 |
 |
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Barry Mahon <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I accept that OA should be an(other) option for scholarly publishing Green OA self-archiving of published research, and Green OA self-archiving mandates are not *publishing* options. They are *research access* options, for published research. > However, Monbiot's article illustrates that the tolled access model is alive and well. http://bit.ly/OAlephant Indeed it is. And that's fine. My point was that Green OA self-archiving and Green OA self-archiving mandates can and should proceed *in parallel* with the tolled access publishing model that is alive and well. And if and when Green OA were ever to make the tolled access publishing model unsustainable, it will, by the very same token, lower the costs of publishing and release the subscription funds to pay those lower costs. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/ But for now, tolled access is indeed alive and well, and paying in full for the costs of publishing. Meanwhile, Green OA self-archiving mandates can proceed apace, providing online access to the author's final refereed draft for those would-be users whose institutions cannot afford the access tolls. > I agree with Monbiot's views vis a vis Murdoch et al, but, as the recent financial crises has amply illustrated, we live in a capitalist dominated world. Has anyone said a word for or against capitalism here? The research community provides the research. The publishing community sells access to it. Green OA means the research community supplements the toll access with free online access. As long as the tolls keep covering the costs, that's all there is to it. And if and when tolls become unsustainable, publishers will downsize and convert to Gold OA publishing; and institutions will pay for it out of a portion of their windfall toll savings. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm > Worthy, community based, economic models don't mean much to the IMF/ECB et al......, I'm not sure that's altogether true -- but we were not talking about models. We were talking about research access, mandating Green OA, and the available contingencies if and when that ever makes subscriptions unsustainable. (For models, see the work of John Houghton, who estimates the benefit/cost ratio of Green OA at 40/1 for the UK -- http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/278/ ) > so, although the EU has made noises about OA, as the funder of much of Europe's research, they haven't committed themselves absolutely. That percentage commitment to mandating Green OA (20%) may grow. Stay tuned... > Remember, Elsevier and other big players are EU based businesses. Yes, but publishing is just a service industry for a much bigger business: Research and Development. And research is publicly funded for the purpose of the public benefits of research and development, not for the purpose of sustaining a service industry. The publishing industry will adapt to the needs of research, never fear. To try to make research adapt instead to the needs of the publishing industry is to to try to make the publishing tail wag the research dog: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/277-The-Publishing-Tail-Wagging-the-Research-Dog.htm Stevan Harnad EnablingOpenScholarship http://www.openscholarship.org