From: Stella Dutton <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:09:13 +0100 Jan is right that insisting on 'green' open access before 'gold' can be considered is at the very least like opening the parachute a split second before hitting the ground. The only thing I would add is that most publishers don't believe that they will be handed the parachute! The idea that gold can only be entertained after green has made subscriptions unsustainable is simply not practical . At what stage are subs considered unsustainable? Who makes that judgement? How many journals would wither away before the gold route would be allowed. Publishers simply cannot see the way through with a green only route. All the processes involved in vetting and disseminating research papers have costs associated with them which some way or other have to be picked up. Most publishers support the gold route because it allows them to transition in a planned and gradual way from one system where the reader picks up the cost to another system where the author does. Evolution rather than revolution tends to be less risky for all, and I'm talking about less risky for science here not just publishers. At the BMJ , we had an experiment for several years where our papers were entirely free, as another publisher said to me the 'nobody pays' business model. It was no surprise to me that our subs income fell significantly. Subsequently, we introduced access controls for our non research papers material and we have now introduced an author pays model for research papers. So, I feel that in a way we have sort of done the green only route, proved it didn't work and have now introduced gold. Stella Dutton Chief Executive Officer BMJ Publishing Group Limited BMA House Tavistock Square London WC1H 9JR