Those [publishers] mentioned invested in the industry [with] knowledge of the possibilities, including OA.
Presumably either they thought they would obtain sufficient return in the time remaining, or they thought we would not succeed with OA. That they might prove to have been wrong in their estimate need not concern us for their sake. One strength of capitalism is supposed to be that it rewards and encourages the taking of risks. The possibility of failure is an intrinsic part of the system, and part of the justification for the profits. Indeed, an industry in which no enterprise failed would probably not be taking sufficient risk to be innovative--or would be a cartel mutually insuring each other against failure. If scientists continue to act without judgment in the practical concern of disseminating their results, and let complacency and narrow self-interest prevent them from adopting OA, the investors will have guessed correctly. If one is looking primarily for smoothness of change, all OA Journal models that preserve the existing journal system are clearly superior. In exchange, they offer relatively little cost savings. To obtain the great cost savings of repository-based OA, one must sacrifice some of the smoothness. I do not know what strategy will be followed, or whether a mixed strategy is possible. Either strategy is worthwhile: the cost savings from OA journals are not great, but they are significant enough to give time for us to develop better. The possible disruption from repository models is well within our capacity to handle with the available technical means. Perhaps the deciding key strength of repository models is their resiliency--the existence of multiple digital archives offers protection against failure. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor, Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University, Brookville, NY [email protected]
