This is a reply to Arthur Smith of APS, but first an introduction
ONLINE SELF-ARCHIVING: DISTINGUISHING THE OPTIMAL FROM THE OPTIONAL,
THE PROVISIONAL, THE CONDITIONAL AND THE EVENTUAL
The 2/3-year long American Scientist September-Forum Discussion so far
has helped to crystallize a
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Bob Parks wrote:
> My own thought has been that there will be preprint archiving but
> little change in the journals -- as argued in: The Faustian Grip of
> Academic Publishing http://econwpa.wustl.edu/ewp-mic/0202005.abs
Bob, if I'm not mistaken, most of your predictions in t
On the "Faustian Grip" article http://econwpa.wustl.edu/ewp-mic/0202005.abs
- basically this boils down to the way a free market works - people
do what's in their self-interest, there's a division of labor, and
money/resources change hands. While there are various "optimal" solutions
a central auth
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
> On the "Faustian Grip" article http://econwpa.wustl.edu/ewp-mic/0202005.abs
> ...on average, overall total
> cost to (all) readers per published article for commercial journals is
> not that much more than for non-profit publishers, and eliminating the
Stevan Harnad wrote:
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
Nope. Even if this ended the serials budget crisis -- though it's hard
to see how having the poorer parts of the world take over more of the
burden is a remedy!
The spending on publications need only catch up to the spending on
r
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
> The spending on publications need only catch up to the spending on
> research - which is what you've been proposing all along anyway (under
> the author/institution-pays scheme).
What needs catching up is self-archiving! That's the *guaranteed*
provide
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> >sh> -- it would not solve the far more fundamental
> >sh>problem of needless impact-loss (unless you imagine that distributing
> >sh>the toll costs more widely would somehow make anywhere near all
> >sh>20K peer-reviewed journals affordable to all the wo
The problem for the future is that the cost increases from year to year
in what libraries are being asked to pay is greater than their budget.
The proposed solution is that the gap be filled by revenue from the
developing world. Those who think it likely can continue their
optimism. The rest of us
on Tue, Barry Mahon wrote:
> >Date:Mon, 9 Dec 2002 07:50:26 -0500
> >From:"Thomas J. Walker"
> >Subject: Market outlook for STM publishers
> >
> >In case you want to know what Morgan Stanley market analysts think of
> >investing in STM publishing, read this:
> >
> >http://www.biblio-tech
Hi David! Do you count as one of our less than happy librarians?
David Goodman wrote:
The proposed solution is that the gap be filled by revenue from the
developing world.
Only proportionally as the developing world "develops" - should the US
be subsidizing the rest of the world in perpetuity
> On Wed Dec 11, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
(snip)
Going back to my original question - does anybody have any numbers that
might corroborate or refute the assertion that the cause of the "serials
crisis" is the increase in world-wide research funding, and particularly
(at least fo
Self-Archiving: Distinguishing the Optimal from the Optional
>> On Wed Dec 11, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>Going back to my original question - does anybody have any numbers that
>might corroborate or refute the assertion that the cause of the
&quo
Arthur, the APS, is in my opinion one of the most progressive
publishers. Serving a profession with some sophistication in these
matters, it has the opportunity to continue to lead the way.
I am, personally, happy with what it has done in the past, and expect to
be equally happy with what it wil
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith (APS) wrote:
> I assume you don't think journals, right now, as a whole, are unprofitable.
> So costs are definitely being covered right now. Libraries may be having
> difficulty paying for what they want, but they are at least paying for what
> they're currentl
Stevan Harnad wrote:
The following is a wild guess on my part (but, considering how
conservative was my estimate of the number of would-be users, I think
it's a well-buffered guess): I doubt that even 10% the planet's would-be
users have access to even 10% of that annual corpus today.
In physi
Andrew,
thanks, I'd forgotten about your article; it does have some useful
numbers (though 8 years old - in particular, Phys Rev B's numbers have
changed somewhat, and the profit you mentioned was quite atypical for
us...). However, on the issue of publication expenses vs R&D
expenditures - t
on Tue, 10 Dec 2002 Arthur P. Smith wrote:
> Going back to my original question - does anybody have any numbers that
> might corroborate or refute the assertion that the cause of the "serials
> crisis" is the increase in world-wide research funding, and particularly
> (at least for physics) the i
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
>sh> The following is a wild guess on my part (but, considering how
>sh> conservative was my estimate of the number of would-be users, I think
>sh> it's a well-buffered guess): I doubt that even 10% the planet's would-be
>sh> users have access to even 10
By the way, Tim O'Reilly (of O'Reilly software book publishing fame) has
an interesting article up on very related issues in the book publishing
business (and music publishing, movies, and other forms):
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2002/12/11/piracy.html
Some quotes:
"Obscurity is a far gr
Tim O'Reilly's predictions are not borne out by our experience with the
free, on-line-only journal, Conservation Ecology http://www.consecol.org/,
now in its 6th year of publication. This rigorously peer-reviewed journal
was started by an independent group of scientists at Carleton University in
Ot
- Original Message -
From: "Arthur P. Smith"
> The main focus of your "tragic loss" article was the obsolescence of
> paper, and the resulting consequences. One consequence which was perhaps
> not widely anticipated is expanded access to research journal content -
> now available fro
> On Thu Dec 12, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
> Andrew,
> thanks, I'd forgotten about your article; it does have some useful
> numbers (though 8 years old - in particular, Phys Rev B's numbers have
> changed somewhat, and the profit you mentioned was quite atypical for
> us...).
> On Thu Dec 12, Arthur P. Smith wrote:
> By the way, Tim O'Reilly (of O'Reilly software book publishing fame) has
> an interesting article up on very related issues in the book publishing
> business (and music publishing, movies, and other forms):
>http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/
Arthur Smith said:
> Uh, your math is way off there. The total would be $1 billion ($1000
> million for clarity). And your $500 is after a factor-of-three
> improvement in costs that isn't exactly available as yet
In a review study I did earlier this year (Learned Publishing, vol 15, no.
4, pp. 2
on 11 Dec 2002 Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
> There is also data showing that publication expenses have gone
> down as a fraction of total R&D expenditures. (One can look
> at the ARL statistics, for example, and compare them to the
> figures compiled by NSF for total federal research funding, say,
> b
At 02:08 PM 12/16/2002 +, you wrote:
Arthur Smith said:
> Uh, your math is way off there. The total would be $1 billion ($1000
> million for clarity). And your $500 is after a factor-of-three
> improvement in costs that isn't exactly available as yet
In a review study I did earlier this yea
Apologies to Ginsparg and Harnad if I've taken their names in vain
in my classification system. But I think there really is a
sharp distinction between the systems II and III
which Harnad dismisses: under system II (Harnadian)
the literature is clearly always free to readers, because the
journal fu
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Arthur Smith wrote:
> The distinction is really one of responsibility. Under system III
> the author is responsible for the freely distributed version.
> Under system II, the journal or other authoritative source takes
> responsibility. Who do you trust more to get accurate in
There are two issues that I would like to see discussed.
The first concerns emended version of published works placed on web servers
by the authors. When we place research articles on my web site we almost
invariably supplement the original work. Additions have included color
versions of figures,
29 matches
Mail list logo
