From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:24:30 -0400

OA journals and OA monographs fundamentally differ from each other. OA
journals are routinely (if stupidly) ranked with the help of the
infamous impact factor. Marketing fundamentally rests on touting the
IF of a journal (with all three meaningless decimals). No such ranking
system exists for monographs. Instead, a fuzzy reputational system
based on the name of the press prevails.

The person to query about all this is Eeclo Ferwerda who heads the
OAPEN Foundation. He certainly would have a lot of things to say about
marketing OA monographs. OHP, ANU Press in Australia, Athabasca U
Press in Canada are other presses that have valuable experience with
OA monographs. Apologies for other presses I am forgetting here, but
the NAP in the US should be queried as well.

Jean-Claude Guédon


Le mercredi 31 juillet 2013 à 17:26 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:12:51 +0100

The opinion in the world of journals is that an OA journal demands
just as much marketing and probably more marketing (as a new journal)
that one published under the traditional model.

Anthony


From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:26:23 -0500

> An interesting side
> question is whether an OA monograph requires marketing.  I'd argue it
> does--more cost--but perhaps others disagree.

I can tell you this much, Alex: in discussing this very question among
members of the search committee for the new director of the OA Amherst
College Press we reached a firm consensus that marketing is needed for
monographs published OA, but it will probably take different
forms--involving social media more, for example--than in the print
environment.

Sandy Thatcher