From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:02:19 -0700

Fred makes an absolutely valid point that cost structures for new
infrastructure will be different from that of traditional
infrastructure.  This is why incumbent publishers will have a hard
time making a switch, if a switch becomes necessary.  It does not
follow that library-led initiatives will develop and maintain these
new systems.  My bet is on upstart commercial ventures.  Always bet on
the entrepreneur, as he or she doesn't care what gets broken in the
process of making something new.

Joe Esposito

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:59 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:11:06 +0100
>
> Although Joe and I may not agree on everything, I do agree with his
> emphasis on what will be sustainable and fundable, whether through
> commercial investment or public funding. And I do understand (this
> also relates to the reply from Sheila Dutton of BMJ) that part of the
> quality control cost in the current research dissemination process is
> borne by publishers. But every time a publisher comments on this kind
> of issue it is from the starting-point of the current research
> dissemination infrastructure, and an (understandable) wish to maintain
> the current research dissemination infrastructure. If there were to be
> a large-scale switch to a repository model rather than a journal
> publishing model, the full quality control costs would have to be met
> as part of repository costs, and it could be that people who are now
> publishers would have the expertise to manage the quality control
> process for the research community, but it would be within an
> infrastructure very different from that operating now. The evidence we
> have from the work of economists like John Houghton is that a switch
> to a repository-based infrastructure would be more cost-effective than
> the current research dissemination infrastructure, but it will not
> happen unless there is the political will for it to happen.
>
> Fred Friend
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 01:28:08 -0700
>
> I really can't agree with Fred about most of this.  For one, the idea
> that the work of peer review is somehow free because many of the
> reviewers are unpaid displays not only profound ignorance of how peer
> review systems are managed but, worse, a complete lack of curiosity.
> But if Fred or any one else wants to place articles in a repository
> somewhere, why, go right ahead.  I don't know what problem that is
> supposed to solve, but no one should get in the way of a man with a
> fixed idea.
>
> But in the end, the fact that so-called Green OA has no meaningful
> economic model is irrelevant.  That which is not sustainable cannot
> and will not be sustained.  It will simply go away.  If the articles
> deposited in repositories cannibalize the publishers' versions (where
> such exist), then over time the published versions will go away.  If
> "pure" repository publishing is what we have left, then it will
> attempt to justify its costs, which will surprise many with how large
> and unexpected they are.  Even OA repositories with enormous community
> support such as arXiv run into the problem that from time to time
> significant investments have to be made in platforms.  Volunteer labor
> does many things truly well (think of Wikipedia), but a full
> publishing service of the kind contemplated here may be a steep climb.
>
> The notion that research publishing--alone among all things in the
> world--can somehow sit outside the economy is a strange idea,
> something that will be studied by anthropologists years from now as a
> characteristic myth of our era.
>
> What will happen, what is happening already, is that investment in
> publishing will shift to new areas, especially those that are most
> resistant to copying and that continue to provide a return on capital.
> It can be no other way:  this is the way the world works.
>
> None of this is happy news for the commercial publishers that have
> looked to libraries for huge sums of money; I am not arguing for their
> position.  They will have to invest heavily in new businesses instead
> of harvesting past investments.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:12:38 +0100
> >
> > I cannot let pass without challenge the STM Association's statement
> > that "Green Open Access has no business model to support the
> > publications on which it crucially depends". Firstly deposit of a
> > research report by an author in an institutional or subject repository
> > does not depend upon publication in a journal. It is a separate route
> > to the dissemination of publicly-funded research and could operate
> > world-wide whether or not any STM journals were published at all.
> > Secondly green open access does have a business model which is
> > entirely within research and higher education budgets. Repositories
> > are supported by their institution or funding agency, and a fully
> > peer-reviewed version of a research article could be supplied on open
> > access using the time of reviewers currently supplied without charge
> > to publishers.
> >
> > A further quality stamp could be provided by the institution or
> > organization funding the repository and appropriate metadata attached
> > to the version to indicate that it could be regarded as a "version of
> > record". Few people are currently advocating a total switch away from
> > publishing in journals to a total reliance upon repositories (although
> > it would be feasible), but as both the European Commission and
> > Research Councils UK acknowledge in their policies the two models can
> > live alongside one another. The UK Government, in accepting the
> > unbalanced recommendations from the Finch Group, has made a decision
> > which is bad for researchers and bad for taxpayers. It may not even be
> > good for publishers in the long-term, once the full implications of
> > the UK Government's decision are worked through.
> >
> > Fred Friend
> > Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
> > http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk