<div dir="ltr"><div style>This responds partly to Professor<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> Hurtado's contribution.</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">All Australian university presses are subsidised by their parent university. Some traditional university presses use that subsidy to maintain their press much as it was before electronic publishing. </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Other Australian university presses publish scholarly monographs in 2 forms, as ebooks and as print on demand. Both formats are edited, designed and promoted and presumably share these costs. These presses give away their ebook editions but charge for their print on demand editions and report that there remains enough demand for print on demand editions to at least cover their costs. So these ebooks' </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">editing and other production services including promotion are paid for by presumably modest cross subsidies from print on demand revenue and more substantial subsidies from their university.</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">This seems to me to be a useful model as long as epresses are able to demonstrate the rigour of their commissioning, refereeing and editing. However, there remains a divide between Australian traditional and electronic university presses. Furthermore, many monograph authors have reservations similar to </span>Professor<span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"> Hurtado's. </span></div>
<div style><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">So many Australian advocates for green open access for journal articles believe that any form of open access mandate for monographs would be premature. As Professor Harnad argues, we prefer to concentrate on the more straightforward case for articles at this stage. If in the meantime some progress can be made on monographs, good. Otherwise a successful green mandate for articles would be a good example but not necessarily model for monographs.</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">Gavin</span></div><br clear="all"><div><div>Gavin Moodie</div><div>
Governance and Planning</div><div>RMIT</div><div>GPO box 2476</div><div>Melbourne 3001</div><div>Tel + 61 3 9925 2061</div><div>Fax + 61 3 9925 3185</div><div><a href="mailto:gavin.moodie@rmit.edu.au" target="_blank">gavin.moodie@rmit.edu.au</a> </div>
<div><a href="http://rmit.academia.edu/GavinMoodie" target="_blank">http://rmit.academia.edu/GavinMoodie</a> </div></div>
</div>