Re: Copyright: Form, Content, and Prepublication Incarnations

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk <ark_at_cassiopaea.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:34:19 +0000

On 29 Dec 2003 at 16:40, Sally Morris wrote:

> I don't think due consideration has been given to WHY some publishers might
> legitimately object. Their concern is that making their content freely
> available may ultimately undermine their sales revenue - and, although this
> has not yet proved to be the case, no one can say for sure that they are
> wrong about the longer term.
>
> Trying to circumvent publishers' objections by more or less devious means
> does not seem to me to be a good way to proceed

There is a different point of view. Namely: what counts are interests of
a) readers
b) authors
c) humanity

Publisher comes only as a "tool". When it is not needed - it will be
dispensed off. But, till now, it seems to be a useful tool. Question is: can
it be made more useful? Can it be replaced by a better tool?

Looking at the subject in this way, it is clear that "free for all"
publication is not a perfect solution. If only because there will be too
much of a noise. Peer Review, etc. needs some effort and costs - someone
has to pay for these costs. Question is: what is the optimal solution?

Suppose all publishers, who charge big bucks for their journals, refuse to
publish. Will it be a disaster? I mean a disaster for
a) readers, b) authors, c) humanity?

I am not sure. In fact, I think, that very soon an alternative solution
based on now existing open access journals would be
found and implemented, with some advantages.

So, why should the scientists, the readers and the humanity care about
"publishers revenues?"

And if the publishers do not understand the "trends", and the needs, and
their roles as "serving tools" - they will lose their revenues anyway.

Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Received on Mon Dec 29 2003 - 22:34:19 GMT