Re: OAI and the rational publisher

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:27:40 -0500

Mark, I have two or three comments, based not just on this message but
your last reply to Stevan

1. Of all the possible organizations, your's is the strongest and the most
focused and therefore the best able to take the step. I think the result
will be positive for your journals, as the best material from others may
soon be looking for another home.

2. The readership of APS journals is not limited to the membership of APS.
They are widely read in other fields--you do not serve only the physics
community. (This is true is all academic fields.)

3. What exactly do you think is necessary for proper archiving beyond
what Stevan's proposal calls for?

4. Can you envision any workable form of peer review that does _not_
involve journals?

David Goodman
Research Librarian and
Biological Sciences Bibliographer
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu 609-258-7785

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Mark Doyle wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> On Monday, April 1, 2002, at 05:26 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>
> > The solution for a publisher is obvious: it should publish good
> > journals, and only good journals. A publisher complaining about the
> > threat of OAI suggests that it knows very well that the quality of its
> > journals cannot compete.
>
> I don't really think that is universally the case. APS certainly has good
> quality journals, but we are still vulnerable to not being able to
> continue
> to publish the journals in the face of large cancellations. And there has
> been a steady decrease in subscriptions (for many reasons, over the last
> 30 years). It is an economic and financial reality that we don't have
> much
> wiggle room. We would also like to make our journals more widely
> available
> (ideally freely available). But we need a new model and it is very
> difficult
> for a single publisher to move unilaterally without support from
> institutions,
> fund agencies, and libraries. Thus, there is a reason for concern and it
> isn't irrational to worry about the transition to a new economic model.
> That
> doesn't mean the transition shouldn't take place though.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
Received on Wed Apr 03 2002 - 00:58:19 BST