From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:11:59 -0400

I did understand you, David.  And, yes, people disagree.  While the
"rainbow of colors" for OA is silly--the important question is who is
footing the bill--there are important differences between OA regimes
where there is an embargo, where there is no embargo, whether the
material can be commercialized for third parties, etc.  For example,
take a look at what has been made public about PeerJ.  It's clear that
PeerJ has a complex model, which is hard to understand if it is simply
thought of as OA.

Joe Esposito


On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 7:32 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:20:52 +0100
>
> I'm afraid that Joe has rather missed the point.  Of course all
> businesses need to look at their revenues streams.  And of course,
> although this point is sometimes ignored, most 'subscription' journals
> have existed on a mixture of revenue streams for many, many decades
> (albeit with subscriptions often being the major revenue component).
>
> The question is not whether publishers need to look at granularity
> when writing their business plans - of course they do.  It was whether
> or not when talking about different types of OA we need a rainbow of
> colours to describe the different business models.  I think no, others
> disagree.
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2013, at 01:04, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:44:57 -0400
>
> I don't know what your business experience is, David, but the first
> step in analyzing any publishing business, journals included,is to
> parse all the revenue streams. No one publishes journals--no one has
> ever published journals.  Publishers invest in IP and then find the
> best way to exploit that IP.  Successful publishers find multiple ways
> to exploit that IP.  A journal is a manifestation of that underlying
> IP.
>
> Concerning a taxonomy for OA, I have no dog in the hunt.  But if you
> say that the granularity of the analysis for traditional materials is
> unnecessary, you will be missing out on the nature of the enterprise,
> and leaving money on the table to boot.
>
> Joe Esposito