As per 25 November 2016 QOAM has

2616 registrants from 1364 institutions

filled

5037 Base Score Cards (by library staff) for 3820 journals, and

2803 Valuation Score Cards (by authors) for 1148 journals,

resulting in

1076 SWOT indicators: Strong 381

Weaker 116

Opportunity (to publishers) 575

Threat (to authors) 4

QOAM statistics

DOAJ – QOAMcomplementarity

DOAJ QOAM

Content

OA journals

Hybrid journals

OA articles

Quality control

Moderation

Crowd sourced

Accreditation DOAJ mirror

Publication fees

Web site quotes

Licence fees

QOAM is lean and agile(Confidentially: QOAM is poor)

Initiators/volunteers: Saskia de Vries, Leo WaaijersCoordinator: Laura Groenhuizen 0,2 fte

Supported in cash: SURFmarket € 19.000, Pica € 50.000

Current assets: € 5000 + 10 hrs ICT developmentCooperation: JournalTOCsSupport in kind:

Libraries: TUD, TUM, WUR, EUR, RUPublishers: MDPG, Copernicus, editorsFunders and others: FWF, MPG, OpenAIRE, SURFmarket

Goodwill: Everybody says “Great initiative, good luck!”

QOAM’s status

International expert team (Ralf Schimmer, Jan Velterop, Pablo de Castro, John Doove, Josh Brown, Katie Shamash, Lars Bjoernshaugen)

Questions:

1. Is QOAM worth continuing?

2. If so, how sustainable is it?

QOAM sustainability plan Towards an economic model for Quality Open Access market

Answers:

QOAM offers potentially important value propositions

QOAM needs an additional two year development phase

QOAM operational in 2019: consortium, merger, fremium model

QOAM’s sustainability

Wass will die Bibliothek?

Serving readers is library DNA. For readers OA is perfect. So, libraries are pro OA.

But for OA you need authors. So, libraries try to make authorsOA compliant. ”Wrong”, says MPG’s Ralf Schimmer:

“Make OA author compliant!”

Will your library step in?

My FAQ