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

["Fytton Rowland" <J.F.Rowland@lboro.ac.uk>]

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.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heather Morrison" <hmorrison@ola.bc.ca>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:19 AM
Subject: Author Charges are not the only model for funding open access

> There has been much discussion of late regarding the author charge system
> for funding open access.
>
> While this model is definitely showing significant indications of likely
> success in some areas, particularly in sciences and medicine, it is
> important to remember that there are other potential ways to fund openly
> accessible publications.  It is likely that different disciplines, types
> of groups, etc., will find different means to achieve the same end.
>
> One other approach to open access is for organizations to publish the work
> of their own employees, members, etc.
>
> A university could publish the work of its own faculty, staff, and
> students.  A government department could publish the work of its own
> employees or consultants.  A society or association could publish the work
> of its own members.  Many organizations are already doing this, for some
> if not yet all of their information.
>
> The organization I work for basically operates on an open access basis,
> with virtually all of our documents posted on our public web site.  In my
> opinion, it is much more cost-effective to operate in this manner than it
> is to run a more closed communications system.  For example, our quarterly
> newsletter is published as a pdf file on our web site, as many
> organizations do nowadays.  Adding an authentication system, maintaining a
> subscriber list, and/or printing and distributing the newsletter would add
> a very great deal to the work of producing the newsletter, and hence its
> cost.
>
> This is not to say that author charges or organizational publishing are
> the only methods of funding open access; there are other possibilities
> too.  Let's just keep in mind that whether author charges are the best
> economic model in a particular circumstance and whether open access is
> economically feasible are two separate issues.
>
> a personal view by,
>
> Heather G. Morrison
> Email:  hmorrison@ola.bc.ca