At 09:45 PM 3/4/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Thomas J. Walker wrote:
>
> > Stevan and I agree that
> > (1) Immediate free web access to the journal literature is optimal and
> > inevitable.
> > (2) Funding the journal literature will switch from user-pays to
> > author-or-author's-funder pays.
>
> > Stevan thinks of IFWA as access to PDF files. I think of it as access to
> > the publisher-certified version.
>
>That's fine. Nothing hinges on that distinction. I accept.
>
> > Blume's contribution to Nature's e-access forum
> > (http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/blume.html)
> > ... proposes that APS make the transition to universal free
> > access via institutional sponsorships, thereby avoiding the reluctance of
> > authors to pay submission or publication fees.
>
>Doesn't work! Free access means free access on the reader (i.e.,
>reader-institution) end. Any institutional payment for the INCOMING
>literature is -- by logic, and by any definition of the word free, NOT
>FREE. It is then just an institutional license, which you either pay, or
>you don't get access. (And if it's voluntary, forget it. Economic
>pressures, human nature, the prisoner's dilemma, and the tragedy of the
>commons says institutions will opt out for a free ride.)
>
>No, the only way to make it work is to charge for what is being provided,
>to whom it is being provided: The service is peer review, and it is being
>provided to the author-institution PER OUTGOING PAPER, not to the
>reader-institution, per incoming journal. One is a submission fee, the
>other is the usual: a subscription fee.
If you read Blume's last few paragraphs
(
http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/blume.html), you
will find that the sponsorships he proposes are to make the articles free
to all. He compares this type of funding to public television in the USA,
where a few pay voluntarily and everyone enjoys the programs for free.
Whether this model will work for APS (and others?) remains to be seen.
[cut}
> > Should not professional societies
> > provide their authors (and the authors' funders) the opportunity to show if
> > they value free access enough to pay a fair price for it?
>
>Free access to what? We agree that they can have free access to the
>peer-reviewed draft by self-archiving it. Are you suggesting that they
>should pay the extra for the certified peer-reviewed draft?
Yes.
>I doubt
>they would, but suppose they did. What would then be the next step?
As outlined previously.
[cut]
>But, as you note, we do have a choice. We can self-archive our
>peer-reviewed drafts for free, or we can pay to have the "certified"
>drafts made freely accessible, and keep paying more and more as
>cancellations go up. Let's see what happens!
Agreed! But first publishers will have to give their authors an IFWA
option. I don't expect commercial publishers to do so, but I have a hard
time understanding why society publishers are so reluctant. [I think it is
because they fear free access and its concomitant loss of
subscription/license revenue. Do they not realize that free access is
inevitable?]
Tom Walker
============================================
Thomas J. Walker
Department of Entomology & Nematology
PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive)
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
E-mail: tjw_at_ufl.edu (or tjwalker_at_mail.ifas.ufl.edu)
FAX: (352)392-0190
Web:
http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/
============================================
Received on Mon Mar 04 2002 - 23:30:51 GMT