It is always good to understand the mechanism behind observations and
evidence.
It would be extemely helpful if librarians lurking on this list (assuming
there are) could explain why they are using their precious budgets to buy
journals that strictlly they don't need for the content anymore (such as
in physics), how they justify that, and why they intend continuing it in
the future..
A clear and plausible answer could sway the discussion, and allay any
fears there might be amongst some publishers. It could even save them the
trouble to look for ways to provide open access publishing (except that
the OA publishers might start worrying).
Jan
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
<AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
<AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Mon Oct 17 22:57:21 2005
Subject: Re: Publish OA if you can - self-archive either way
All this debate about whether OA damages journal sales can be summarised
as
follows:
it seems "obvious" to many that increased use of OA will lead to journal
cancellations. This is the "publisher hypothesis".
An alternatrive view is that there is no cause and effect relationship
between OA and cancellations. This is the "Harnadian hypothesis"
The evidence so far does not support the "publisher hypothesis", and
there
is no evidence so far to refute the "Harnadian hypothesis".
So I suggest we keep on open mind on these hypotheses rather than shout
at
each other. Surely what is important is not whether one hypothesis or
other
is correct, but that researchers get their output widely read??
Charles Oppenheim
Received on Tue Oct 18 2005 - 11:49:34 BST