Dear Les, dear All,
ArXiv is not the only case. SSRN and RePEc are similar cases. This is important because it clarifies that ArXiv is not an outlier, but an early innovator (or 'role model'). That said, ArXiv has been set up to be compatible with conventional subscription journal publishing because it defines itself as a pre-print server and thus leaves journals to 'add value'. This helps to people to believe that ArXiv does not replace journals (including librarians and universities). Nevertheless, I would venture that substitution is already occuring - we would need to survey not the US an European research libraries but universities and readers in Brazil, Russia and China: Do they subscribe? Or do they rely on ArXiv?
Substitution of OA repositories for conventional (expensive) journal subscriptions would seem to be dependent on three conditions:
- The quality of the alternative;
- The quantitity available in the alternative service ('critical mass');
- Any additional services provided.
Here it is important to study the evolution of SSRN, RePEc and Arxiv. While not offering peer review, these services are working hard to provide all kinds of quality indicators. All of them are now in service over a decade and have accumulated a certain depth and breadth. The crucial question would be if they may begin to provide alternative (better) overlay services that allow for citation tracking and text mining. If yes, then the moment at which the scales will begin to tip should not be too far away.
Sociologists are always on the lookout for 'crescent' change that will turn into 'enacted' change. Scholarly publishing and communication is a clear case of 'crescent' change. Several scenarios of 'enacted' change are feasible and these include, as an OA worst case scenario. an orchestrated legal backlash by publishers against any and all OA archiving on the basis of the 'transfer of copyright' and the illegality of having not only identitical but also essentially similar (pre-print) copies on the web. The best case OA scenario is a full transition to OA deposition of all research articles in the first instance with a subsequent improvement and development of all kinds of overlay services that serve readers and authors much better than Oldenbourg's now cumbersome, antiquated and inadequate model does.
What is worrying is that publishers seem bent on perpetuating Oldenbourg's model and are now developing a lobbying machine to defend their antiquated publishing model. It is not clear to me whether they consider their sunk costs so large that innovation and transition to new publishing models is not feasible - or they are simply lazy and lack the capacity to innovate. On the other hand, the OA movement is strong and there are many working to provide better services to readers and authors. These efforts need to be galvanised to create an incentive structure for OA. That requires, as mentioned above, simultaneous attention to quality, quantity and additional services.
Finally: OA supporters should not be concerned to preserve or aid the present business interests of publishers. If the present incumbents are incapable of innovativing beyond some sort of 'open choice' then they deserve to go out of business - and they will.
Best wishes,
Lars Christof Armbruster
PhD, Diplom-Soziologe
Research Network 1989
Founder and Executive Director
http://www.cee-socialscience.net/1989/
Research articles (available at
http://ssrn.com/author=434782)
- Explaining 1989: Soviet imperial breakdown and structural stasis
- Soviet relations of domination: Legitimate or illegitimate?
- The rise of the post-doc as principal investigator? How PhDs and Post-docs may advance their career and knowledge claims in the new Europe of Knowledge
- Open access in social and cultural science: Innovative moves to enhance access, inclusion and impact in scholarly communication
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Leslie Carr
Sent: Fri 17/11/2006 15:51
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Response from Simon Inger and Chris Beckett
(I don't have a LISTSERV password to post from the AMSCI website.)
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 Mon Nov 20 2006 - 16:49:17 GMT