RE: Sabo Bill: Measure Calls for Wider Access to Federally

[Jan Velterop <jan@biomedcentral.com>]

> Phil Davis wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure there needs to be the dichotomy between open-access and 
> subscription-access as you set up.  As the original Public Library of 
> Science proposed, open access to research would be available after 6 
> months.  [snip] 
> This would still enable publishers to make money on the value-added 
> services they provide but still allow eventual open-access to the public.  
> Many society publishers have already adopted this practice, [snip]
> 
> and libraries have confirmed that they are still willing to 
> pay for the immediacy of good information.  

JV: I'm sure libraries are prepared to pay for the immediacy of good
information. But 'willing'? Do they really have a choice? Are they not
also 'prepared' to pay for the largest and most expensive package deals?

> Commercial publishers, however, have been very reticent to adopt this 
> practice, undoubtedly because it would result in a massive correction 
> in the prices they would be able to charge.

JV: And not only commercial publishers, I might add. Some
crypto-commercial societies fit this bill, too. It may not be a
black-and-white situation, but it is very dark grey indeed.

Jan Velterop

> I don't think it is necessary to paint an all-or nothing  choice here.  I
> believe there is already a very good compromise that is in the better
> interest of science and the public.  Unfortunately, it may not be in the
> best interest of for-profit publishers.
> 
> Phil Davis, Cornell University