On Fri, 26 Jan 2007, JOHANNES VELTEROP wrote:
The issue shouldn't be -- and for most clear-thinking
publishers isn't -- about OA yea or nay. It is about the
fundamentally problematic idea of mandating access to the
formally published literature without willing to provide in
any way for payment...
But, dear Jan, need I remind you that Payment *in full* is
being made -- via subscriptions and licenses -- for that vast
majority of journals that are not OA journals!
The rest is just pre-emptive speculation: If those
subscriptions are ever cancelled, the resultant savings can
then be used to pay for Gold OA publication charges But until
and unless they are cancelled, why do we -- the research
community, I mean, because, frankly, the publishing community
has not much say in this, one way or the other -- keep wasting
time on this pre-emptive bargaining, instead of doing the
keystrokes to provide the OA, now? (*That's* what the
self-archiving mandates are for, at long last.)
Given the benefits of open access, an argument might even be
made that its increased utility would justify a higher price.
The mandates that are being considered, however, aim to remove
(perhaps not by intention, but as an unintended consequence)
any economic basis. That's the issue. Not OA or NOA.
Jan, as a publisher, you are to be excused for being so
preoccupied with prices and your bottom line. But I hope you
will in turn excuse the research community for being more
concerned with *access* -- for which there is no need to pay a
penny more or less at the moment! All that's needed is
keystrokes. And that is what OA, today, is about.
Stevan Harnad