Stevan, I have a question that I'm sure you've covered this in a prior posting, but it would help to get the executive summary version of your answer. I hear you to be arguing:
1. 100% OA is desirable from society's perspective. 2. 100% OA also is in authors' and their employing institutions' self interest, respectively. 3. 100% OA does not require changes in business models or allocations of copyright. 4. Technological hurdles to 100% OA are trivial. 5. Therefore the only real obstacle to 100% OA (at least in STM literature) is authors' unwillingness to step over the trivial technological hurdle. My question to you as a scientist is why? What explains the failure of so many authors to act in their self interest? To put it another way, your consistent response to various posts is that they miss the point - the only thing that has to happen is to get scientists to use the rights they have under their copyright agreements to self-archive. If we all were to agree with you, what action(s) has/have to occur to bring about that change in behavior? One answer could be that institutions have to mandate self-archiving (and I know you have many posts along these lines), and the studies show that many scientists would welcome such a mandate. But that response actually indicates that scientists either (a) don't know that they already can self archive; or (b) don't think the benefits to them of self-archiving are worth the costs of doing it unless they're ordered to. If your answer is along one of these lines, what specific actions need to be taken - and by whom - to alter authors' understanding or cost-benefit calculation? Thanks, MC Michael W. Carroll Associate Professor of Law Villanova University School of Law 299 N. Spring Mill Road Villanova, PA 19085 610-519-7088 (voice) 610-519-5672 (fax) Research papers at http://ssrn.com/author=330326 See also www.creativecommons.org