http://tscott.typepad.com/tsp/2015/07/what-we-share.html
Scott
T Scott Plutchak | Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies
UAB | The University of Alabama at Birmingham
The Edge of Chaos LHL 427
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4712-5233
On 7/16/15, 9:53 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of
LIBLICENSE" <
[log in to unmask] on behalf of
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>From: Karin Wikoff <
[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:09:23 +0000
>
>I think the relationship is symbiotic. It doesn't have to be as
>antagonistic as it sometimes is. The common shared goal is a desire
>to sustain academic publishing. Each party gets something different
>out of academic publishing, but if it becomes so unsustainable that it
>crashes and burns, every party loses out. So, we have a shared
>interest in making things work. The trick is that we each do have to
>protect our interests, which can lead to taking actions which
>exacerbate the conflict and do not help the larger goal of keeping it
>sustainable. (Or perhaps making it sustainable, because I am not at
>all sure that it really is right now). Sticking to an insistence on
>continuing to maintain a much-larger-than-any-other-publishers profit
>margin in the face of disruptive change, for example, -- that's not
>sustainable. (Kevin Smith had a blog about this a couple years ago,
>with a link to a financial analysis on the impact of open access on
>Elsevier if they continue on the same path). On the other hand,
>libraries can't just expect publishers to change everything around to
>meet our needs to the total detriment of their profit margin either -
>and yet, we are squeezed in ways beyond our control. We are not a
>bottomless well.
>
>I would love to see publishers, vendors, authors, and librarians sit
>down and talk straight about what can be done to reach that shared
>goal because right now, it feels like we are on the edge of a freefall
>where academic publishing is increasingly not sustainable, and all the
>parties are just more entrenched than ever. It's very, very hard to
>get people to set that stuff aside and work together towards making it
>all work. I don't know if it can be done, but we are not getting
>there the way we've been operating up to now -- in a competitive,
>antagonist way. (I also think such a step would be harder for
>publishers and vendors than for librarians, but that could just be my
>prejudice).
>
>It still costs -- money, time, effort -- to create and distribute
>quality academic content. Open access, regardless the model, just
>shifts those costs. The question still hangs there -- how can we make
>it pay for itself in a sustainable way so libraries can continue to
>purchase, so publishers can continue to be profitable enough to exist,
>so authors can be compensated for the intellectual work, and so that
>patrons can have access to the important academic information they
>need?
>
>My opinion,
>
>Karin
>--
>Karin Wikoff
>Electronic and Technical Services Librarian
>Ithaca College Library
>Ithaca, NY 14850
>Email:
[log in to unmask]