Random thought
Unlike many open-access advocates, I admit openly to being anti-for-profit-journal-publisher. I worked for a service bureau. I saw those folks at their stupidest and worst. I want no part of ’em. Don’t trust ’em. I’m glad when they do the right thing, because I’m glad when anybody does the right thing, but if what I do hurts ’em, there will be no crocodile tears from me on their account.
(If their loss does cause material harm to scholarly communication, I will absolutely dedicate myself to fixing the harm. I’m highly doubtful any such harm will materialize, however, just as I’m highly doubtful we’re going to rid ourselves completely of for-profit journal publishers.)
It blows my mind when Harnad et alia want to trust them with long-term e-journal archival. I just cannot fathom it. I got into the business I’m in because publishers didn’t understand or value production of decently durable electronic materials. I know they don’t understand preservation (print or electronic). Why should they? It’s never been a part of their business.
But I have an idea. If the repository I run has to go through NARA/RLG certification to be a trusted digital repository, why shouldn’t publishers who want their electronic archives to be the e-copy of record have to do that, too? Libraries can write that into their contracts: “get NARA/RLG certified, participate in LOCKSS or Portico, and/or give us copies of the bits.”
If we’re to trust them with the scholarly record, they’re going to have to prove they’re trustworthy. Libraries can relax, responsible publishers can show they’re responsible, steps can be taken to cover for the irresponsible ones. Everybody wins except the slackers. I like that.