 |
 |
Yes, if all publishers (both subscription based and open access publishers) would operate a two-stage publication process the whole Green-Gold dichotomy would disappear. The first stage is organising the peer review. This is not an easy task and it certainly has a price, the submission fee. The second stage is the circulation of the peer reviewed article. Authors may choose to have that done via a repository as a stand alone article or have it done via a publisher in a branded package. The choice is a matter of a balancing price against added value. I see no need to force an author either way. Leo. Op 7-10-2012 14:29, Stevan Harnad schreef: > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Sally Morris <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Stevan overlooks the difference between 'publishing' an article in a repository > and in a journal. As long as researchers prefer the latter (and there are lots > of reasons why they seem to, in addition to peer review) then there will be a > demand for journals in which to publish: selection and collecting together of > articles of particular relevance to a given audience, and of a certain range of > quality; 'findability'; kudos of the journal's title (and impact factor); > copy-editing; linking; quality of presentation; etc etc... > And peer review is in any case not a contextless operation. The selection of > articles for publication in journal X is a relative matter; not just 'is the > research soundly conducted and honestly reported?' but 'is it of sufficient > relevance, interest and value to our readers in particular?' > > > I completely agree with Sally about peer review (it is a decision by qualified > specialists about whether a paper meets a journal's established standards for > quality /as well as subject matter, /as certified by the journal's title and > track-record), and I explicitly say so in the longer commentaries of which I only > posted an excerpt. > > But that, of course, does not change a thing about the fact that peer review is > merely a service, that can be unbundled from the many other products and services > with which it is currently co-bundled. It certainly does not imply that in order for > referees or editors to make a decision about journal subject matter, there has to > exist a set of articles co-bundled in a monthly or quarterly collection, sold > together as a product, online or on-paper! > > As to the rest of the co-bundled products and services Sally mentions: If she's > right, then journals have nothing to fear from Green OA mandates, since those only > apply to the author's peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final draft. That's what's > self-archived in the author's institutional repository. If all those other products > and services are so important, then reaching 100% Green OA globally will not make > subscriptions unsustainable, because the need, and hence the market, for all those > other co-bundled products and services Sally mentioned will still be there. > > The only difference will be that all users -- not just subscribers -- will have > access to all peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final drafts. (That's Green OA, and > once we are there, I can stop wasting my time and energy trying to get us there, as > I have been doing for nearly 20 years now!) > > But then can I ask Sally, please, to call off her fellow publishers who have been > relentlessly (and successfully) lobbying BIS not to mandate Green OA, and have been > imposing embargoes on Green OA, on the (rather incoherent) argument that (1) Green > OA is inadequate for researchers' needs and has already proved to be a failure and > (2) that if Green OA succeeded it would destroy publishing, peer review, and > research quality? > > Otherwise this (incoherent) argument becomes something of a self-fulfilling > prophecy, and we have the Finch/RCUK fiasco to show for it. > > Stevan Harnad > > > Sally > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *From:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > [mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf > Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* 06 October 2012 23:12 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Cc:* [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Open Access in the UK: Reinventing the Big Deal > > *Publisher Wheeling and Dealing: Open Access Via National and Global McNopoly?* > > Excerpted from more extensive comments on the Poynder/Velterop Interview here > <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/942-.html> and here > <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/943-.html>. > > *Jan Velterop:*/“a shift to an author-side payment for the service of > arranging peer review and publication is a logical one”/ > > > The service of arranging peer review I understand. > > But what’s the rest? What’s “Arranging publication”? Once a paper has been > peer-reviewed, revised and accepted, what’s left for publishers to do (for a > fee) that authors can’t do for free (by depositing the peer-reviewed, revised, > accepted paper in their institutional repository)? > > And how to get /there/, from /here/ -- and at a fair price for just peer review > alone? Publishers won’t unbundle, downsize and renounce revenue until there’s no > more market for the extras and their costs – and Green OA is what will put paid > to that market. Pre-emptive Gold payment, while subscriptions are still being > paid, will not – and especially not hybrid Gold. > > *JV:*/“‘Hybrid OA’ doesn’t exist. It is just “gold” OA. OA in a hybrid > journal is the same as OA in a fully OA journal for any given article.”