Comments on: Putting Science into Science Publishing

By: Sandy Thatcher

Sandy Thatcher — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:57:47 +0000

There are quite a few journal publishers, including our press at Penn State, that are counting on librarians’ being willing to pay for that “value added” even while we allow authors to post peer-reviewed (but not final) articles on their personal and institutional web sites. Will librarians reach a point where they are content not to have the archival version of articles? Perhaps they will, for journals they consider peripheral to their core collections. If they reach the point of accepting availability of the less-than-final version, then we’re all in trouble and we’ll need to institute upfront fees to cover the costs.

By: Richard Poynder

Richard Poynder — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:15:07 +0000

I see that Alma Swan has responded to Joe’s post.
http://optimalscholarship.blogspot.com/2007/12/science-and-say-so.html

By: Joseph J. Esposito

Joseph J. Esposito — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:03:50 +0000

Let’s add to this dialogue the notion that publishers who aren’t experimenting with how to reinvent open access as a marketing tool are going to be in a bad position as the floodtides rise. The OA advocates may overstate their case, but there still is a case to be stated.

By: Michael Jensen

Michael Jensen — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:58:56 +0000

Yes, Joe, we’ve been balancing on that “how good is too good” knife-edge for a long time. What we have now on the site is probably too good.

In terms of long run planning, we have a number of strategies — more-active promotion, specialized services for specialized audiences, taking better advantage of our huge audience, and the like. We’re in the lucky position of having in-house programming talent of high calibre, which lets us experiment directly.

If I somehow implied that “the broader strategic implications have been fully addressed,” then I must have been off kilter — since I am *damn* sure they have not! We’re at the start of very long run.

And as Keynes said, “In the long run, we’re all dead.”

By: Joseph J. Esposito

Joseph J. Esposito — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:58:13 +0000

How long will OA be “a tool for promotion” and when will it become a tool for substitution? Since substitution is precisely what OA advocates, is OA anything more for a publisher than a short-term tactical marketing activity? And if so, what is the plan AFTER substitution occurs? A cigarette feels good today, but over the long run it will kill you.

The related point is, If librarians are willing to pay for the “added value,” why would anyone invest to develop the underlying content in the first place?

All publishers should be experimenting with various forms of OA, but it is a mistake to assert that the broader strategic implications have been fully addressed.

The real issue, I suspect, is not adding value but critical mass. As the sheer amount of OA content grows, acceptance of it, with its limitations, will grow as well. And librarians are not stupid: they will cease to pay for what is acceptable for free.

By: mjensen

mjensen — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:40:35 +0000

Joe, as usual you make many important points with lucidity. Yes, we need science to help inform much of our thinking on this topic.

A few additions, predominantly about the library topic:

Librarians aren’t stupid, but they are willing to pay for quality, added value, archival certainty, lendability, customer convenience, and more. Though the National Academies Press website has been “open” since 1994 — every page available for free — we still have many library sales, and enough online sales to individuals to constitute nearly a third of overall publishing revenue.

We’ve been approached by librarians, asking us to *sell them PDFs en masse* so they can lend them out, provide them via campus access, and the like — as a service to their customers. As anyone using digital repositories, or even Google Scholar, knows, the version that is “open” is rarely as convenient, as fully represented, as the “published in Science” version. It takes time to locate, time to confirm, time to distinguish. Open access doesn’t mean easy access.

The free version of any book on our site isn’t as convenient to read as a book is, though it’s *lots* cheaper. For some academic libraries, though, pointing to the free version can be a) taking users off their network, an b) providing no services (and thus making themselves seem possibly moot to their administrations, a very dangerous situation).

I see OA as a tool for promotion, a means of dissemination, and a business tool, but we’ve got some (admittedly a mix of anecdotal and quantitative) evidence that indicates that the broader markets are exceedingly diverse, and that OA isn’t necessarily a replacement for all the characteristics people purchase for. The container, the utility, the convenience, the “ownership” and more, are worth paying for, for some people (and some libraries).