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