[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Revision to Physical Review B & OA or for-pay
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Revision to Physical Review B & OA or for-pay
- From: brs4@lehigh.edu
- Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:36:57 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Concerning the first point below about a central clearinghouse, whereby universities would give money to support OA journals to a clearinghouse that would then funnel them to those journal operations, is how to incentivize institutions to participate. It would not be of interest to a college or university from a game theory perspective to contribute to such an endeavor if it believed other (probably much larger universities with lots of money) would be the main contributors. This would be unfair to those large institutions, if indeed they played the game. The value on the other hand of the subscription overlay model (see my other liblicense-l message of today) is that it does incentivize institutions to participate, because they would be paying for enhancements. As mentioned in the website cited in the message, a strength of the subscription overlay model is that, if successful, it forces the prices of subscription to be low, since the amount that any institution would be willing to pay for enhanced access to the subscription overlay could not be excessive (lest institutions would be driven away from participating, and would just encourage their users to use the free access route to the same, albeit not enhanced, content). >From the webpage: ...There is a threshold of pricing for the subscription overlay, below which institutions will be willing to pay to see an organized table of contents (or access an aggregation service), and above which they will not. That threshold will be much lower than the current pricing of the big commercials. For the simple reason that people will not pay for really expensive "enhancements" if they can get to the material on a repository for free. Brian Simboli Quoting Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>: > Following are comments on two separate liblicense-l messages: > > Revision to Physical Review B - Brian Simboli's idea of a central > clearinghouse for funding for OA journals makes a lot of sense to me. > If there isn't a lot of coordination between universities and > institutions here yet, Brian, maybe it's because we need ideas like this > to coordinate around. > > On the topic Ann brought up of a vendor selling enhanced searching of > basically OA institutional repositories: as long as they are selling > access to value-added service, not the content per se, this makes > perfect sense to me. I don't see open access as being in opposition to > commercial opportunities at all; the two can coexist nicely. > > One thought on how some of the funding for open access could emerge from > this combined OA / paying for enhanced functionality: perhaps some of > the funding for open access could come from commercial operations which > are selling the value-add. How this would work is that the content > would be OA, except for commercial redistribution. Since the material > is OA, the contributions from those selling value-adds would need to be > quite modest. That is, one could sell enhancements to free material for > modest costs, but good luck with outrageous ones. Nevertheless, perhaps > OA could eventually be derived from multiple funding sources, this being > one. > > Comments anyone? > > a personal view by, > > Heather G. Morrison ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
- Prev by Date: Libraries, NIH, and open access
- Next by Date: The Infinite Library
- Previous by thread: Revision to Physical Review B & OA or for-pay
- Next by thread: Ann Okerson's message about IRs, and the role of consortia in publishing
- Index(es):