Re: Dramatic Growth of Open Access

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

While I don't agree with David's position, I wish to make an 
orthogonal point.  The debate, to my mind, is not between Open 
Access and what some call "toll-access" publishing.  Rather, the 
argument is what kind of things is OA useful for, and what kind 
of things are better in the toll-access arena.  (I prefer the 
term "proprietary publishing.")  I spent most of last week 
working on a business plan for a new OA service, and much of 
today discussing a publisher's new proprietary service that takes 
advantage of OA documents.  OA and proprietary publishing weave 
together.  What I am highly skeptical about is the notion (not 
shared by all OA advocates) that OA can be a substitute for the 
research articles we now see published in proprietary and often 
expensive journals (some of which, yes, are published at a high 
price by not-for-profit publishers).  What is OA best suited for 
(and what is proprietary publishing not good at)?  Entirely new 
publishing forms such as wikis, entirely new disciplines, content 
out on the end of the Long Tail, etc.  The proprietary material 
works best when there is indeed a market.  And there is a market 
for established journals, or libraries would not be straining to 
purchase them.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: RE: Dramatic Growth of Open Access

> Joe, It is the 'hand to mouth' existence of many not-for-profit
> societies that puts them at most risk in the current
> subscription-based model.  With a growing proportion of library
> funds being tied-into big deals from a small number of large
> publishers, there is less left for the NFPs.  With limited
> flexibility in cancelling big deals some libraries struggling to
> meet their budgets may turn to those journals that they can
> cancel with financial impunity - those from the NFPs.
>
> Certainly, the move of a growing number of NFPs to enter into
> publishing deals with commercial publishers has been nothing to
> do with the 'threat' of open access, but the inability of the
> NFPs to compete in the subscription environment.  Conspiracy
> theorists might find the commercial publishers' enthusiasm for a
> move to big deals a more fertile ground for their musings than
> open access.
>
> For some imaginative NFPs open access actually gives them a
> potential strategy for survival against the big squeeze from the
> bid deal - especially as they can tap into new revenue sources
> (e.g. Wellcome Trust funding).
>
> (I developed some of these ideas more fully in a paper a couple
> of years ago:
> http://dandini.ingentaselect.com/vl=1227975/cl=15/nw=1/rpsv/cw/alpsp/0953151
> 3/v17n1/s4/p17)
>
>
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
>