RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...

["Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

The larger population does indeed need to be taxed in some way. 
I see no reason to put quotation marks around the word "taxed" 
when we are talking about literal instances of public policy. 
We don't say that a country needs to "defend" itself or that we 
want "safe streets."

Joe Esposito

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:16 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...

Uh, just who is this "larger population" supposed to be, and what will
motivate it to step forward and provide the necessary funds for this
"central approach"?

One lesson we have learned from over 100 years of university press
publishing is that the few supply the benefits for the many. Some 80
universities pay the costs of having university presses whose publications
benefit the entire scholarly community. The other 3,000+ institutions of
higher education all get a free ride.

What reason is there to believe that there will be more equitable
distribution of support for OA publishing than there has been for
traditional market-based publishing?

Maybe this "larger population" needs to be "taxed" in some way?

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press


>The best way to both remove any conflict of interest and develop a
>scalable peer review support infrastructure on a less expensive OA
>server platform is to have a central server for materials supported by
>a centralized payment scheme.  One collection agency (imagine something
>like SPARC, or SCOAP3 by
>discipline) could make direct payments to the hosting service (reducing
>the overhead now found in the multiple/redundant payments from each and
>every current subscription organization).
>How we efficiently funnel funds from a few big government revenue
>sources and endowments to this agent is a key question, but SCOAP3 is
>showing this approach might be viable. Remove author fees and use
>central revenue support, as the readers have a great deal to gain from
>the material and should share in the support costs.
>
>One central server (or a few mirrored servers for backup) removes the
>redundancy, extra effort and unnecessary duplication within an
>institutional server model.  This central approach is best for
>published material ... locally developed teaching and research material
>can still be housed on institutional servers if we can guarantee
>long-term support.
>
>(My belief is that discipline based servers have a better chance of
>long-term support as budgets get tight -- as there is more of a
>societal commitment to these collaborative approaches.)
>
>Peer review separated from payment by authors, subsidized by the larger
>population, and housed on the most economical platforms.
>Overlay is apparently a loaded term, so let's remove it from the
>conversation but keep the conversation on target to show that OA WITH
>PEER REVIEW servers will impact commercial journals.
>
>David