1. Chapter 3: Implementing Open Access Models
第三章 開放近用模式的應用
Financing Open Access Models / Stefan Gradmann, Department of Library and Information Science,
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
開放近用模式的財務 / 斯蒂文·柯萊恩, 柏林洪堡大學圖書資訊學系
From the outset, one of the most controversial issues surrounding Open Access has been the financing
of Open Access models, or indeed the question of whether they can be financed at all. This question
was also one of the original motivations for Open Access as a possible answer to the general problem
of the affordability of academic publication routes. In the beginning, this complex subject was
discussed in a very one-dimensional fashion, focusing on the paradigm of what is frequently referred to
as the ‘serials crisis’. In the meantime, however, the multifarious aspects of the problem have become
apparent, and it has become clear that their treatment must not stop at the frontline question of how the
publication of journals should be financed. In this context, it is also important to consider what services
Open Access stands for within the academic value-creation chain, and who is ultimately to pay for
them. Finally, with regard to the question of finance, the fact that the publication economics of the
various academic cultures are just as fundamentally different as their forms of publication must be
taken into account.
從一開始, 開放近用模式的財務就是爭議最多的問題，或者換個角度問, 開放近用有自己的財務
規畫嗎? 這個問題也是產生開放近用的原始動機之一，用以解決學術出版路徑的可承受性。剛
開始時，這個複雜的主題侷限在'連續性出版品危機'的典範; 同時, 浮現出各種觀點, 很明顯地, 不
能把這個問題侷限在出版學刊的財務上。考量開放近用的學術在加值鏈上的服務後, 受益者付
費, 就是應該的事。最後，從財務的角度來看, 學術文化裡的出版經濟學, 其多樣化的程度等同於
出版品形式的多樣化。
The traditional ‘Closed Access’ finance model• ••••
傳統的'封閉近用'財務模式
For a long time, the dominant model of publishing scientific and scholarly articles in academic journals
was based on a chain of production and exploitation in which, as a rule, academics drawing their
salaries from public funds transferred the exclusive exploitation rights of their articles to publishers.
The publisher would ensure the quality of the content of these contributions prior to publication by
means of a peer review process, in which the referees were in most cases academics who drew their
salaries from the public purse. At the end of the chain, publicly funded libraries acquired the rights to
use these publications by subscribing to academic journals whose prices have shot up in recent years
and are increasingly regarded as being disproportionate to procedural costs.
長期以來，在學術期刊發表科學與學術論文的模式，是基於生產及利用的環節, 薪水來自公帑的
學者將使用其論文的權利, 獨家轉移給出版社。出版社以同儕評閱的方式, 保證出版內容的品質,

2. 評閱者的薪水同樣也來自公帑。到了學術活動鏈的尾端，公帑支持的圖書館以訂閱學術期刊的
方式, 取得使用這些出版品的權利。然而, 近年來飛漲的學刊價格, 已經被視為與其成本不相稱。
Many argue that ultimately, this is an extremely expensive outsourcing model, in which public funds
flow in three places at the same time. During the 1990s, it became more and more apparent that this
could no longer be afforded. In addition, with the appearance of electronic forms of dissemination,
libraries have found that they are now increasingly acquiring only limited and time-restricted rights to
publications, in other words a very limited return on the considerable outlay. A final point of criticism
has been that commercial dissemination routes no longer or inadequately serve maximum
dissemination of academic publications among the specialist readership for which they are intended.
歸根結底，許多人認為這是一個極為昂貴的外包模式，公帑同時從三個地方流出。到了 20 世紀
90 年代，越來越明顯，不可能再負擔這個模式。此外，在電子形式的傳播普及後，圖書館發現
只能取得出版品在有限時間內的部份權利，換句話說，大額的付出祗取得有限的回報。最後, 指
責商業傳播的途徑, 已經脫離預期服務的專業讀者群, 不能適時適當地散播學術出版品。
‘Green‘ and ‘golden‘ publication economics• ••••
出版經濟學的'玉律'和'金科'
Open Access was in essence a reaction to these developments. However, the two roads to Open Access
focus on quite different aspects. The ‘green road’, in which journal articles already published elsewhere
are made publicly available via private or institutional repositories, seeks above all to ensure the
maximum distribution of academic publications and thus to compensate a secondary effect of
traditional publication economics(32). It does not, however, change the way in which publication
economics functions, although it does possibly undermine it in that the sale of rights to use the articles,
an important source of income, may be lost without another replacing it. The financing system
represented by the traditional model would thus at least partly be put at risk. For this reason, many
doubt that the ‘green road’ can be a sustainable dissemination model in the long term.
