<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: OA Author&#8217;s Fund &#8212; 1% Solution, 99% Ideology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/06/26/u-calgary-library-offers-oa-authors-fund/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/06/26/u-calgary-library-offers-oa-authors-fund/</link>
	<description>What&#039;s Hot &#38; What&#039;s Cooking in Scholarly Publishing - from the Society for Scholarly Publishing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:24:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard Sever</title>
		<link>http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2008/06/26/u-calgary-library-offers-oa-authors-fund/#comment-502</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Sever</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:43:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scholarlykitchen.wordpress.com/?p=167#comment-502</guid>
		<description>A related consequence of OA is its potential to ‘plutocratize’ academia. 

OA favors cash-rich disciplines such as molecular biology (where grants are big), but not cash-poor disciplines such as math or the humanities (where grants are small or non-existent). Under subscription-based models, librarians can in theory offset the discrepancy by picking journals according to the perceived need for the title – essentially the system is meritocratic rather than plutocratic.

The OA solution to the problem is of course waivers. But while I’m sure biomedical funding bodies are happy to pay a bit extra in OA fees to subsidize the odd ecology article in PLoS Biology, I can’t see them happy to fund an entire history journal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A related consequence of OA is its potential to ‘plutocratize’ academia. </p>
<p>OA favors cash-rich disciplines such as molecular biology (where grants are big), but not cash-poor disciplines such as math or the humanities (where grants are small or non-existent). Under subscription-based models, librarians can in theory offset the discrepancy by picking journals according to the perceived need for the title – essentially the system is meritocratic rather than plutocratic.</p>
<p>The OA solution to the problem is of course waivers. But while I’m sure biomedical funding bodies are happy to pay a bit extra in OA fees to subsidize the odd ecology article in PLoS Biology, I can’t see them happy to fund an entire history journal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
