From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:53:18 +0100

A new Q&A in a series exploring the current state of Open Access has
been published. This one is with Sven Fund, CEO of Berlin-based
scholarly publisher De Gruyter. Fund is the first representative of a
traditional commercial publisher to take part in this series.

*Some excerpts from Sven Fund's answers*:

"I think it is obvious that publishers - much like anybody who has to
cover costs associated with a certain activity from revenues of that
activity and not from general funds - have to focus on Gold OA. In my
opinion, there is nothing bad about Green OA in general, it is just
not something that we can 'offer'. If institutions want to go ahead
here and fund this activity, it is not up to publishers to complain
how others spend their money.

"Regarding public policies, I do not see much of a difference. If
policymakers believe they have the right tools to publish, i.e. in
Green OA, that's their right. It is certainly not something that
publishers like, but I think that is obvious."
~~

"I do understand the concern about double-dipping. According to a
brief study I did for a German Research Foundation workshop earlier
this year among four publishers, the actual occurrence of
double-dipping in that sample was negligible. For our own portfolio,
it is not an issue at all, even though we have offered Hybrid OA for
all of our journals for years. Since we consider ourselves a service
institution for both researchers and librarians, I personally would
like to see more Hybrid OA."
~~

"I feel that academic institutions have to decide who will administer
their OA funds. Is it the library? Is it an office of communication or
another office?

Our preference is clear: It should be the library, since it is in many
cases the only institution on campus that can shift budgets from
subscriptions or purchases to OA funds. More importantly, it is the
only one that can do so without disrupting information supply to its
research community."
~~

"Are publishers' profits excessively high? Well, some are. But as we
do not judge any academic by the fraudulent behaviour some show, we
should not judge all publishers by the profits a few make. I feel that
De Gruyter's moderate profit secures it sustainability; it is not
excessive, and it is information which is completely transparent and
available to everyone."
~~

"I agree that it does not make a lot of sense to duplicate every
subscription-based journal with an OA one, and if Joe Esposito has
this in mind, I agree. That is the reason I would advocate Hybrid OA,
keeping in mind that we need to solve the myth of double-dipping. The
math seems easy: accept a low level of double-dipping versus funding
parallel systems."

The full Q&A can be read here:

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/de-gruyters-sven-fund-on-state-of-open.html