/ > > > Gold OA is indeed Gold OA whether the journal is hybrid or pure (and whether the > Gold is Gratis or CC-BY) > > But “hybrid” does not refer to a kind of OA, it refers to a kind of journal: the > kind that charges both subscriptions and (optionally) Gold OA fees. > > That kind of journal certainly exists; and they certainly can and do double-dip. > And that’s certainly an expensive way to get (Gratis) Gold OA. > > And the Finch/RCUK policy will certainly encourage many if not all journals to > go hybrid Gold, and publishers, to maximize their chances of making an extra 6% > revenue from the UK, will in turn jack up their Green embargoes past RCUK’s > permissible limits. > > *JV:*/“The “double-dipping” argument is a red herring. There's… a notion > that subscription prices should be proportional to the number of articles in > a journal. How would that work? There are journals with 100 subscribers… > and… with thousands of subscribers [and] & 25 articles a year & 25 or more > articles a week.”/ > > > Double-dipping is not about the number articles or subscribers a journal has, > but about charging subscriptions and, in addition, charging, per article, for > Gold OA. That has nothing to do with number of articles, journals or > subscribers: It’s simply double-charging. > > *JV:*/“The cost, and… revenue, of an individual article can only usefully… > be expressed as an average, and then probably company-wide. What would > otherwise be the situation for a loss-making hybrid journal that receives in > one year 10% of its articles as gold, and the next year only 2%? Impossible > to work out. A subscription system is inherently lacking in transparency”/ > > > Nothing of the sort, and extremely simple, for a publisher who really does not > want to double-dip, but to give all excess back as a rebate: > > Count the total number of articles, N, and the total subscription revenue, S. > > From that you get the revenue per article: S/N. > > Hybrid Gold OA income is than added to that total revenue (say, at a fee of S/N > per article). > > That means that for k Gold OA articles, total hybrid journal revenue is S + kS/N. > > And if the journal really wants to reduce subscriptions proportionately, at the > end of the year, it simply sends a rebate to each subscribing institution: > > Suppose there are U subscribing institutions. Each one gets a year-end rebate of > kS/UN (regardless of the yearly value of k, S, U or N). > > (Alternatively, if the journal wants to give back all of the rebate only to the > institutions that actually paid for the extra Gold, don’t charge subscribing > institutions for Gold OA at all: But that approach shows most clearly why and > how this pre-emptive morphing scheme for a transition from subscriptions to > hybrid Gold to pure Gold is unscaleable and unsustainable, hence incoherent. It > is an Escher impossible figure, either way, because collective > subscriptions/“memberships” – including McNopolies -- only make sense for > co-bundled incoming content; for individual pieces of outgoing content the > peer-review service costs must be paid by the individual piece. There are at > least 20,000 research-active institutions on the planet and at least 25,000 > peer-reviewed journals, publishing several million individual articles per year. > No basis – or need --for a pre-emptive cartel/consortium McNopoly.) > > *JV:*/“If journals should reduce their subscription price when they get a > percentage of papers paid for as gold, what should happen if they lose the > same percentage (for completely different reasons) of subscriptions?”/ > > > Less Gold – the value of the year-end institutional rebate -- kS/UN – is less > that year. > > *JV:*/“What if a journal which decided to go hybrid has published a steady > amount of 50 articles a year for ages and all of a sudden attracts an extra > 10 gold OA articles? By how much should it reduce its subscription price?”/ > > > By exactly10S/50U per subscribing institution U. > > *JV:*/“If an article is worth £2,000 to have published with OA in a full-OA > journal, why is it not worth the same £2,000 if published in a hybrid journal?”/ > > > Simple answer: it’s not worth the price either way. Both prices are grotesquely > inflated. No-fault peer review should cost about $100-200 per round… > > *Stevan Harnad* > > */Excerpted from more extensive comments on the Poynder/Velterop Interview > /**/here/* <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/942-.html>*/and > /**/here/* <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/943-.html>*/./* > > On 2012-10-02, at 5:00 AM, Richard Poynder wrote: > >> Love it or loathe it, the recently announced Open Access policy from Research >> Councils UK has certainly divided the OA movement. Despite considerable >> criticism, however, RCUK has refused to amend its policy. >> So what will be its long-term impact? >> Critics fear that RCUK has opened the door to the reinvention of the Big Deal. >> Pioneered by Academic Press in 1996, the Big Deal involves publishers selling >> large bundles of electronic journals on multi-year contracts. Initially >> embraced with enthusiasm, the Big Deal is widely loathed today. >> However, currently drowned out by the hubbub of criticism, there are voices >> that support the RCUK policy. Jan Velterop, for instance, believes it will be >> good for Open Access. >> Velterop also believes that the time is ripe for the creation of a New Big Deal >> (NBD). The NBD would consist of “a national licensing agreement” that provided >> researchers with free-at-the-point-of-use access to all the papers sitting >> behind subscription paywalls, *plus* a “national procurement service” that >> provided free-at-the-point-of-use OA publishing services for researchers, >> allowing them to publish in OA journals without having to foot the bill >> themselves. >> Velterop’s views are not to be dismissed lightly. Former employee of Elsevier, >> Springer and Nature, Velterop was one of the small group of people who attended >> the 2001 Budapest meeting that saw the birth of the Open Access movement, and >> he was instrumental in the early success of OA publisher BioMed Central. >> Moreover, during his time at Academic Press, Velterop was a co-architect of the >> original Big Deal. >> More on this, and a Q&A with Velterop, can be read here: >> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/open-access-in-uk-reinventing-big-deal.html > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >