On 17 Nov 2006, at 11:58, Armbruster, Chris wrote:
> Thank you to Simon Inger and Chris Beckett for response and
> clarification. I tend to agree with their conclusion that
> cancellations are likely. This is not just a matter of survey data
> but would seem to be embedded in the logic of the move to digital
> publishing in open content and open access.
It seems to be the case that "evidence so far" is not considered a
reliable guide to future practice. I imagine that the basis for this
view is that 100% OA is not just a slight perturbation of the current
state of affairs and so current conclusions cannot be safely
extrapolated.
If it is the case that journal cancellations ARE embedded in the
logic of the transition to open access (my interpretation of Chris
Armbruster's words), can anyone explain why this has not yet happened
in Physics? They are a long way down this transition.
IT MUST BE POSSIBLE to develop a convincing scholarly communications
model that describes what we see in that field, in particular one
that describes the role of journal subscriptions in such a
substantially OA environment.
--
Les Carr
Received on Fri Nov 17 2006 - 17:03:31 GMT