Hi Rick,
Let me try to be a little clearer. I’m one of the drafters of the statement under discussion, so I think my statements are reasonably authoritative on the subject. And I think the bulk of my response was pretty unequivocal - our goal is to promote, through
concerted and sustained action, and with clear purpose aligned with our public mission, a scholarly communications system for research publication that does not rely on toll access.
Any caveats around that statement were intended to discourage unproductive detours into niche areas and edge cases. I think the primary directionality should be pretty clear, as is its endorsement by UC’s key leadership committees.
As to what that system will look like, I imagine it will be diverse and continually evolving. APC models, community investment models, academy-controlled and supported infrastructure, the evolution of preprint and other forms of early dissemination to
accommodate new models of peer review and validation, will all be part of the mix. Which of those models will win out, and in which disciplines or communities, will involve a process of discovery and experimentation among all stakeholders. We’re all engaged
in a fascinating journey whose unfolding we have an opportunity to influence, but the ultimate shape of which will only be fully known in hindsight.
This doesn’t mean that our goals, or intended actions, should be interpreted as modest or moderate in any meaningful sense.