RE: Q 1. on OA

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

Maybe the Q. wasn't phrased well.  I am trying to propose a 
thought experiment.  Suppose there were all the money needed to 
get what ever publishing model one wanted, that miraculously we 
could pay for whatever quality is needed.  Is there then any 
argument that OA is not an ideal. You can say the ideal is not 
practical or it will never happen, or whatever. I am only trying 
to settle the difference between a best case and the practical 
barriers to that goal.  Net income is financial benefit no matter 
how messianic the ultimate disposition of the money is.

So, rephrasing: if money were freely available from whatever 
sources, is there any argument against OA?  Not money is never 
freely available, but if it were freely available, Gedanken 
Experiment, if you like.  You, know, frictionless pulley, freely 
reversible chemical reaction, totally altruistic society, 
whatever.

Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry

__________

"Lisa Dittrich" <lrdittrich@aamc.org>
06/18/06 08:47 AM

Yes--our journal "benefits" only in the sense that any income we 
make somewhat offsets our associations significant investment in 
the costs of running our journal (and we are now published--but 
not owned--by a commercial publisher).  We provide excellent 
services to our authors (who routinely praise us for the 
substantive editing we do) and keep our subscription prices low. 
We charge no authors fees, and few of our authors are subsidized 
by grants from the government or anyone else. They therefore 
would likely balk at being charged any kind of fee should we move 
to all OA.  Should we move to OA, my guess is that our 
association would (reasonably) decide that we should simply let 
the publisher take over all copyediting (which they do a rather 
poor job of) and that I let go of many of the high-quality 
dedicated staff members who have contributed to making our 
journal the high-quality journal it has become over the course of 
the past 17 or so years (in the name of cost savings, since they 
would completely subsidize the journal).  You might say this is 
the cost of the "greater good."

I say if I want quality, I pay for quality.  If an artist writes 
a novel or paints a painting using funding from a government arts 
agency, I don't think I should get that work for free.  You might 
argue that, well, the journal is "stealing" the researchers' 
works.  Well, no--I and my staff are adding value that costs time 
and money, too, for which we deserve compensation.

Why no one seems to get this is beyond me.  Let researchers post 
their research to blogs if free and fast access is all that is 
needed.  If what journals add is so worthless and if we are so 
evil, then let us die off.

anyway, to return to your original question--we make no profit. 
And I, as managing editor and speaking only for myself and not 
for my association, am entirely opposed to OA.

Lisa


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Richard Feinman
Sent: Fri 6/16/2006 8:24 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Q 1. on OA

Is there anyone who is opposed to OA who does not benefit
financially from the current system?

Richard D. Feinman, Professor of Biochemistry