Delegates at the annual UK Serials Group conference, held this year at UMIST in Manchester, debated open access (OA) publishing in a lively conference session, which pitted OA publisher Public Library of Science against a sceptical small university publisher.

Several speakers at the event claimed that the OA model is economically weak, but is likely to act as a catalyst for the industry as a whole, driving traditional publishers to respond to changing market conditions.

"Remember, entire industries do die," cautioned Hugh Look of Rightscom.

"If the OA movement is sufficiently disruptive to the traditional journal publishing industry, the impact on libraries could be budget reductions and more emphasis on assisting access and less on process management."

Nick Twyman of Public Library of Science (PLoS) said there was nothing intrinsic in OA which changed the peer-review process, and that journals would continue to be judged by the quality of the literature they publish.

"The long-term goals of PLoS are economic sustainability and for OA to become the favoured mode of publishing, but not necessarily the only mode," he said.

Michael Held of Rockefeller University Press was sceptical. PLoS has not made its financial plan public, but in Held's view the model was not sustainable without philanthropic support.

"Philanthropy is like a snowstorm in March, hard to predict in its intensity, frequency or longevity," he commented.

Held was also concerned that government grants may be sensitive to changing political conditions, with a risk of unexpected cuts or increased government involvement.