From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 07:05:14 +0000

Sue,

"Funders should pay publishers directly, . . ." ok, but what if they
choose not to? Our funders have decided that they will only contribute
10% of the cost of publishing and we have to find the rest from the
marketplace (and they intend to review this next year; I see no sign
of the 10% getting larger, I think we'll do well if we keep the status
quo.)

Toby

Toby Green
Head of Publishing
OECD


> On 5 Oct 2015, at 00:27, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Sue Gardner <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:40:29 +0000
>
> Ari,
>
> Thank you very much for your comments. I agree that the whole system
> needs to be reconsidered. The current system invites corruption and
> mediocrity and does not serve readers nor authors. The only entity
> that invariably does well in the current system is publishers.
>
> In lieu of rehashing my detailed thoughts on this the list, the
> synopsis is: readers and authors should not pay for content creation
> or access, funders (public and private) should pay publishers
> directly, and institutions and aggregators should be not-for-profit
> middlemen/providers. In this scenario, readers and authors pay
> indirectly in a distributed fashion by paying taxes and supporting
> businesses that pay the for-profit publishers. Publishers in this
> scenario are accountable directly to funders, and can not run away
> with profits to the same extent as they do currently. It's a closed
> loop.
>
> Libre vs. gratis is an entirely separate issue, and is just as
> salient, but does not advance the economic discussion directly.
>
> Sue Gardner
>
> Sue Ann Gardner, MLS
> Scholarly Communications Librarian
> Discovery and Resource Management
> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
> Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-4100 USA
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:40:22 -0700
>
> Let me humbly remark that Soviet model remunerated the authors while
> the gold OA initiated by Vitek Tracz robs them of money! Moreover, the
> latter model tilts balance toward mediocre papers whose authors are
> able to pay the "entrance" fees.
>
> But the most tricky word in all this discussion about OA is
> "customers". Who are they - those who need to read a host of newly
> published medical articles  immediately and free of charge?
>
> I suspect they are rich elderly folks who are seeking immediate cure
> for their life threatening diseases. They are the major beneficiaries
> of OA. It is for their health and sake OA came to destroy the
> traditional publishing routine. They need their doctors be able to
> access any innovation in the medical field.  They are not sure their
> doctors would be eager to pay to read the article. So they need them
> free. And immediately.
>
> The authors so far are the "martyrs" of OA. Before the OA era, the
> authors did not have a "privilege" of paying fees - the libraries of
> their institutions paid the price of being acquainted with the latest
> research via subscriptions.  Now, with gold OA model and a host of
> authors who subscribed to it, the libraries seem to have to pay less
> than earlier. But is it so?  The money to the libraries always came
> and come from the student fees. Do we see the tuition fees went down
> by at least one buck after introduction of OA?
>
> Asking all the questions in the last several years, I got a standard
> answer that the "gold OA" is "profanation" of a "true" OA, which is...
> "green OA". Let me again remark that the "green OA" is non-sense and
> no publisher will ever embrace it wholeheartedly. Those of them who
> halfheartedly did this (to avoid an outcry from the liberal vociferous
> university folks) smartly introduced a so-called "embargo period",
> which effectively kills the very idea of OA.
>
> Except for the negative sides of OA already mentioned here by others,
> I cannot see any positive result from OA. True, I am not sure that
> Vitek Trasz must be blamed for this outcome.
>
> Ari Belenkiy, PhD
>
> Vancouver BC