---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:30:09 +0000

Not that I know of Jan. That is why I used the word "suggest". We do know
that academics did not want to pay more than $500 (but this dates back to
2005) and we know that getting funds is the biggest barrier to publishing in
an OA journal - if I correctly remember the SOAP survey. It would have been
good if some of the questions in that survey had been a little more
sophisticated.

It seems to me that the big problem is that most mandates are unfunded,
where funding can be built into the grant they do not cover most
publications post grant, and that, judging by presentations, we have
probably both heard funder who do provide funds for dissemination are not
going to follow the Wellcome model. Mark Thorley, who speaks for the UK
Research Councils, at the ALPSP Conference seemed to me to say that there
was no way in which they would follow the Wellcome model (which gives money
to publish in an OA journals well after the grant period has finished) and
that they relied on the "institutions" to chip in then.

At present I cannot see a way of funding which enables everyone to get funds
to publish. I have not seen a model. I know you have thought a lot about
these issues and I would be very pleased to learn what your thinking is.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
Sent: 19 November 2011 01:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model

From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:18:40 +0000

Any published research on that?

Jan Velterop

*******

From: "Anthony Watkinson" <[log in to unmask]>

On 18 Nov 2011, at 04:23, Anthony Watkinson wrote:

I suggest that most academics whether they prefer to
publish in open access journals or not would want the mixed economy that we
currently have.