From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2012 17:35:07 -0700
Superior technology would be a good reason. An extension of superior
technology would be features that enable greater discovery online. I
am not suggesting that any organization has such technology in place
today, but an organization that did would have a compelling sales
pitch. As the ecosystem migrates increasingly (but not exclusively)
to the author-pays OA model, the pressure on technology will grow.
This means the argument that some make for OA ("look how inexpensive
it is!") will become weaker.
Joe Esposito
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 22:28:08 -0500
>
> What could possibly motivate a society publisher to outsource its
> journals to a commercial publisher using an OA model? The society
> needs no extra prestige beyond what it as a society already has. Under
> an OA model it would have some responsibility for raising money to
> make the OA model work. It would have no financial return from the
> commercial publisher to help support its other activities. Am I
> missing something?
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>
> At 6:41 PM -0400 5/2/12, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> > From: Chris Beckett - Personal capacity <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 03:13:05 -0500
> >
> > Doesn't Fred's argument presuppose that outsourcing to a commercial
> > publisher, by definition, requires adoption of a subscription model. I
> > am not sure that this is the case.
> >
> > With increasing numbers of commercial publishers offering an Open
> > Access publishing model, surely to suggest it does is to conflate two
> > issues, namely the legal status of the publisher and the business
> > models by which it delivers content.
> >
> > If for instance a society publisher outsourced to BioMedCentral or
> > Hindawi, to name just two of the increasing number of commercial Open
> > Access publishers, they would be outsourcing to a commercial publisher
> > whose products and services are all OA based as far as I am aware,
> > i.e. are free at the point of use and don't charge subscriptions.
> >
> > Conversely, if they outsourced to OUP or CUP on a conventional basis,
> > they would be outsourcing to a not-for-profit publisher whose product,
> > in this example, would be subscription based.
> >
> > I think there are two separate questions here.
> >
> > Firstly does a society think it can make more money, reach more
> > readers, get better citations, or whatever - essentially "publish
> > better" by undertaking the operation of publishing itself, or by
> > outsourcing to another publishing organisation? (Which of these
> > metrics or combination of metrics are most relevant to the society
> > will presumably vary according to its specific mission and the goals
> > for the journal(s) concerned).
> >
> > Secondly, when a decision has been made to outsource, what business
> > model is most appropriate for the society concerned (given its goals
> > for the journal and overall mission): Subscription based, Open Access,
> > hybrid, advertising based or some other model that has yet to be
> > invented.
> >
> > As long as the society's goals are met in respect of the second
> > question surely the organisation selected might be a for-profit (such
> > as Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor and Francis, BMC, Hindawi, Springer, and
> > many others,) entity offering some or all of the business models
> > mentioned or it may be a not-for-profit publisher such as OUP, CUP,
> > or other society publisher.
> >
> > I am not sure conflating the business model question with the legal
> > status of the publisher (essentially whether or not it pays tax on its
> > surplus or profit) is entirely helpful.
> >
> > What have I missed?
> >
> > Chris Beckett
|
