[GOAL] Re: Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs

[Thomas Krichel]

  Heather Morrison writes

> Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs, not whether
> the content is available for free.

  Sure. 

> In April of last year Harvard sent a memo to faculty informing them
> that they cannot continue to afford high priced journals and asking
> them to consider costs when deciding where to publish. The memo can
> be found here:
> http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448

  I don't see incentives for academics to comply with such a request.

  It would be more effective for universities to set up black lists
  of journals not review for. Academics then would have a better
  excuse not to review for journals that are high-priced, ultimately
  putting pressure on the quality of these journals. 

> This is not an open access issue, rather another issue that needs to
> be addressed, and the drive for OA policy should not impede progress
> on necessary market corrections.

  I beg to differ. The same euro can only be spent once. It can 
  be spent to beef up the IR, or on subscriptions. 

> May I suggest that research funding agencies should look carefully
> at the publishing record of academics (past, future plans, editing
> etc.), and look at high-priced choices the way funding agencies and
> committees in my area would look at grant submissions including
> first-class airfares at many times the cost of available economy
> airfares?
  
  Again, you can surely suggest this but I don't see why funding
  agencies would have incentives to take up your suggestions.

-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel                  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
                                              skype:thomaskrichel