Re: Author Charges are not the only model for funding open access

["Heather Morrison" <hmorrison@ola.bc.ca>]

Fytton is absolutely correct that the costs of peer review need to be
covered.  Universities are already providing the labour required for both
peer review and editing, on a voluntary basis.  Another factor is tracking
the peer review process.  For those trying to set up open access, there is
free open source software to help with this, developed by the University
of British Columbia's Public Knowledge Project http://www.pkp.ubc.ca/

There are other types of information - such as government documents,
statistics, etc. - that are high quality and are often the best source of
data on a particular topic.  Everyone could benefit from these materials
being open access as well.

cheers,

Heather Morrison

liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu writes:
>I would be very pleased to learn of funding sources for Open Access
>alternative to author charges.
>
>However, there is widespread agreement among those contributing to the OA
>debate that the real costs associated with peer review need to be covered
>from a reliable funding source.  The examples given by Heather Morrison do
>not self-evidently include a peer reeview process.  Without that, no
>suggested scholarly communication system will enjoy credibility in the
>eyes of academia.
>
>Fytton Rowland, Loughborough University, UK.