From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:04:11 +0100


Have to say my Pay only for Usage model looks a lot better bet for
addressing the problems Harvard pinpoints than Open Access. It means
goodbye subscriptions (including absurdly priced ones), it reflects
the reality that since we can easily track usage down to article
levels there's no real case for not charging now on that basis,
charging by the volume on annual subscription was just the convenient
model for the age of print which has passed as far as the STM world is
concerned. And its a simple response to the problem. OA goes to huge
bother re-inventing the wheel, likely pitfalls include a world of
broken links for the future, amateurs finding out that publishing,
doing the job well, is not as easy as it looks, the potential
corrupting influence of authors-pays, just another budget pot for
rapacious publishers to exploit and so on and on. I've not been
offering this model for long but the interest has been quite high, a
number of institutions have signed up, including CSIRO, Purdue, Univ
Utah, among others. I'd be happy to hear from anyone who wants to know
more.
Bill Hughes
Multi-Science Publishing

----- Original Message ----- From: "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 2:56 AM
Subject: Harvard committee urges Open Access


From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:47:31 +0400

Hi All

There is a brief article in the Chronicle on Harvard urging Open Access at:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/saying-costly-subscriptions-cannot-be-sustained-harvard-library-committee-urges-open-access/42589?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Memo to traditional publishers from Bob: "...and admit that the waters
around you have grown."

Regards

Ken

Dr. Ken Masters
Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics
Medical Education Unit
College of Medicine & Health Sciences
Sultan Qaboos University
Sultanate of Oman
E-i-C: The Internet Journal of Medical Education