IAM Group, Department of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK > Email: [email protected] > Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3256 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865 > > At 16:42 28/07/03 -0400, David Goodman wrote: > >Several years of discussion on this list and elsewhere have convinced me > >that there is no fair pricing scheme for an expensive > >database or group of journals. I admire the > >ingenuity of all those who have tried, but, as Fred says, efforts at > >increasing the perceived fairness tend to get complicated. > >And I think we all agree that the transition to a free access system > >will have complications, and will not be instantaneous. > > > >On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Fred Spilhaus wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > >Dr. David Goodman > >Princeton University > >and > >Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU > > > >[email protected] > Dr. David Goodman Princeton University Library and Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU [email protected]
