From: "Kiley, Robert" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:22:52 +0000

Sandy

Supporters of OA, like the Wellcome Trust, do require monographs (and
book chapters) that arise from our funding to be made OA.  See:

[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]

In fact, today marks the publication of the first monograph to be
published via this scheme. See:
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137377029

(or if you prefer a Kindle version, go to:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fungal-Disease-Britain-United-1850-2000-ebook/dp/B00FK4ZGWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384417116&sr=8-1&keywords=worboys
.

The work is also freely available from PMC (Bookshelf) at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK169213/

We have also made funds available to support OA costs to researchers
who make use of the Wellcome Library.  So, if you are a researcher and
you make use of the Wellcome Library's resources, then we have a fund
to cover these OA costs -- be they articles, chapters or whole
monographs.  See:

http://wellcomelibrary.org/about-us/projects/wellcome-library-open-access-fund/

Regards
Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
Sent: 13 November 2013 23:35
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rueful essay on OA in UK

From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:10:02 -0600

Now this is a much more direct and honest answer. But I take it to be
an admission that OA advocates have used the "availability to the
general public" argument because it is politically helpful, not
because it truly expresses the goal that they want to reach, which is
cheaper, easier, and fuller access to all published scholarship.

But cannot this same argument be made about the scholarship that is
published in monographs? So, why do OA advocates not make the same
claim about the public needing free access to the literature found in
books? Stevan has in the past distinguished these partly because some
authors receive royalty payments. But the amount of income here is so
negligible in most cases as to be trivial, not significant enough to
warrant making the sharp distinction between journal and book
literature that now exists. University administrators are happy to
endorse OA for journal articles, but I have yet to see one endorse it
for monographs, let alone lobby for it in Congress.

Sandy Thatcher