From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 20:40:31 -0600 The reference to Congress should have made it clear that I was talking about universities in the U.S., not elsewhere. I freely admit that OA monograph publishing has progressed elsewhere (Australia, Canada, and Europe) far more than in the U.S. and have said so many times. Sandy Thatcher > From: "Kiley, Robert" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:22:52 +0000 > > Sandy > > Supporters of OA, like the Wellcome Trust, do require monographs (and > book chapters) that arise from our funding to be made OA. See: > > http:[log in to unmask] > > In fact, today marks the publication of the first monograph to be > published via this scheme. See: > http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.1057/9781137377029 > > (or if you prefer a Kindle version, go to: > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fungal-Disease-Britain-United-1850-2000-ebook/dp/B00FK4ZGWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1384417116&sr=8-1&keywords=worboys > > The work is also freely available from PMC (Bookshelf) at: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK169213/ > > We have also made funds available to support OA costs to researchers > who make use of the Wellcome Library. So, if you are a researcher and > you make use of the Wellcome Library's resources, then we have a fund > to cover these OA costs -- be they articles, chapters or whole > monographs. See: > > http://wellcomelibrary.org/about-us/projects/wellcome-library-open-access-fund/ > > Regards > Robert > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:10:02 -0600 > > Now this is a much more direct and honest answer. But I take it to be > an admission that OA advocates have used the "availability to the > general public" argument because it is politically helpful, not > because it truly expresses the goal that they want to reach, which is > cheaper, easier, and fuller access to all published scholarship. > > But cannot this same argument be made about the scholarship that is > published in monographs? So, why do OA advocates not make the same > claim about the public needing free access to the literature found in > books? Stevan has in the past distinguished these partly because some > authors receive royalty payments. But the amount of income here is so > negligible in most cases as to be trivial, not significant enough to > warrant making the sharp distinction between journal and book > literature that now exists. University administrators are happy to > endorse OA for journal articles, but I have yet to see one endorse it > for monographs, let alone lobby for it in Congress. > > Sandy Thatcher