From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:36:22 -0400

This would raise the overall costs, not lower them.  Instead of one
provider providing access over the cloud, you would have hundreds,
perhaps thousands of providers, all staffed with IT professionals, all
vying with one another for SEO and the introduction of new features.
But good luck.  I have no dog in this hunt.  Is it too much to ask,
though, that we look at how the economy actually works instead of how
we want it to work?

Joe Esposito


On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 2:10 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:26:46 +0100
>
> I have had an editorial published in ecancer journal with the above title.
>
> The final two paragraphs read:
>
> [W]hat if funders, governments and research institutions ceased
> providing money for researchers to pay to publish, and instead
> insisted that they continue publishing in subscription journals—but
> always self-archived their papers in OA repositories (green OA)? Would
> this not mean that publishers would have to compete with repositories
> in access provision? And would they not as a result lower their
> prices? And if they did, could we not hope to see both the
> accessibility and affordability problems resolved?
>
> Some will respond that in the wake of the pushback against the Finch
> Report, and the subsequent gold OA policy announced in 2013 by
> Research Councils UK, the trend now is in any case to introduce green
> OA mandates. But these mandates still sometimes expect researchers to
> prefer gold OA, and are usually accompanied by APC funds. Moreover,
> the requirements of a green OA mandate can in any case be met by
> paying to publish in a gold OA journal. For so long as funders offer
> to pay their APCs, therefore, most researchers will likely choose that
> option, if only because it is much easier.
>
> http://ecancer.org/journal/editorial/41-open-access-what-price-affordability.php
>
> Richard Poynder