From: Stella Dutton <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:09:13 +0100

Jan is right  that insisting on 'green' open access before 'gold' can
be considered is at the very least like opening the parachute a split
second before hitting the ground.  The only thing I would add is that
most publishers don't believe that they will be handed the  parachute!

The idea that gold can only be entertained after green has made
subscriptions unsustainable is simply not practical .   At what stage
are subs considered unsustainable?  Who makes that judgement? How many
journals would wither away before the gold route would be allowed.

Publishers simply cannot see the way through with a green only route.
All the processes involved in vetting and disseminating research
papers have costs associated with them which some way or other have to
be picked up.  Most publishers support the gold route because it
allows them to transition in a planned and gradual way from one system
where the reader picks up the cost to another system where the author
does.  Evolution rather than revolution tends to be less risky for
all, and I'm talking about less risky for science here not just
publishers.  At the BMJ , we had an experiment for several years where
our papers were entirely free, as another publisher said to me the
'nobody pays' business model.  It was no surprise to me that our subs
income fell significantly. Subsequently, we introduced access controls
for our non research papers material and we have now introduced an
author pays model for research papers.  So, I feel that in a way we
have sort of done the green only route, proved it didn't work and have
now introduced gold.

Stella Dutton
Chief Executive Officer
BMJ Publishing Group Limited
BMA House
Tavistock Square
London  WC1H 9JR