Dear Arthur,
(1) For years and years I did not refer to toll-access as "subscription access" but as "subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/PPV)". (Google the AmSci Forum archives in the late 90's and early 2000's and I'll find countless instances.) PPV is neither satisfactory for most users nor is it affordable, scalable or sustainable for most institutions. (If it were, subscriptions would already be cancelled unsustainably. PPV is a parasitic niche market.) (2) S/L/PPV are all forms of toll access, and I don't believe for a second that any of them provides sufficient access. (3) That's why I (and many others) have been struggling for open access (OA). (4) It is true that "where we are now [is]paying to read articles" (5) But for me it is certainly not true that "where we want to be [is] paying to publish articles" (6) Where I want to be (and have wanted to be for two decades) is OA: toll-free online access to articles. (7) I also think the fastest, surest, most direct and cheapest way to 100% OA is to mandate Green Gratis OA. (8) I also happen to expect that 100% Green OA will lead to Gold Libre OA (pay-to-publish) and the total cost will be far lower than is was with S/L/PPV. (9) If Finch had done a better analysis, then instead of squandering scarce research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA, they would have extended and strengthened UK's cost-free Green OA mandates. (10) I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its policy and do just that. Stevan On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as it > goes. There is however an aspect that you have not covered, and you should > include it in your analysis. > > You write as though reader-side subscriptions were the only alternative to > author-side publishing fees as a way of funding publishers. (As ways of > funding access one must add green access too, to save you telling me so.) > In > fact many universities have another option: pay-per-view. The University of > Tasmania (mine) has had a system of this sort in place since at least 1998, > whereby any researcher can request (online in the intranet) an article from > any journal to which the University does not subscribe, and the Document > Delivery service will provide an e-copy (usually a pdf) usually within two > days. Yes this is not instant, but serious researchers are prepared to > wait > that long, despite the nay-sayers. The University picks up the cost up to a > reasonable limit; if the cost is over the Department has to agree to fund > the difference. This seldom happens, and when it does it is for expensive > journals in Mining, etc. > > The interesting thing is that this is an system that you describe as > anarchically growing, article-by-article, rather than the > journal-by-journal > or publisher bundle system. It has enabled the University of Tasmania to > cancel many of the subscriptions that it previously held, and still come > out > in front. Better still, it has enabled the practical closure of the print > journal accessioning system (where online versions are available), saving > substantial salaries. We know for example that researchers seldom > [physically] visit our [physical] libraries these days, they access > articles > online. > > If we ever reached the state where we relied on this system totally, then a > per-article viewing fee would be easy to compare with that of a per-article > publication fee. Of course we are never likely to go so far. But what it > does show up is the key difference in where we are now: paying to read > articles, as against where we want to be: paying to publish articles. The > real difference is not between bundling and aggregations vs articles, but > in > this. > > I could speculate that if Finch et al had done a better analysis, they > could > have suggested applying the money they want to take away from researchers > to > University journal presses for start-up costs, on a competitive basis, and > conditional on the funded journal being open access. Now that would have > created a good argument. It would have created sustainable open access > journals, in areas of UK strength, and the funds would have a sunset clause > in them, after which the journals should be self-sustaining. One could rely > on the universities being economical, because it would not be core > business, > though prestigious. > > Arthur Sale > Tasmania, Australia > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
