From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:24:30 -0400 OA journals and OA monographs fundamentally differ from each other. OA journals are routinely (if stupidly) ranked with the help of the infamous impact factor. Marketing fundamentally rests on touting the IF of a journal (with all three meaningless decimals). No such ranking system exists for monographs. Instead, a fuzzy reputational system based on the name of the press prevails. The person to query about all this is Eeclo Ferwerda who heads the OAPEN Foundation. He certainly would have a lot of things to say about marketing OA monographs. OHP, ANU Press in Australia, Athabasca U Press in Canada are other presses that have valuable experience with OA monographs. Apologies for other presses I am forgetting here, but the NAP in the US should be queried as well. Jean-Claude Guédon Le mercredi 31 juillet 2013 à 17:26 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit : From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 12:12:51 +0100 The opinion in the world of journals is that an OA journal demands just as much marketing and probably more marketing (as a new journal) that one published under the traditional model. Anthony From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:26:23 -0500 > An interesting side > question is whether an OA monograph requires marketing. I'd argue it > does--more cost--but perhaps others disagree. I can tell you this much, Alex: in discussing this very question among members of the search committee for the new director of the OA Amherst College Press we reached a firm consensus that marketing is needed for monographs published OA, but it will probably take different forms--involving social media more, for example--than in the print environment. Sandy Thatcher