I think that this is a very good report, but I have one quibble. On page 8 it is suggested that open access journals (together with a number of other alternative distribution models):

often compete with traditional publishing functions...

Actually, peer-review open access journals provide all of the traditional publishing functions; they just change the access conditions. They may change the economic models, but some scholarly publishers see that as an opportunity to be grasped, rather than a threat and this is not acknowledged in the report.

David Prosser SPARC Europe

What an interesting paper!

Because of my political involvement my first reaction is to say that we need a Local and Central Government publishing in a digital age. version.

The huge difference (in local government as exemplified by London Borough of Hounslow) is that we have lost even the traces of a librarian, resource person (function) who filters what is available or assists in research. True there are very sophisticated organisations (government and otherwise) who do that on an interest group, regional and national basis for local government (and are freely available to members / officers (depending on category)) , but there is still a gap, especially of an awareness of the availability and (more importantly) uptake of information across the organisation.

The locus for such a resource function might be within the central and / or distributed Policy and Performance groups, or with Corporate Communications which by my book should be working very closely together in any case. It should also be working very closely with any communication design, printing and reproduction functions.

Otherwise there are many similarities in the two domains. There is a challenge to someone to work up a government version. My time is too full at present ...

Genevieve

Councillor Genevieve M Hibbs BS MPH PhD FCybS MBCS gm.hibbs@bcs.org

Attempts to download paper---"file cannot be found'

When the Royal Society published their first journal, it was to inform collaborating research colleagues. Today that context has radically changed in that much publication is critical to professional advancement (pub/perish) and the proliferation of journals with microspecialization has been generated, in part, to create such venues.

The advent of Google and other intelligent search engines allows scholars to find related materials regardless of where they are published and RSS feeds allow tracking unless the work is protected which is antithetical to scholarly publishing.

Today, scholars can seek knowledge within very narrow areas or, as some public intellectuals have done, broaden their reach across these quasi intellectual academic boundaries.

Today, the Internet offers a variety of "peer" type reviews done in the public eye and exposing both the author and the tradional review prcess, questioning the need for the rather parochial process of traditional journals and collegial review.

This report seems based on an attempt to preserve the domain of knowledge generation and distribution with in a traditional model, only slightly changed like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic

The new model will evolve regardless of the attempt to preserve a model that is based on a past that never was and a future that never will be.

tom abeles

1. What kind of protection do you consider antithetical to scholarly publishing -- any protection at all (such as copyright), or are you talking more specifically about subscription fees?
2. You say that the traditional publishing model is "based on a past that never was." Can you explain what you mean by that?

Rick Anderson