We will simply have to set up some kind of representation for the governance of the arXiv. Our university also was shut out of all decisions made to date – if we’re going to start contributing voluntarily, we want representation at the table. Does anyone know what the plans are?

Voluntary institutional sub-sidy/cription as a sustainable model, through all economic times, tough and tender??

Here’s an alternative model whose sustainablity is less founded on blind faith:

Institutions have many self-interested reasons for wanting to host, archive, manage, monitor, measure and showcase their own research article outputs. The annual scale of their own local article output is also manageable and sustainable at the institutional level, within its existing infrastructure:

Carr, L. The Value that Repositories Add http://repositoryman.blogspot.com/2008/11/value-that-repositories-add.html
Swan, A. The Business of Digital Repositories http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/14455/
Harnad, S. Institutional vs. Central Repositories http://bit.ly/62M14a

Hence what will happen is that instead of trying to sustain a central repository like Arxiv — most of whose costliness derives from the fact that it is a single direct locus of deposit and archiving from all institutions, worldwide — direct deposit and hosting will instead be offloaded onto the distributed network of institutional repositories, with Arxiv becoming merely another central harvester, providing global search services (sustainable if it provides functionality that can compete with other OAI services or Google Scholar).

But voluntary sub-sidy/cription will no doubt sustain things for a while. (Things do seem to catch on rather slowly in this domain…)

Stevan Harnad

Good point about its being Cornell’s phrase. I will ask them!

Jennifer

Perhaps there are political or legal implications with using terms like “non-profit foundation,” “charity,” or “tax deductible donation.”

Unless I’m mistaken, some states forbid their offices (which includes state libraries) from making charitable donations. Hence, language like “subscription-like” may be used to avoid these issues.

Perhaps folks at the Cornell Library would comment?

While I was not privy to internal discussion, it appears that only a short-term financial gap solution is offered and that the long-term vision is still lacking (or in the process of being developed).

The problem with asking for money first is that money is always tied with influence. The libraries and other contributors that subscribe/pledge annual funds will demand support, accountability and a seat around the table in determining the future of the arXiv.

Thus, it is important that the long-term goals of the arXiv are established first before money starts trading hands.

As to what business model I would propose? Personally, I value the independence of the arXiv and therefore would like to see it supported internally (i.e. within Cornell). That could mean reaching out from the library to the provost, dean of research, physics department, etc. Applying for grants to make substantial improvements and upgrades makes a lot of sense and does not require the ballooning of oversight and advisory boards.