開放近用在本質上反應這些事態的發展。然而，開放近用的兩個途徑, 卻形成不同的觀點。
在'玉律'上，已經在別處發表的學刊論文, 經由個人或機構典藏所公開, 確保學術出版品的極大
值，以彌補傳統出版經濟學的後續效應(註 32)。它沒有改變出版經濟的功能，僅可能破壞一個
重要的收入來源, 在沒有替代模式下, 失去販賣論文使用權的場合。傳統模式下的財務系統, 即使
不是全部也有部份, 將發生危機。出於這個原因，很多人懷疑， '玉律'可以是長期的傳播模式
嗎?
註 32: 斯蒂萬‧哈納德寫了很多論文, 探討此議題, 如: Harnad, Stevan & Brody, Tim, ‘Comparing the
Impact of Open Access (OA) vs. Non-OA Articles in the Same Journals’ = [比較同一學刊開放近用
與非開放近用論的影響力], in: D-Lib Magazine 10. 6 (2004). http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/
06harnad.html.
The ‘golden road’ is a different case: in implementing electronic journals in the Open Access model, a
method must be found to finance the procedural costs. This necessitates alternative approaches in
publication economics to replace the traditional method of finance through the sale of rights of use.
One frequently chosen method is to recover the costs from the author or institution responsible for the
article instead of from the end-user. In this ‘author pays’ model, ‘per page’ or ‘per article’ charges are
supposed to cover the procedural costs including the peer review process. Thus, for example, the Public

3. Library of Science (PLoS) currently charges article fees ranging between USD 1 250 (PLoS ONE) and
USD 2 500 (PLoS Biology). BioMed Central charges USD 1 700 per article. Atmospheric Chemistry
and Physics (ACP) charges between USD 23 and USD 68 per page depending on the work required by
individual manuscripts.
'金科'是另一種情況：將開放近用模式應用於電子期刊，必須找到支應成本的資金。不能採用
傳統的方式, 從出售使用權籌措資金, 較常見的替代方案是, 向論文的作者或所屬機構收費, 而不
向最終使用者收費。在'此作者付費'模式下，以'每頁'或'每'篇'為計價單位, 甚收入應足以支應包
括同儕評閱在內的出版行政費用。例如，科學公共圖書館出版的學刊, 它的收費標準不一, 每篇
收費從 1,250 美元(PLoS ONE[綜合類])至 2,500 美元(PLoS Biology[生物學])不等; 生物醫學中心
出版的學刊, 每篇收費 1,700 美元; 大氣化學與物理學刊, 視手稿的情況, 每頁收費 23 美元至 68 美
元之間。
It is often unclear, however, to what extent the income generated in this way would really cover the
cost of publication, or, to put it differently, to what extent publication would depend on grants or other
subsidies, as are for example given by BioMed through endowments(33). It may be possible to justify
such a public subsidy in the long term with the argument that the publication of results is one of the
core functions of academic institutions(34).
不過, 現在還不清楚，這種收入方式是否能支應出版的成本，或者換句話說，出版可以仰賴獎助
或其他補助到什麼程度, 雖然, 生物醫學中心出版社靠著捐贈就能存活(註 33)。有人提出論點, 指
出這種公眾補助有可能是長期的, 因為出版的結果是學術機構的核心功能(註 34)。
註 33: 即使在學術與專業學會出版協會於 2005 年贊助的研究報告裡, 'The Facts about Open
Access' = [開放近用的事實] (http://www.alpsp.org/ForceDownload.asp?id=70 ), 對此問題做出最詳
盡的調查, 但還是沒有明確的答案; 在此報告第 43 及 44 頁的兩個財務報表裡, 出現相當不一致的
結果。
註 34: 約翰‧威林斯基(John Willinsky)在他的論著中提出明確的論點, ‘Scholarly Associations and
the Economic Viability of Open Access Publishing’ = [學會與開放近用出版的經濟學], 在 Journal of
Digital information 4. 2 (2004). http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/jodi-117/103.
The ‘author pays’ financing approach is also becoming increasingly appealing for commercial
academic publishers. Thus, for example, Springer is pursuing a declared Open Access policy through
its ‘Open Choice’ concept, albeit with the high fee of USD 3 000 per article.
'作者付費'逐漸在商業出版社間流行, 例如: 施普林格以'開放選擇'為名推出開放近用政策, 每篇文
章收費高達 3,000 美元。
Academic publication: commodity or service?•••••
學術出版: 商業或服務
Financial considerations in Open Access should not be limited to the funding models described above,
if only in relation to the publication culture in the humanities. The latter is characterised to a large
extent by the monograph, which is a different publication format. It is obvious that funding models here

4. have to start from hitherto largely unknown and little-discussed parameters. From the outset, the
determining factors will be not so much the relatively modest procedural and production costs as the
possible added value for scholarship as a result of free availability on the Internet.
