<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 Rick Anderson <<a href="mailto:rick.anderson@utah.edu">rick.anderson@utah.edu</a>> wrote:<div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div class="gmail_extra" style><div class="gmail_quote" style><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><b>RA: </b>With all the subscriptions cancelled, how will publishers continue to provide the services on which the Green OA model depends for its viability?</blockquote>
</blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><b>SH: </b>By downsizing to just the provision of peer review, paid for per round of refereeing. If not, their titles, ed-boards, authorships and readerships will simply migrate to other, Fair-Gold publishers, who will.</blockquote>
<br><b>RA:</b> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><b>[1] </b>I'm not sure there's any reason to believe that a critical mass of authors wants things to go in this direction, and I'm quite certain that publishers don't want it to happen. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<b>[2]</b> Do you anticipate that funder mandates will grow in pervasiveness and coerciveness to such a point that they force it? </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><b>[3]</b> Do you expect institutional OA policies eventually to morph from the "non-mandatory mandates" that are prevalent today into effectively mandatory ones? And if so, on what basis do you expect those things to happen?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div style>1. Yes, I believe that effectively mandated Green OA, once it becomes universal, will eventually make subscriptions unsustainable, and that publishing will adapt to that new reality. (What authors and users and institutions and funders and tax-payers want is OA. Mandating Green OA will provide it. The premise that all subscriptions will be cancelled was yours, in your query above: You asked what would happen next.) </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>2. Yes, I anticipate that funder mandates will grow in pervasiveness and effectiveness to such a point that they make Green OA universal, and that that in turn will make subscriptions unsustainable, forcing publishers to downsize and convert to Fair Gold.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>3. Yes, I expect institutional (and funder) OA policies to morph into effectively mandatory ones -- in particular, the Liège/HEFCE model immediate-deposit mandate, in which repository deposit immediately upon acceptance for publication is mandatory, whether or not access to the immediate-deposit is made immediately OA. This renders publisher OA embargoes moot. Repository deposit is designated as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for research performance assessment. Deposit and timing can be effectively monitored by institutions. And the repository's facilitated email-eprint-request Button allows individual users to request and authors to provide a copy of embargoed deposits for research purposes with one click each.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div></div></div>