From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:44:41 -0500

On 2013-11-18, at 7:06 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Colin Steele <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:25:23 +0000

Stevan perhaps doesn't realise that the horse has bolted over the
alleged hurdles in some parts of the world. Open access monographs are
increasingly prevalent in a number of forms. Relatively few authors
get any or significant royalties in Australia from academic monographs
and publishing in open access or hybrid open access presses is
growing. The Australian Research Council also has included monographs
in its 2013 policy, although the implications of this will not be felt
until current research is completed around 2016 /2017.  Best Colin

Harnad replies:

No bolted horse. Book authors, just like journal article authors, have been
able to make their texts free online (OA) if they wished to ever since
the advent
of the online era.

It's just that most don't (mostly because they are afraid of their publishers:
afraid they won't get published if they do -- or that they may even be sued).

But whereas both book and article authors sometimes do it of their own
accord, it is true of all journal article authors, but not true of all book
authors (for a variety of reasons) that all of them want to make their
texts free online (OA).

That's why Green OA self-archiving mandates are needed: to embolden
authors to make their texts OA. All article authors welcome it and most will
comply willingly. But does anyone have the faintest idea of the statistics
for book authors?

Exceptions do not make a rule.

That said, an immediate-deposit mandate with a closed-access option
fits all (acadamic) authors, whether of articles or of books.

Stevan Harnad