From: SANFORD G THATCHER <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 00:27:13 -0500

Surely the model that best fulfills the ideal of immediate, full, unrestricted
access is the endowment model that us used, for example, by the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This model can be used for any type of publication
in any field, and it has none of the limitations of Gold and Green and
Freemium.  Of course, the practical question is where does the money come from
to establish the endowment in the first place?  Universities have become
experts in the fund-raising that goes into building endowments, so they know
how to do it. Instead of endowing a coaching position at a university, why not
encourage an alumnus to endow a journal or a monograph series? At Penn State we
actually had an editor of one of our journals include an endowment for the
journal in his will. There are many ways this can be done.  It is the model I
have long argued is the best for OA overall.

Sandy Thatcher

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 09:58 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:21:37 -0500
>
>Why ask the final two questions? Let me reiterate that publishing is
>part of the research process, and the research process is very heavily
>subsidized. So why not subsidize scientific publishing as well? What
>is wrong with subsidies? I just cannot wrap my mind about this issue,
>simply because I do not see scientific publishing as a form of
>commerce starkly separated from the research process.
>
>I also do not see commerce as the paradigmatic foundation of human
>behaviour. Liberal economics and econometrics is not the science of
>all human and social sciences, and the very presence of
>"externalities" in economic models is the best form of support for my
>statement.
>
>The main advantage of freemium is that it diversifies revenue streams,
>and it frees the publishing platform from too heavy a dependence upon
>subsidies from one source. An equivalent strategy rests on a diversity
>of subsidy sources.
>
>The main disadvantages of the Freemium model have been well spelt out
>in an earlier message by Anthony Watkinson. It still creates barriers
>to re-use and re-mixing. It is better than nothing, but it is not the
>ideal solution. From my perspective, it is a transitional strategy at
>best.
>
>If the revenue issue is really what is central to some readers of this
>list, they should not forget to raise the same question with Open
>Edition (http://www.openedition.org). Both Open Edition and OECD raise
>the very interesting issue of what is a public platform for
>scientific/scholarly publishing.
>
>Jean--Claude Guidon