We are not just more likely but certain to be able to have the
money used for subsidizing article publishing in open access
journals, because the money will be used for this purpose
whether we will or no.
The faculty and administrators want money for the purpose, and
the savings by canceling journals is an exceedingly attractive
source. Furthermore, it is hard to argue otherwise, for
ultimately the money is being used for the same purpose, to
support scientific communication through journals. I cannot
imagine any administrator giving the library money to purchase
large commercial journals once the contents of these journals
will be available without payment, and I cannot imagine any
faculty that would not agree.
The only real question is the degree that the control of this
money will be in the hands of the library.
Unless libraries make serious plans for the use of this money by
supporting publication in distinctive ways, such as editing
faculty publications or subsidizing the local production of
journals, I do not think there could be a strong case for
retaining the money in the library budget. its the people
without specific attractive projects who lose out in budgeting.
Strategically, Stevan Harnard is right that the best way of
keeping control the money will be to cancel the journals as soon
as practical, before we are compelled to, and immediately use
the money for appropriate ends. If we take action only
defensively, it is not likely that we will be able to retain or
control the money. With luck, we might be able to retain some of
it for books, but not if we wait until the money is removed over
our opposition or hesitancy.
If the university expects to be able to pay for all publication
fees through a combination of internal and external funds, the
support should probably be administered in a routine way through
the research office, just as other research support is managed.
If the university expects to be able to supply only part of the
money necessary, it would be much better administered outside
the library, because the library does not have the practical
power to deal with the demands of competing groups--it will be
much more hazardous than administering the division of
acquisition funds, because it will affect individual faculty
members very directly.
There is no reason for libraries to expect funding for functions
they do not perform, and our best chance of retaining adequate
funding for our unique purposes of bibliographic and reference
assistance is to concentrate on this, and adapt our organization
to realities.
I consider myself an optimist in this, for I think it will be
possible for the profession to adapt.
David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodman@princeton.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:29 pm
Subject: Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Yes, it is true that "if and when institutions ever 'do' cancel
subscriptions, that money will then be freed to pay for Gold OA
costs." What still remains "speculative," however, is whether
that is the actual use to which that "freed" money will be put.
University presses have long harbored the hope that "if and
when" this scenario unfolds, the "freed" money will once again
be devoted to purchasing monographs, whose sales have suffered
mightily ever since the STM crisis began way back in the late
> 1960s. But every librarian I have asked about this replies
"ain't gonna happen." There are plenty of other needs that
libraries have to which "freed" money can be
devoted-digitization projects, archiving, licensing other
electronic resources, etc. If they are reluctant to spend it on
such a central resource as monographs, then what chance is
there that they are likely to start subsidizing faculty who
want to publish in Gold OA journals?
Would librarians on this list care to comment?
Sandy Thatcher
Director, Penn State Press