In response to Tom Graham's discussion of issues, I do wonder whether it is
appropriate to consider payment-for-publication (as against
payment-for-reading) as just a  'Publication subvention' rather than an
active process of promotion of research results?

The process of research dissemination has always involved other channels of
communication other than journals - conferences, teaching, closed
circulation, etc. . All these cost money or effort. The network blurs these
traditional distinctions, and unbalances established economic models of
production and distribution. The researcher will therefore reconsider how to
achieve the greatest acceptance with a reasonable level of effort.

Second, to most researchers (at least the ones I talk to) the main objective
is to increase the reputation of themselves, their group, their institution
- even their funders. Few of them consider one article as some unit of
tradeable information - that view is more typical of journalists or market
analysts, and (rather differently) of librarians, used to acquiring not a
body of knowledge but just selected artefacts.

(Beware my generalisations! There will be many future patterns of trading
information - I assume we are discussing here the traditional content of
research journals. Articles that entertain, can be put to immediate
profitable use, or digest and add value to a mass of data - all these may
command high prices and will be bought on demand.)

If my assumptions are valid, then the researcher will seek out those
channels which direct his/her contribution (is 'article' the right word?) to
the target audience (what do you call people who interact with an electronic
object?) most effectively. Pointless to draw absolute lines now between
commercial/learned society/self-publishing: the goal will be to get proven
peer-group approval, good presentation, wide dissemination - and lots of
citations (before April 1). The organisation that will assist that process
will have its own costs.

Surely the contributors would pay for that? And would not their
universities, funding agencies, and others support it? Reputation is the
spur; promotion, more equipment, further grants are the rewards!

---

I suspect the 'cultural shift' against this model that Tom suggests  is more
in the minds of librarians. Researchers themselves have NOT (normally) had
to pay to read journal articles: but they have had to pay (in some way) for
their preparation, for conference presentations, for closed circulation or
departmental publication - and of course for the research itself. But one
can understand the apprehension of  SCONUL's  Advisory Committee on
Scholarly Communication at the prospect of 'free' scholarly publication... (!)

Peter

--
Peter Stone, 8 Priory Crescent, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 1HP,  UK
Tel/Fax +44 (0) 1273 475917       Email: [log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%