RE: Why Cornell's Institutional Repository Is Near-Empty

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Rick Anderson wrote:

> For what it's worth, here's my evidence-based prediction: if and 
> when an entire journal's content is made publicly available at 
> no charge and with no embargo, only a fool will continue to pay 
> for a subscription to it.
I probably won't be the first to bring up examples from 
astrophysics and other disciplines that are fully (or nearly 
completely) represented in the arXiv.  Their continued existence 
poses a conundrum if we view the journal solely as a vehicle for 
disseminating research findings.  All articles can find a journal 
that will publish them.

The most valuable function of the journal is in the evaluation 
and reward system.  Journals, by their degree of selectivity and 
exclusion, concentrate high-quality articles in a small number of 
publications, and signal to the readers what is important and 
should be attended to.  As authors give away freely their work to 
be published, there is a transfer of prestige back to the author. 
The more selective the journal, the more prestige is transferred 
in return.

Like a parasite that must keep its host alive, repositories are 
dependent upon the evaluation system of the journal.  Kill the 
host, and self-archiving becomes meaningless.  Coexistence is 
possible, but we should not view this relationship as a peaceful 
coexistence.  It is a parasitic relationship.

--Phil Davis