From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:43:45 -0500
It would also have been a more sensible option if universities had
supported their own publishing infrastructure more in the first place
and not allowed commercial publishers to establish such a dominant
position in STM journal publishing. In the immediate postwar years
that was still a live option. Administrative myopia helped create the
conditions that Kevin deplores.
Sandy Thatcher
> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:11:35 +0000
>
> So what is the current scenario? Major research university gives away
> it intellectual property, to publishers, has to buy it back at very
> high cost, then cuts faculty for lack of funding. What is ridiculous
> is that anyone could seriously maintain that OA is not a more sensible
> option.
>
> Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
> Director of Scholarly Communication
> Duke University
> Perkins Library
> Durham, NC 27708
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:04 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:12 -0700
>>
>> It's really troubling to see all these discussions taking place as
>> though the only thing that matters is short-term cost and revenue
>> projections. Does everyone really think the world does not change
>> from time to time? It is simply not in a research university's
>> interest to support OA, green, gold, or any other flavor. Most
>> research is produced at a small number of institutions; OA is in the
>> interest of organizations (most colleges and universities, the
>> corporate sector, and government and NGOs) that don't produce the
>
> > research. There is a total absence of strategic thinking here.
> >
> > So what's the scenario? Major research university X gives away its
> > intellectual property and then cuts faculty for lack of funding.
>>
>> Ridiculous.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:19:29 +0100
>>>
>>> An interview with the Vice-Provost (Research) at University College
>>> London, Professor David Price.
>>>
>>> Some quotes:
>>>
>>> "Economic modelling shows that, for research universities, the Green
>>> route to OA is more cost effective than the Gold. Under Gold Research
>>> Councils and Universities will have to find millions of pounds in
>>> existing budgets to fund OA charges. That means that some things will
>>> have to stop to make the necessary monies available."
>>>
>>> "The Finch recommendations are not good news for the Humanities, whose
>>> unit of publication is characteristically the research monograph. Who
>>> will publish Gold OA monographs, and who will pay for them?"
>>>
>>> "The result of the Finch recommendations would be to cripple
>>> university systems with extra expense. Finch is certainly a cure to
>>> the problem of access, but is it not a cure which is actually worse
>>> than the disease?"
>>>
>>> "What Finch should have done is to model Green and Gold together, to
>>> see which works out cheaper. A forthcoming report from the JISC's Open
>>> Access Implementation Group on the impact of APC charges on
>>> universities does this - and comes up with a different scenario to
>>> Finch."
>>>
>>> David Price's message to UK Minister for Universities and Science
>>> David Willetts: "Listen to UCL's response to Finch and carry on
>>> talking to get the best transitional model from where we are now to a
>>> fully OA world. The Finch recommendations are only part of the
>>> answer."
>>>
>>> More here:
>>>
>>> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/finch-report-ucls-david-price-responds.html
|
