Print

Print



[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> this parasitism will ultimately destroy the current journal model (who is going subscribe to a journal when all its articles are available for free?).

This remains to be seen, and the same question has been asked of other models (technical reports, monographs) where free offerings have been beneficial, not parasitic. In the USA, the National Academies Press <http://www.nap.edu/> allows free online viewing of all content they publish (3000+ books); they have added download availability by chapter and whole work--some (hundreds) for a fee and some (hundreds) for free. Michael Jensen, Director of Publishing Technologies at that press, has made frequent mention that free offerings have helped, rather than hindered, their sales.

Daniel Cohen's and Roy Rosenzweig's book Digital History has been a top seller at U. Penn press, with sales apparently undiluted (and in fact, probably aided) by being freely available online <http://chnm.gmu.edu/digitalhistory/>.

I realize the apples:oranges problem in making a comparison between the above and the deposit of OA scientific pre-/postprints. I just use those examples to point out that there have been other concerns (for publishers) in the past as to the viability of paid/free hybrid models. The same editor who brought out Digital History (a good friend of mine) was quite worried, six or seven years ago, that he might be hearing the electronic death knell for his job. He has long since become more comfortable with emerging models.

Regards,
--Erik Moore

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Erik Moore
Librarian for the Integrated Library System
North Carolina State University Libraries
Campus Box 7111
Raleigh, NC 27695-7111
(919)515-9562	   FAX (919)513-3330
<[log in to unmask]>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%