From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:40:31 -0600

The reference to Congress should have made it clear that I was talking
about universities in the U.S., not elsewhere. I freely admit that OA
monograph publishing has progressed elsewhere (Australia, Canada, and
Europe) far more than in the U.S. and have said so many times.

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Kiley, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:22:52 +0000
>
> Sandy
>
> Supporters of OA, like the Wellcome Trust, do require monographs (and
> book chapters) that arise from our funding to be made OA.  See:
>
> [log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]
>
> In fact, today marks the publication of the first monograph to be
> published via this scheme. See:
> http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137377029
>
> (or if you prefer a Kindle version, go to:
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fungal-Disease-Britain-United-1850-2000-ebook/dp/B00FK4ZGWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384417116&sr=8-1&keywords=worboys
>
> The work is also freely available from PMC (Bookshelf) at:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK169213/
>
> We have also made funds available to support OA costs to researchers
> who make use of the Wellcome Library.  So, if you are a researcher and
> you make use of the Wellcome Library's resources, then we have a fund
> to cover these OA costs -- be they articles, chapters or whole
> monographs.  See:
>
> http://wellcomelibrary.org/about-us/projects/wellcome-library-open-access-fund/
>
> Regards
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:10:02 -0600
>
> Now this is a much more direct and honest answer. But I take it to be
> an admission that OA advocates have used the "availability to the
> general public" argument because it is politically helpful, not
> because it truly expresses the goal that they want to reach, which is
> cheaper, easier, and fuller access to all published scholarship.
>
> But cannot this same argument be made about the scholarship that is
> published in monographs? So, why do OA advocates not make the same
> claim about the public needing free access to the literature found in
> books? Stevan has in the past distinguished these partly because some
> authors receive royalty payments. But the amount of income here is so
> negligible in most cases as to be trivial, not significant enough to
> warrant making the sharp distinction between journal and book
> literature that now exists. University administrators are happy to
> endorse OA for journal articles, but I have yet to see one endorse it
> for monographs, let alone lobby for it in Congress.
>
> Sandy Thatcher