Dear Arthur,
The library is unfortunately stuck in the position of having to pay for both ends at the same time. While the
subscription-access journals remain important, we must get the ones needed, and there is only a certain
amount of cutting that will be accepted.
There are always workarounds.
1/If Springer and other publishers do fulfill their promises to reduce subscription costs proportionately to the
OA content, and if enough people use this option to make a difference, that money will be available. The
main problem is it will take 3 or 4 years to make the adjustment. The articles paid for in 07 will affect the 08
issues, which will affect the '09 recalculation, which will result in lower prices for '10. In those three years
the publisher is being paid double, and the university will have to make up the difference.
2/If OA journals spread, and attract the best papers, there will be fewer of the expensive lower-grade
subscription journals. This will take even longer--it takes time to establish a journal; even when an editorial
board leaves, there are still a year's worth of manuscripts that have been accepted, and publishers are paid in
advance. Again the university--or funders--will have to make up the difference in the interim.
3/If there is sufficient administrative skill and sufficient economic pressure, it may be possible to make
arrangements as in high energy physics, by which journals will convert to OA journals in a coordinated way.
In HEP, there were only a small number of research institutions and journals involved, and it will be
obviously more difficult to accomplish this in a science such as organic chemistry. This is why I look so
favorably on the HEP initiative as a model, just as they have previously served as a model in the
development of repositories.
3/As self-archiving spreads, there may be lesser demand for the medium quality not quite first rate journals
that are among the most expensive. Libraries may want to hold on to subscriptions, but administrators such
as yourself are very unlikely to provide the funds to pay for expensive journals which will have only a small
small degree of superior presentation and a decreasing amount of unique content. Speaking for myself, I
have always regarded the opportunity to rid ourselves of the costs of such commercial journals as one of the
great benefits of OA in any form--and I think most librarians have this in their minds as well--switching
publishing to more efficient publishers does provide development money. Thus it has always surprised me
that the lower cost societies do not zealously advocate full unrestricted immediate self-archiving of published
versions, because it is the less cost-efficient publishers who will lose market share, and the relative position
of the more efficient ones will be strengthened.
So it ii not green OA or gold OA. Green OA is good but gold is even better, and the pressure from green OA
will be the most effective force to induce publishers, funders , and universities to switch to gold OA journals
in a coordinated way, and diminish the needed transition costs. But to make this possible without disruption
takes the simultaneous development of all the possible routes. There are many unknowns here to be
provided for. But two things are clear: the gold OA journals must be ready for rapid expansion, and the self-
archiving must be seen in a practical way, as a temporary measure.
A very much needed temporary measure. And here at least I agree with Stevan Harnad, that we cannot
ignore the practical needs of the next few years while we are developing OA journals, and must immediately
establish self archiving, even if only as institutional repositories. Where I differ, is I think we must use those
years for the rapid development of financing for OA journals. It will take long enough to develop this that we
cannot defer planning until journals lose most of their subscribers. We must make provision for the papers
from the former commercial subscription journals.
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
previously:
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library
dgoodman_at_princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Sale <ahjs_at_ozemail.com.au>
Date: Friday, March 9, 2007 7:08 pm
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Physics World: The CERN Gold OA
initiative
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Paul
>
>
>
> I am really worried about your comment that libraries need funding
> bodies to
> be in partnership (your words) to make the transition to pay reader-
> sidepublication fees. In my view, this is entirely a library issue
> of how to
> fund the university's research, or so I would say if I were still a
> senioruniversity executive or on a finding body. Go change your
> research journal
> support policy (aka acquisitions policy, though now obviously
> misnamed).
