Print

Print
I think this thread is getting pretty worn. Alma pretty much said it all when she pointed out to Graham that 6382 of the 9721 Gold OA journals indexed in DOAJ are Free-Gold, not Fools-Gold. 

And the rest certainly aren't Fair-Gold, because their costs have not yet been forced down to the bare and fair essentials by mandatory global Green. Nor does the existence of the rest enable institutions to cancel their must-have subscription journals.

So, yes, paid Gold means double-paid Gold: Essential subscriptions + Fools-Gold.

Now back to hybrid Fools-Gold, which Graham still does not quite understand:

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Graham Triggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

If you didn't have Gold OA... submissions / published articles would have to go somewhere. And the journals/publishers taking on that work would look to recoup their costs via the mechanisms that are open to them - namely subscriptions and pay-per-view.

To repeat: It's mostly not the must-have subscription journals' content that is going into the Gold journals. The must-have journals are doing fine, and their prices are going up, not down.
 
Even as it stands, the growth of subscription based content (3 - 4%) outstrips the percentage of hybrid gold publications (1%), hence journal price rises.

Wrong comparison (doubly wrong!):

1. It's the non-hybrid Gold content that you should be comparing to subscription content, if you want to believe Gold is driving down the price of subscriptions rather than just adding to them (double-payment).

2. It's hybrid Gold that allows double-dipping (which I'm afraid you also don't quite understand).
 
Double-dipping refers to paying both subscriptions fees AND APCs for the *same* articles. It would be worth monitoring, if it was possible to do so. It's kind of hard to prove though, and less relevant than the overall cost of scholarly communication.

Hybrid Gold can certainly be monitored: 

A. Total yearly hybrid-journal revenue per article is (total subscription revenue)/(total number of articles)

B. The yearly number of those articles that are Gold can also be counted.

if a publisher is increasing the amount of articles they publish - and they are increasing by 4% per year - then you should expect the total revenue to increase (irrespective of whether that is from APCs or subscription). That's not double-dipping.

It's only not double-dipping if the amount that it increases annually is based on the article increase minus the hybrid-Gold article revenue. (And even then, the institutions that are paying for the hybrid Fools-Gold are simply subsidizing every other institution's Fools-Gold rebate, while they get back only 1/Nth of their own. Not a saving till most articles are hybrid Fools-Gold (as publishers no doubt wish they will be!)
  
As I said, the best measure of whether a hybrid publisher's APC and subscription revenue is balanced is to compare the average APC per open article to the average subscription revenue per closed article.

Not clear why you want averages here. Within a given hybrid journal (which is the only place this comparison makes much sense) the figures you need are: subscription-only revenue per article, APCs per article, total APCs per year and total article increase per year. Knowing that, you would know whether and how much double-dipping was being done. 

One thing you can be sure of: total publisher revenue per article will not (be allowed to) decrease.

So forget about savings.
 
The Finch report and RCUK policies are a commitment to 100% OA in the UK - preferably, but not exclusively, Gold, So surely, there are (globally) higher priorities than OA policy in the UK?

Forget about Finch/RCUK's hopes, and forget about their preferences. F/R's actual policy is a big mess: 

a. It squanders scarce funds on Fools Gold (which it "prefers") instead of research.

b. It (foolishly and groundlessly) downgrades cost-free Green instead of reinforcing it.

c. It imposes Green embargo limits (but announces it won't enforce them).

d. It is obsessed with monitoring Gold compliance.

e. It has no mechanism for montoring Green compliance.

f. It incentivizes publishers' hybrid Gold (worldwide, not just UK).

g. It incentivizes publishers' adopting or lengthening Green mandates (worldwide, not just UK).

And then, the most foolish of all, it tries to make its folly into a self-fulfilling prophecy by lobbying for the adoption of defective policy worldwide, instead of fixing it!

How much more -- or, rather, less -- do you want?

[Universal Green] is only a partial solution to the research accessibility problem. It doesn't (adequately) address immediacy, re-use or text mining, which in itself will continue to hold back research.

Universal immediate-deposit mandates will generate immediate-Green soon after. 

Re-use and text mining (and Fair-Gold) will eventually follow too, but are nowhere near as urgent or important as access itself.

The only publication that I know of like that [Free-Gold] is D-Lib, which does not undertake peer-review. How many free Gold, peer reviewed journals are there?

Start by consulting DOAJ, as Alma suggested. (Then give some thought to some of the other things you may not know...)

SH