There are two ways to provide Open Access (OA) to peer-reviewed journal articles: (1) publishers make their version-of-record OA (“Gold OA”) and (2) authors make their peer-reviewed final drafts OA immediately upon acceptance for publication (“Green OA”).

Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open Access Publishing (“Gold OA”) are premature. Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of authors’ final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for publication) (“Green OA”). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a “no-fault basis,” with the author’s institution or funder paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality standards.

Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/

I am currently collecting research for a book that discusses such attributes on km champions, strategies etc. Perhaps as some point we can have a discussion on these. You can find my profile on Linked In. I see you are connected to Dave Gurteen (as most km people).

Good luck on your work in SA.

Best Regards,

Fred Vail

1. Knowledge Champions – responsible in facilitating CoP discussions and encouraging learning and knowledge sharing behaviours in a CoP
2. CoP Sponsor – Supports and provides resources for the CoP (is a manager within a business unit where the CoP resides. If it is a cross-functional CoP, one of the executive members of the department is nominated to be a CoP Sponsor)
3. CoP Administrator – captures discussions and makes logistical arrangements
4. CoP Marketing Officer – promotes and cerates awareness of the CoP activities
5 CoP Information Officer – conducts research and finds information for the CoP on a particular topic under discussion
6 CoP Advisor – is an external expert within a particular CoP domain or practice. Provides expert advice to the CoP

Over and above what the CoP Planning Committe does, the Knowledge and Information Management Capability is responsible for continous Capacity Development and Support in KIM and the Management of CoPs as well as monitoring and evaluating the performance and impact of CoP to the organisation. In addition, the maturity of CoPs is also assessed. Our CoP strategy not only promotes learning and sharing of knowledge but also focuses on driving Service Delivery Innovation thus improving Strategic and Operational effectiveness. As a result our CoP Planning Committee members have to possess certain qualities and characteristics to be able to run CoP activities effectively.

We are interested in learning from other organisations on the role of Knowledge Champions and the focus of their CoPs, and how CoPs contribute to the overall organisational strategic objectives.