Hosting costs, software dev, and maybe non-volunteer admin costs are factors off the top of my head.
Maybe it's excessive, and would either reduce over time, or the organisation would find some way to grow into the budget (now, which is more likely?), but the important part would be organising it as a non-profit.
Putting the cost onto the submitter to pay for free access to everyone thereafter is a nice model - academics need those publications to justify their grants, and can allocate money towards it. The problem is, "in perpetuity"[1] is a long time, so you're gonna end up front-loading the cost a bit.
[1] Or maybe just a standard copyright term. Someone still needs to host it though, and preferably keep as much metadata as possible attached.
Maybe it's excessive, and would either reduce over time, or the organisation would find some way to grow into the budget (now, which is more likely?), but the important part would be organising it as a non-profit.
Putting the cost onto the submitter to pay for free access to everyone thereafter is a nice model - academics need those publications to justify their grants, and can allocate money towards it. The problem is, "in perpetuity"[1] is a long time, so you're gonna end up front-loading the cost a bit.
[1] Or maybe just a standard copyright term. Someone still needs to host it though, and preferably keep as much metadata as possible attached.
reply