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


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:28:49 +0100
>
> Whenever we get issues such as these, I immediately ask myself what
> the analogue situation was in the pre-open access journal world.
>
> As far as I recall, in those far-gone days we didn't talk about
> subscription journals, no author fees vs subscription journals, author
> fees and then further split the second into a rainbow of author fees
> (reprints), author fees (page charges), author fees (colour figure
> charges).  We just called them journals.
>
> So, I'm afraid I don't see any merit in reaching for the paint box and
> starting to come up with further divisions with OA.  Green and gold
> are sufficient (and even that simple distinction has caused
> confusion!).
>
> David Prosser