從人文學科的出版文化來看, 開放近用的財務考量, 不應設限於上述的財務模式。人文學科的作
品以專書居多, 與論文相比, 是完全不同的出版形式。很顯然，完全不清楚這種財務的模式, 甚少
討論的參數。不能以置於網際網路的自由近用為基礎, 做為相對溫和的程序和學術附加價值的決
定因素。
Even in areas currently dominated by the journal format, however, the genuine potential of electronic
publication methods will increasingly be exploited. Therefore, results cannot be offered as statically
tailored publication products anymore, because they contain dynamic, interactive or multimedia
components, for example. If such publication methods are to be implemented on a sustainable basis,
new business models are needed.
在學刊主宰的領域裡, 電子出版的潛力即將爆發出來。它的呈現方式超越靜態的出版, 還包括動
態的、互動的或多媒體等元件。當應用到這些出版方式後, 就有必要採用新的商業模式。
Those designing such models may find the following consideration helpful. Because of its pronounced
concentration on the exploitation model, the traditional publishing industry was dependent on defining
academic publications as a commodity that could be exploited. So far, Open Access has taken over this
logic basically unaltered, providing only for a redesign of the funding methods and cash flows.
However, this ‘commodity character‘ of academic publications will not be dominant for much longer.
Even the strategies of major commercial providers show signs of a rethink away from the commodity-
geared model based on exploitation of rights. They seem to be moving towards a service model, where
users no longer pay for the finished publication as a commodity, but rather for services provided along
the publication process, such as novel aggregation or localisation services.
以下的思考, 對於設計這些模式可能有幫助。由於集中於開發模式，傳統的出版業者將學術出版
品界定為可以開發的商品。到目前為止，在重新設計籌資模式及現金流向時, 開放近用還是採用
這種邏輯。然而，這種學術出版品的'商品特性', 不會長期居於主導地位。即使是大型商業出版
社的策略, 也從開發權利的面向, 重新思考商業模式。他們似乎朝向服務模式前進，使用者不再
以商品的觀念支付費用, 轉向支付費用給出版過程所提供的服務, 如同創新的聚集或在地化服
務。
According to these models, access to the content itself will in principle be free, and the present
boundaries between Open Access and commercial models could thus become increasingly blurred. The
business models underlying such future open electronic publishing will presumably be designed by the
present-day protagonists of Open Access in cooperation with commercial publishers who are currently
regarded as antagonists.
根據這些模式，原則上, 近用內容本身將是免費的，衡亙在開放近用和商業模式之間的界線將日
趨模糊。現今的開放近用要角將與對立面的商業出版社攜手合作, 設計出未來的開放電子出版。

5. Academic publication and the academic added-value cycle• ••••••••••••
學術出版品與學術加值圈
Service-based Open Access models will not be feasible on a truly sustainable basis until the publication
of scientific and scholarly matter is clearly seen as just one stage in a holistically conceived academic
value-added process(35). This can be understood as a cycle starting with the author and leading back to
the start of the cycle via the referees of the publication, the publication stage itself, the administration
of the publications in libraries, and finally the academic reception and discussion of the contents by
readers (who in turn are once again potential authors!). If we look at this cycle from the point of view
of funding as a whole, the costs of the publication in a narrower sense become comparatively marginal
and can be recovered from the provision of services rendered prior to, subsequent to and in the context
of publication.
服務導向的開放近用模式不太可能發生, 直到科學與學術出版事宜, 被清楚地視為整體學術加值
過程的一個階段(註 35)。這個加值圈從作者、評審、出版品本身、圖書館的出版品管理者、讀
者對內容的學術認知及討論(再次成為潛在的作者), 再回到作者。狹義來說, 如果我們從資金面
審視整個過程, 出版的成本處於邊緣的地位, 可經由出版內容之前中後的服務, 完全涵蓋。
註 35: 可預見的加值圈變化, 請參照這篇有趣又具有啟發性的文章, Roosendaal, Hans E., Geurts,
Peter A.T.M. & van der Vet, Paul, ‘Eine neue Wertschöpfungskette für den Markt der
wissenschaftlichen Information?’, in: Bibliothek – Forschung und Praxis 26. 2 (2002):149–153. http://
www.bibliothek-saur.de/2002_2/149-153.pdf.
p. 45-49
Open Access: Opportunities and challenges. A handbook [開放近用 : 機會及挑戰] / European
Commission/German Commission for UNESCO). -- Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities, 2008. -- 144 pp., 14.8 x 21.0 cm. -- ISBN 978-92-79-06665-8. -- EUR
23459, http://tinyurl.com/3q8wo5