From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:43:45 -0500 It would also have been a more sensible option if universities had supported their own publishing infrastructure more in the first place and not allowed commercial publishers to establish such a dominant position in STM journal publishing. In the immediate postwar years that was still a live option. Administrative myopia helped create the conditions that Kevin deplores. Sandy Thatcher > From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:11:35 +0000 > > So what is the current scenario? Major research university gives away > it intellectual property, to publishers, has to buy it back at very > high cost, then cuts faculty for lack of funding. What is ridiculous > is that anyone could seriously maintain that OA is not a more sensible > option. > > Kevin L. Smith, J.D. > Director of Scholarly Communication > Duke University > Perkins Library > Durham, NC 27708 > > > On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:04 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:12 -0700 >> >> It's really troubling to see all these discussions taking place as >> though the only thing that matters is short-term cost and revenue >> projections. Does everyone really think the world does not change >> from time to time? It is simply not in a research university's >> interest to support OA, green, gold, or any other flavor. Most >> research is produced at a small number of institutions; OA is in the >> interest of organizations (most colleges and universities, the >> corporate sector, and government and NGOs) that don't produce the > > > research. There is a total absence of strategic thinking here. > > > > So what's the scenario? Major research university X gives away its > > intellectual property and then cuts faculty for lack of funding. >> >> Ridiculous. >> >> Joe Esposito >> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]> >>> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 00:19:29 +0100 >>> >>> An interview with the Vice-Provost (Research) at University College >>> London, Professor David Price. >>> >>> Some quotes: >>> >>> "Economic modelling shows that, for research universities, the Green >>> route to OA is more cost effective than the Gold. Under Gold Research >>> Councils and Universities will have to find millions of pounds in >>> existing budgets to fund OA charges. That means that some things will >>> have to stop to make the necessary monies available." >>> >>> "The Finch recommendations are not good news for the Humanities, whose >>> unit of publication is characteristically the research monograph. Who >>> will publish Gold OA monographs, and who will pay for them?" >>> >>> "The result of the Finch recommendations would be to cripple >>> university systems with extra expense. Finch is certainly a cure to >>> the problem of access, but is it not a cure which is actually worse >>> than the disease?" >>> >>> "What Finch should have done is to model Green and Gold together, to >>> see which works out cheaper. A forthcoming report from the JISC's Open >>> Access Implementation Group on the impact of APC charges on >>> universities does this - and comes up with a different scenario to >>> Finch." >>> >>> David Price's message to UK Minister for Universities and Science >>> David Willetts: "Listen to UCL's response to Finch and carry on >>> talking to get the best transitional model from where we are now to a >>> fully OA world. The Finch recommendations are only part of the >>> answer." >>> >>> More here: >>> >>> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/finch-report-ucls-david-price-responds.html