---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:07:15 +0000
Surely, it's not "optimizing the synergy" of OA and SB publishing, but
"optimising the efficacy of research communication" that it's all
about?
From that point of view, SB is decidedly sub-optimal, in contrast to
OA, particularly 'true' OA, machine-readable, with no impediments to
re-use, so that computer-assisted large-scale analysis is possible.
Computer-assisted large scale analysis (in addition to actual reading
of selected articles) is fast becoming essential, due to the research
information 'overwhelm' that the relentless increase in published
research brings about. And not only in the form of research articles,
but increasingly accompanied by (large) datasets as well.
For that is the real problem: research information 'overwhelm'. The
problems of how to finance libraries and publishing follow from that.
As a result of this 'overwhelm', I see the entire edifice of research
publishing changing. Subscriptions, peer-review, the very format of
articles, funding, (traditional) libraries, (traditional) publishers,
impact factors; not far before time is up for all of those.
New concepts are emerging, integrating narrative and data, human- and
machine-readability, pattern-analysis of large amounts of information
and occasional linear reading, semantic navigation of knowledge, etc.
The time that information is taken in by the drink, like water, is
making place for a time in which information is being utilised as a
carrier (like oceans) to navigate between knowledge 'destinations' and
explore unknown shores.
Jan Velterop
On 23 Nov 2011, at 02:50, LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: FrederickFriend <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 10:49:02 +0000
Chris makes an important point about the growth in the published
output. What we do not know - as far as I know - is the balance in
this growth between adding articles to existing journals or starting
new journals. Nor do we know the balance in this growth between
adding new journals to the SB big deals or starting new OA journals.
It is a recurrent theme in negotiations that libraries are asked to pay
more for big deals because of the new titles added to the package,
and yet we also hear about large numbers of articles published
through PLoS One. Where is the new output going? I agree with
Chris that we should be "optimizing the synergy" of OA and SB
publishing, but it is difficult to achieve such synergy in an environment
so weighted in favour of large-scale SB publishing. I remember talk
a few years ago of the need for a "level playing-field" but that has
never been achieved.
Fred Friend
-----Original Message----- From: LIBLICENSE
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model
From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:20:08 -0800
Joe, Jan,
What is maybe not well understood (yet) is the (potentially strong)
complementarity between open access and subscription-based publishing
for a system of scholarly communication in which the published output
continues to grow substantially (i.e. 3% p.a. because of publish or
perish, new players/countries, internationalisation, multi-authorship
etc.). Open access has opened up new sources of revenue. At the same
time it has a viable business model for the bulk publishing of the
scientific record, probably at significantly reduced cost. The
players/ publishers who understand/exploit this new complementarity
will be the ones that thrive (including a maintained or improved
profit margin). Of course, this may sound like bad news to some
advocates of open access as well as of big deal publishing, but from
the point of view of scholarly communication and the communities this
is all good news. From here onwards, it is about optimizing the
synergy (i.e. positive network effects) of OA and SB publishing in the
interest of digital scholarly communication (i.e.
authors/readers/clients/customers).
Regards,
Chris
|
