Re: How to fund open access journals from available sources

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Heather, I think you completely missed Dean's argument and point.  No one
doubts that library budgets cannot sustain current journal inflation.  
His argument (very succinctly stated) was that the burden of proof is on
David to illustrate why he thinks his model of voluntary payments will be
successful, despite overwhelming contrary evidence from economists and
sociologists.  Dean is not proposing an untested theory he just made up,
but a body of knowledge that is accepted as truth by academics in those
fields.

To further the evidence stacked against the success of this proposal,
state libraries are unable to make payments for services that they aren't
legally required to make.  In essence, they cannot make voluntary
donations using public tax dollars.  If you are supporting such a
solution, you need to realize that state institutions will be unable to
participate.

No one doubts the benefits of providing access to information to as wide
an audience as possible.  If we are to support a new model of academic
publishing, it should at least stand up to scrutiny and logic.  But if you
a firm believer of a voluntary payment model, you are welcome to begin
experimenting with your own budget and start making voluntary payments to
the titles that the University of British Columbia libraries have
cancelled over the last two decades.

--Phil Davis

At 11:19 AM 4/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:

> As for whether game theory principles apply to David Goodman's proposal
> (75% of payments plus open access), I'm not so sure.  Libraries are by and
> large not commercial entities; they can and do support projects they
> believe are important.  The creation of digital libraries over the past
> few years, most of which are open access, is one example.  Libraries
> generally use a combination of inside and outside funding, because they
> believe it is important to preserve particular collections as well as to
> make them accessible; libraries see this as their role, because there is
> information which is of value with little to no profit potential.
>
> It would probably be a good idea to ask groups of libraries to consider
> David Goodman's idea; many individual libraries would probably need to
> have a strong sense of collective action before they could make any
> commitment to this approach.  This consultation process could take some
> time.  It is possible that some might need to revisit their administrative
> processes at the local level.  This kind of thing is not impossible; any
> administrative processes were invented by people, and can be changed by
> people, even if it's not always easy.
[SNIP]