on Tue, 14 Jan 2003 Barbara Kirsop <[email protected]> wrote:
> My understanding has always been that the open access movement aimed to > provide free access to institutional archives - free of costs both to > the author and the reader. Any costs to be met would be borne by > institutions, which have an interest in distributing their own research > output in ways that make the greatest impact. Again, my understanding > is that costs for setting up an institutional eprint server would be: > an initial modest setting-up cost, some hand-holding costs for authors > in preparing documents for the eprints servers, followed by low > maintainenance costs. These could surely be 'absorbed' by most > organisations. Essential peer review costs would be readily paid for by > savings plus automation. British Economist David J Brown pointed out that the interests of universities (what you call "institutions") differ from those of research sponsors (Electronic Publishing and Libraries. 1996. p. 42). This accounts for the huge gap between growth of research and library spending: the "library crisis." Universities will bear the cost of archives if they promise relief from library spending. The motive of universities is profitability and power of bureaucracy over faculty. This has been described many times over by observers ranging from Max Weber and Thorsten Veblen to Robert A Nisbet and Edward Shils to President Eisenhower and Newt Gingrich. In the present context, it was demonstrated by the 'windfall' profits taken from library spending (justified by fair use photocopying) over recent decades. In spite of opposition by faculty and academic senates, research universities cut library spending from 6 per cent to less than 3 per cent. They put the 'savings' into already bloated reserves and administrative spending. In 1969, many universities held up payment of publishers' page charges as a hedge against cuts in defense-related grants! In contrast, the sponsors of research are motivated to support dissemination. In the U.S., federal research grants pay publishers' page charges. The online 'archive' of physics preprints originated at the U.S. Dept. of Energy. An imitation was proposed by the National Institutes of Health. Both projects are now out of the hands of government agencies, being clearly in conflict with a long-standing policy that holds that the government has no business offering services that can be provided by the private sector. Research sponsors often conduct peer review prior to making grants. The process is not much different from editorial peer review in many respects. Some agencies also review papers authored in-house prior to release as preprints or submission to journals. The problem with U.S. government agencies, I have found many times, is that their review and other activity is limited and biased by their missions as they see them. The spectre of a university running peer review of its own research work raises considerable doubts when compared to the blind editorial review run by learned journals. Certainly, all research units should review their work with the aid of faculty and other researchers. However, it is not until the work is considered from the outside that it may be accepted as meeting the norms of its discipline. This is where associations and other publishers provide unique services. Not only do publishers provide peer review but an active dissemination channel that delivers select information to a select audience. The institutional archive, in contrast, is passive and chaotic, relying on the reader to search and evaluate a rising tide that probably includes unreviewed drafts and quackery. Best wishes, Albert Henderson Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000 <[email protected]>
