CERN may be able to talk this "consortium" of 800-1200 instutions per journal into a BioMedCentral-style "membership" agreement, but the question then is whether it will last, or scale. There is a huge speculative element in ...

(10) Hence negotiating Gold OA on the "Big Deal" license model is incoherent and is neither scaleable nor sustainable: It means locking in everything that is co-bundled with a subscription today, at today's prices, and treating that as ... precisely
what this sort of "membership Big Deal" is not doing, as you will quickly see if you just try to scale it up in your mind, across journals, publishers and time: The "market relationship" is at the level of an individual outgoing article, ...

If publishers convert from institutional subscriptions to institutional Gold OA "memberships" today, they counter the opprobrium and lock in current subscription rates for a year (or whatever duration-deal is agreed with institutions), but .... I can't
second-guess the outcome of this prisoner's dilemma concerning voluntary publisher conversion to Gold OA, but I can already say confidently that the current option of hybrid Gold OA won't scale, because there isn't the extra ...

SUMMARY: Trying to morph incoming institutional non-OA journal-fleet subscriptions into outgoing institutional Gold OA journal-fleet "memberships" is incoherent and cannot scale across journals and institutions; alongside ...

The Rowsean "flip" model is globally incoherent and unscalable. SCOAP3 consortial sponsorship/membership is not only based on an arbitrarily inflated asking price today, with inessentials (like the paper edition or the ...

Or is this "membership" to be based on one global (and oligopolistic) "mega-deal" between a mega-consortium of publishers and a mega-consortium of institutions? ... Unlike today -- when paid Gold OA is at best a useful proof-of-principle that
publishing can be sustained without subscriptions and at worst a waste of scarce cash based on a premature and incoherent hope of morphing directly into universal Gold OA -- after universal Green OA each institution will have ...

(1) "[T]he University's Supporter Membership with BioMed Central" is an incoherent (and self-serving) subscription-like notion that (if anyone gives it just a moment's careful thought) cannot scale to the day when many, most or ...

OA McMemberships, Dismemberment and MC Escher. Gold OA institutional "membership" is incoherent and does not scale. It only gives the illusion of making sense if you think of it locally, and myopically. Annual institutional ...

(Yes, the AUTHOR-NAME, and the AUTHOR-INSTITUTION metadata-tags may be useful sometimes too, but those cases do not, as they say, "scale" -- otherwise style="font-style: italic;">self-certification would have replaced peer review long ago
. COMMENT-tags would be .... The ability to gauge a faculty member's publishing performance on qualitative rather than quantitative terms should benefit both faculty and their host institutions." All true, but strategically, it is ...

Lynch: "Again, this connects to the theme of the overall integrity of the scholarly record, and our need to be able to manage this record at scale." The scholarly record will now be distributed across a worldwide network of ... Scholarly Societies
simply risk baring their blatant conflict of interest with their own membership (researchers) if they venture to oppose mandating Green OA. Lynch: "their journals typically are viewed as offering high quality at reasonable cost, and ...

[Even straightforward hypothetical answers to straightforward hypothetical questions may not have any predictive value if the hypotheses are far-fetched or unfamiliar enough, if they have hidden or incoherent assumptions: I frankly don't .....
quality, subject-matter and usage-needs of institutional users, that there is only enough money to afford one of them, and that they differ in that one is subscription-based and the other is based on institutional "membership" fees (for ...