>
>
> Arthur Sale
>
> University of Tasmania
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-
> FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
> Behalf Of Paul Ayris
> Sent: Friday, 9 March 2007 5:46 PM
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Physics World: The
> CERN Gold
> OA initiative
>
>
>
> Colleagues
>
> As Director of Library Services in a research-led University in the
> UnitedKingdom, may I offer an observation from the perspective of
> an active
> academic library? I agree with David that the move to gold OA will
> depend on
> the subject area under discussion. In particle physics, I take the
> pointthat the majority of research publications are concentrated in
> a discrete
> number of journals. In this context, it seems to me that a move to
> turninglibrary journal subscriptions into payments to an OA
> consortium for journal
> publishing is a model worth considering. However, I agree with
> Stevan that
> this is probably not a scaleable model, but I suggest that at this
> time it
> is worth trying in discrete subject areas.
>
> As a University Librarian, my concerns are these: once commercial
> journalsubscriptions are turned into a consortial payments for OA
> publishing, I
> would have no more money to give to the consortium should its costs
> increase. So the consortium will have to manage its costs with
> great care in
> order for libraries to support them. Otherwise, libraries are no
> better off
> than they were in the commercial subscription environment, when we
> could be
> presented with large increases in costs with no concomitant ability
> to meet
> these costs.
>
> My second concern over the Cern experiment is this. I am still
> unclear what
> the responsibility is for libraries to meet publishing costs in the
> new Cern
> model (turning journal subscriptions into a payment to the new
> consortium to
> support OA journal publishing) and the responsibilities of funding
> bodies to
> support new models. Until subscription journals turn onto OA journals,
> libraries will STILL have to pay the subscription costs for these
> journals.It is the transition period which concerns me. Surely,
> funding bodies should
> be asked to fund the transition. Then, when libraries can safely
> convertjournal subscription costs into a consortium payment for
> gold OA publishing,
> libraries can make the requisite changes. It is the researcher that
> libraries must support. And, until the model has flipped from
> publishing in
> subscription journal to gold OA journals, libraries will have to
> work in a
> hybrid environment where both models co-exist.
>
> Libraries need to support their academic researchers and to be
> champions of
> change. They do the former very well. They can also do the latter,
> but I
> suggest only when the model has changed. In the transitional phase,
> thereare two sets of costs: commercial subscriptions and separate
> OA payments.
> What I am suggesting is that it is only through partnership with
> fundingbodies that libraries can help move from a commercial
> subscription model to
> an innovative OA publishing model envisaged by Cern. We are not
> there yet,
> but we could be if the partnership works.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul Ayris
> Director of UCL Library Services and UCL Copyright Officer
> UCL (University College London)
>
>
> At 17:09 08/03/2007, David Prosser wrote:
> Stevan
>
> I agree with most of what you've written, especially about the
> urgency of
> mandates. Where I still disagree is with the idea that we are
> losing focus
> by also exploring gold models. In the field that CERN covers they
> have 100%
> (or almost) open access. I think they should be free to now look
> at ways in
> which they can fund gold OA. I do not believe that they are
> beholden to
> promote green OA in other subject areas (over and above what they are
> already doing, which is significant). Also, their model predicts
> that a
> funded gold OA model in particle physics will be cheaper than the
> currentsubscription model. (See
> http://doc.cern.ch/archive/electronic/cern/preprints/open/open-2006-
> 063.pdf) So, for an investment now (the 'double payment') a
> transition could
> free-up funds for research.
>
> You make the point that this model will probably not scale to all
> journals.That's true, but it doesn't have to - all it has to do is
> work for this
> community. The Science/Nature model (large number of personal
> subscribersand significant advertising revenue in addition to
> institutionalsubscribers) doesn't scale to all journals either, but
> it is a valid
> business model. Again, it is not the responsibility of particle
> physics to
> develop a model for all journals.
>
> So, should CERN being doing more to promote green OA in other
> subjects - I
> don't think that we should expect them to do more that they already
> do. Is
> the CERN gold experiment damaging to research? Well, it might free-
> up funds
> and so benefit research. Does the CERN experiment delay the day
> that we get
> 100% OA? I really don't think so, although we may disagree on that!
>
> Best wishes
>
> David
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
>
> E-mail: david.prosser_at_bodley.ox.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0) 1865 277 614
> Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888
> http://www.sparceurope.org <http://www.sparceurope.org/>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 13 2007 - 02:31:41 GMT