Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:42:17 -0400

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

dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
Received on Mon Jul 28 2003 - 21:42:17 BST