Re: Responses to Walt Crawford's reflections on FOS

From: Peter Suber <peters_at_EARLHAM.EDU>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:20:18 -0500

At 04:06 PM 10/7/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On the issue of spending and money it may be good to point out that even
>if exactly the same amount of money were to be spent on a reverse business
>model (pay for dissemination rather than for access) as is currently
>being spent on subscriptions and access licences in the conventional
>model, the benefits of a reverse model would easily be superior, as it
>would ensure full open access to anyone, anywhere, which the conventional
>model does not. The benefits would be greater for the Have-Nots than for
>the Harvards (to use Stevan Harnad's terminology), but even for the
>Harvards the benefits of open access are substantial.
>The fact that a reverse, open access, model doesn't have to cost nearly as
>much as the conventional model (for a start, all costs and efforts to keep
>users out could be scrapped), is a welcome side-effect to all but
>conventional publishers, but not the crux of the matter, at least not for
>scientists and scholars.
>Jan Velterop
>BioMed Central
>Open Access Publishing

Jan: Good point, well put. I made a similar point in my June piece for
BMC's _Journal of Biology_: "If these benefits [of open access] were
expensive to produce, they would nevertheless be worth paying for - but it
turns out that open access can cost much less than traditional forms of

      Best wishes,

Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374

Editor, Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
Editor, FOS News blog
Received on Tue Oct 08 2002 - 02:20:18 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:40 GMT