From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2015 19:08:37 -0400 What about all the publishers that don't make money at all with their publications? How do they fit into this? Joe Esposito On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 4:18 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Sue Gardner <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:40:29 +0000 > > Ari, > > Thank you very much for your comments. I agree that the whole system > needs to be reconsidered. The current system invites corruption and > mediocrity and does not serve readers nor authors. The only entity > that invariably does well in the current system is publishers. > > In lieu of rehashing my detailed thoughts on this the list, the > synopsis is: readers and authors should not pay for content creation > or access, funders (public and private) should pay publishers > directly, and institutions and aggregators should be not-for-profit > middlemen/providers. In this scenario, readers and authors pay > indirectly in a distributed fashion by paying taxes and supporting > businesses that pay the for-profit publishers. Publishers in this > scenario are accountable directly to funders, and can not run away > with profits to the same extent as they do currently. It's a closed > loop. > > Libre vs. gratis is an entirely separate issue, and is just as > salient, but does not advance the economic discussion directly. > > Sue Gardner > > Sue Ann Gardner, MLS > Scholarly Communications Librarian > Discovery and Resource Management > University of Nebraska-Lincoln > Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-4100 USA > [log in to unmask] > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:40:22 -0700 > > Let me humbly remark that Soviet model remunerated the authors while > the gold OA initiated by Vitek Tracz robs them of money! Moreover, the > latter model tilts balance toward mediocre papers whose authors are > able to pay the "entrance" fees. > > But the most tricky word in all this discussion about OA is > "customers". Who are they - those who need to read a host of newly > published medical articles immediately and free of charge? > > I suspect they are rich elderly folks who are seeking immediate cure > for their life threatening diseases. They are the major beneficiaries > of OA. It is for their health and sake OA came to destroy the > traditional publishing routine. They need their doctors be able to > access any innovation in the medical field. They are not sure their > doctors would be eager to pay to read the article. So they need them > free. And immediately. > > The authors so far are the "martyrs" of OA. Before the OA era, the > authors did not have a "privilege" of paying fees - the libraries of > their institutions paid the price of being acquainted with the latest > research via subscriptions. Now, with gold OA model and a host of > authors who subscribed to it, the libraries seem to have to pay less > than earlier. But is it so? The money to the libraries always came > and come from the student fees. Do we see the tuition fees went down > by at least one buck after introduction of OA? > > Asking all the questions in the last several years, I got a standard > answer that the "gold OA" is "profanation" of a "true" OA, which is... > "green OA". Let me again remark that the "green OA" is non-sense and > no publisher will ever embrace it wholeheartedly. Those of them who > halfheartedly did this (to avoid an outcry from the liberal vociferous > university folks) smartly introduced a so-called "embargo period", > which effectively kills the very idea of OA. > > Except for the negative sides of OA already mentioned here by others, > I cannot see any positive result from OA. True, I am not sure that > Vitek Trasz must be blamed for this outcome. > > Ari Belenkiy, PhD