From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:51:35 -0600

> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Jan,
>
> The author-pays model is indeed a splendid one and has succeeded
> beyond the expectations of all but a few visionaries.  What do you
> think it will look like in 5 years?  The number of services for
> author-pays continues to grow.

I see the upside for publishers and consumers on this, but I fail to
see how this makes it possible to have more or better scholarship.  If
any author who wants to be published not only has to have solid
research and writing, but also $1000, that's hardly something to
recommend it.  We'll just exchange the elite consumer with the even
more elite producer (not only do you need time and support to do the
research and writing--but you need $1000 to get it out there!)

I also disagree, though maybe I misunderstand you Joe, that the goal
of scholarly publishing should be more like a commodity.  That's
exactly what's happening with the current trend and it hasn't treated
anyone but publishers kindly.  On top of that we're now invited to
celebrate outsourcing peer review like we're making a pair of
overpriced sneakers?  This outcome is the endpoint of splendid
success?  And libraries are what, in this scenario? Payless Bookstores
manned by a handful of minimum wage flunkies who watched a few
training videos on metadata?  Why would anyone want to pay to have
their stuff channeled into this charnal house where knowledge goes to
die?  Just so it is searchable on the Google and readable on the iPad?
 If that's all that matters, you can do all of that for free.

Of course it would be nice if there was some sort of intellectual
infrastructure vetting and selecting the strongest most rigorous
scholarship, but hey that's what algorithms are for!  If the only
option for that kind of infrastructure going forward is pay to play on
one side or the other of the distributor, I think we've lost the
battle already. The serious problem is not how to support publishers
but how to support research and scholarship on one side, and the
curation of the latter for people wading into this ocean of data.  If
we take their needs for profit out of the equation, it just about
balances out.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111102/10362916602/academic-publishing-profits-enough-to-fund-open-access-to-every-research-article-every-field.shtml

The publishers are way too empowered as it is.  Fine, they add some
value, but if we're being honest they would have nothing to add value
to without quality scholarship--past, present, and future--and without
that scholarship, they would be useless to the people who mostly pay
their salaries: libraries which find their wares attractive because
they were created by the scholars in the building next door.  Since it
looks like the latter are getting pinched and might be ready for a
strike--and there is no possible way publishers will revise their
overall business model--the only answer is to make the author pay:
then it doesn't matter who buys it or wants it, if its good or just
more data to put in the crypt.

The only caveat I'd make is that if this model was based on the
proposition that all previous data--all the oceans of back catalog
behind the paywall--were made free and open to scholars and the
public, it might be a contract worth considering.

In any case, I obviously misunderstand something about how this author
pays system would work because on the face of it it sounds like a
dystopia I'd want no part in advancing.  What, in other words, are the
qualities of splendid success recommending the author pays model?

sean