Re: The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_PHOENIX.PRINCETON.EDU>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:22:54 -0400

It may not have been clear that I do in fact agree with
Steve. I certainly meant my remark about perceived fairness to apply only
to the current publishing environment.
Even a partial success for open access should change
things for the better--in spite of any transitional

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Steve Hitchcock wrote:

> I'm not sure what 'fair' means, but David seems to be somewhat defeatist
> here. There has been a switch in thinking away from the role of the serials
> crisis in motivating open access and instead focussing on author-centric
> motivations like impact and assessment. But for those who are concerned
> about the serials crisis an interesting study would be a McCabe-like
> analysis of the following:
> IF the entire peer reviewed literature was openly accessible from
> institutional archives, what would be the effect on journal prices and
> (arguable) publisher monopolies?
> It would not be the same answer as McCabe gives now. Nor would it be the
> same if 'open access journals' were to be substituted for 'institutional
> archives' in the scenario, for although the journal prices would reduce to
> zero, fears have begun to surface elsewhere about new publisher monopolies
> that would result.
> I don't want to speculate on journal prices, but my guess is that some of
> the market drivers that McCabe reveals would be affected and price pressure
> could be reversed, most obviously by increased competition.
> The result might have an interesting effect on decision-makers in
> institutions, if not on authors.
> Steve Hitchcock
> IAM Group, Department of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
> Email:
> Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 3256 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865
> At 16:42 28/07/03 -0400, David Goodman wrote:
> >Several years of discussion on this list and elsewhere have convinced me
> >that there is no fair pricing scheme for an expensive
> >database or group of journals. I admire the
> >ingenuity of all those who have tried, but, as Fred says, efforts at
> >increasing the perceived fairness tend to get complicated.
> >And I think we all agree that the transition to a free access system
> >will have complications, and will not be instantaneous.
> >
> >On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Fred Spilhaus wrote:
> >
> > > That is one way but it requires a completely different economic
> > > model. It is not clear to me how to get from here to there in
> > > one swoop even if one wanted to. The complexities of serving
> > > authors in many different circumstances and under a variety of
> > > different national and institututional constraints is daunting.
> > > While minimizing cost to the reader may increase use, which is in
> > > the authors interest and the best interests of science it has to
> > > be done with all of the other constraints in mind such as having
> > > somewhere of quality to publish in future.
> > >
> > > I expect you will see some hybids that free the material that is
> > > fully paid up front. But in our case that could further
> > > complicate what may be the most complex pricing scheme that is
> > > openly available so that you know what you are paying and can
> > > decide if you are being treated fairly in pricing. Its a trde
> > > off: skip the price negotiation and go staight to the license or
> > > spend your timne hassling over price so the license seems small.
> > > On the one side you pay marketing people and on the other
> > > lawyers. I would like to minimize both. FRED
> >
> >Dr. David Goodman
> >Princeton University
> >and
> >Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU
> >
> >

Dr. David Goodman

Princeton University Library
Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU
Received on Wed Jul 30 2003 - 21:22:54 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:01 GMT