Stevan Harnad's misconception 5

From: Velterop, Jan, Springer UK <Jan.Velterop_at_SPRINGER.COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:03:54 +0100

Misconception: Expecting non-OA journals to suffer from self-archiving
mandates is hypothetical, but expecting subscriptions to continue to be
paid for by institutions when the content is openly and freely available
is evidence-based.

In fact, both are hypotheses, the former just more logical than the
latter.

The 'evidence' that subscriptions will continue is based on the
situation with physics journals subscriptions, co-existing with Arxiv.
As evidence goes, it doesn't deserve that moniker. It's the equivalent
of saying that driving under the influence is safe, just because you've
done it for years without having an accident. Or giving a number of
toddlers a packet of matches and when none of their houses have burned
down by the end of the week, infer that matches are safe in the hands of
toddlers.

The hypothesis that subscriptions will suffer is based on the mainstream
economic observation that if goods or services are available for free
elsewhere, it will be very difficult to sell them.

Jan Velterop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SPARC Open Access Forum [mailto:SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org]
> On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 28 February 2007 04:09
> To: SPARC Open Access Forum
> Subject: [SOAF] Reply to Jan Velterop, and a Challenge to
> "OA" Publishers Who Oppose Mandating OA via Self-Archiving
>
> ** Cross-Posted **
>
[cut]
>
> But this is all hypothetical: We are not there now. Right
> now, the cost of publication is being amply paid by
> subscriptions. Publishers are hypothesizing that OA
> self-archiving mandates will make that revenue source
> unsustainable -- but no actual evidence at all is being
> provided to show either that the hypothesis is true, or when
> and how quickly subscriptions will become unsustainable, if
> the hypothesis is true. Most important, publishers are giving
> no indications whatsoever as to why the transition scenario
> described above will not be the (equally hypothetical, but
> quite natural) sequel to unsustainable subscriptions.
>
> Instead, the only thing publishers are offering is
> hypothetical doomsday
> scenarios: the destruction of peer review, of journals, and
> of a viable industry. Then, on the pretext of the need to
> protect their current revenue streams and their current ways
> of doing business from this hypothetical doomsday scenario,
> publishers try to block OA self-archiving mandates, despite
> OA's substantial demonstrated benefits to all the other
> parties involved, viz, researchers, research institutions and
> funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public that funds
> the research.
>
> This is indeed a conflict of interest, although the future
> revenue losses to the publishing industry are completely
> hypothetical, whereas the current access/impact losses to
> research are real and already demonstrated (to the
> satisfaction of all except the publishing industry).
>
[cut]
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 19:15:34 GMT