What I really, and I mean *really* like about this exchange is that
priorities are finally being set up right. The business of research is
between researchers and the institutions supporting research.
Researchers ought to communicate among themselves as they choose, and
not as external players (such as publishers) might desire. I really like
what all my colleagues have been saying below, and they are all
researchers.
As for Dr. Wise, her statements amount to reasserting or seeking a role
for publishers, but she should understand that the point of research is
not publishers, and what researchers need is some form of publication,
not publishers.
The problem publishers have in this new digital world is that they have
trouble justifying their role. To wit:
1. Peer review is performed by researchers, not publishers. Peer
reviewers are selected by journal editors that are researchers,
not publishers. Managing the flow of manuscripts in peer review
often requires tools that publishers may or may not provide;
however, free tools are available (e.g. OJS) and are evolving
nicely all the time;
2. Linguistic and stylistic editing could provide a small role for
publishers, except that they do it less and less for
cost-cutting reasons (i.e. profit-seeking reasons).
3. Marketing of ideas is done wrong: it is done through journals
and it is handled largely through the flawed notion of impact
factors. More and more studies demonstrate a growing disconnect
between impact factors and individual article impacts.
Researchers do not need a marketing of journals; they need a
marketing of their articles through some device that clearly and
unambiguously reflects the quality of their visible (published)
work.
4. To market their own articles, researchers should have recourse
to OA repositories. Once better filled up through mandates,
repositories can become platforms for the efficient promotion of
articles. Such platforms are entirely independent of publishers.
And Stevan is absolutely right: OA policy is not the publishers'
business, but the business of institutions carrying on research.
Fundamentally, the publishers' problem is that they claim to know the
publication needs of researchers better than researchers themselves;
they also claim a degree of control over the "grand conversation" of
science. Obviously, both propositions are unacceptable.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mercredi 20 juin 2012 à 07:41 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>
>
> On 2012-06-20, at 7:15 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...perhaps time to explore opportunities to work with publishers?
> >
> >
>
>
>
> No, precisely the opposite, I think: It's time for institutions to
> realize that institutional
> Green OA self-archiving policy is (and always has been) exclusively
> their own
> business, and not publishers' (who have a rather different
> business...)
>
>
> Negotiate subscription prices with publishers.
>
>
> But do not even discuss institutional OA policy with publishers.
>
>
> (And advise institutional researchers to ignore incoherent clauses
> in their copyright agreements: Anything of the form "P but not-P" --
> e.g.
> "you retain the right to self-archive, but not if you are required to
> exercise the right to self-archive" -- implies anything at all, as
> well as the
> opposite of anything at all. Don't give it another thought: just
> self-archive.
> And institutions should set policy -- mandate immediate deposit,
> specify
> maximum allowable OA-embargo-length, the shorter the better, and
> keep publisher mumbo-jumbo out of the loop altogether. Ditto for
> funders, but, to avoid gratuitous extra problems as a 3rd-party site,
> stipulate institutional rather than institution-external deposit.)
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
>
> > Dr Alicia Wise
> >
> > Director of Universal Access
> >
> > ElsevierI The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5
> > 1GB
> >
> > M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com
> >
> > Twitter: @wisealic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> > Behalf Of David Prosser
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 11:31 AM
> > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Laurent makes an important point. OA policies are between the
> > funders or institutions and the researchers. These agreements come
> > before any agreement regarding copyright assignment between authors
> > and publishers. So, it is the job of publishers to decide if they
> > are willing to live with the deposit agreement between the
> > funder/institution and researchers, not the job of funders and
> > institutions to limit their policies to match the needs of
> > publishers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 Jun 2012, at 11:04, Laurent Romary wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Not that I know. I think the French Research Performing
> > Organizations are not planning to put negotiation with editors as a
> > premise to defining their own OA policy.
> >
> >
> > Laurent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 20 juin 2012 à 11:45, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Laurent,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Institutions already do have agreements with publishers via their
> > libraries and/or library consortia.. This is certainly the case for
> > INRIA.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > With kind wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Alicia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> > Behalf Of Laurent Romary
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:11 AM
> > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This definitely makes no sense. Institutions are not going to start
> > negotiating agreements with all publishers one by one. Does Elsevier
> > have so much man power left to start negotiating with all
> > institutions one by one as well. The corresponding budget could then
> > probably used to reduce subscriptions prices ;-)
> >
> >
> > Laurent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Le 20 juin 2012 à 09:53, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) a écrit :
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Just a quick point of clarification…. Elsevier doesn’t forbid
> > posting if there is a mandate. We ask for an agreement with the
> > institution that has the mandate, and there is no cost for these
> > agreements. The purpose of these agreements is to work out a
> > win-win solution to find a way for the underlying journals in which
> > academics choose to publish to be sustainable even if there are high
> > posting rates.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > With kind wishes,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Alicia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr Alicia Wise
> >
> >
> > Director of Universal Access
> >
> >
> > Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5
> > 1GB
> >
> >
> > M: +44 (0) 7823 536 826 I E: a.w...@elsevier.com
> >
> >
> > Twitter: @wisealic
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On
> > Behalf Of Peter Murray-Rust
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:23 PM
> > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> > Subject: [GOAL] Why should publishers agree to Green OA?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have some simple questions about Green OA. I don't know the
> > answers.
> >
> >
> >
> > * is there any *contractual* relationship between a Green-publisher
> > and any legal body? Or is Green simply a permission granted
> > unilaterally by publishers when they feel like it, and withdrawable
> > when they don't.
> > * if Green starts impacting on publishers' revenues (and I
> > understand this is part of the Green strategy - when we have 100%
> > Green then publishers will have to change) what stops them simply
> > withdrawing the permission? Or rationing it? Or any other anti-Green
> > measure
> > * Do publishers receive any funding from anywhere for allowing
> > Green? Green is extra work for them - why should they increase the
> > amount they do?
> > * Is there any body which regularly "negotiates" with publishers
> > such as ACS, who categorically forbid Green for now and for ever.
> >
> > Various publishers seem to indicate that they will allow Green as
> > long as it's a relatively small percentage. But, as Stevan has
> > noted, if your institution mandates Green, then Elsevier forbids it.
> > So I cannot see why, if Green were to reach - say - 50%, the
> > publishers wouldn't simply ration it and prevent 100%.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Murray-Rust
> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > University of Cambridge
> > CB2 1EW, UK
> > +44-1223-763069
> >
> >
> >
> > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
> > Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084
> > (England and Wales).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GOAL mailing list
> > GOAL@eprints.org
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> >
> >
> >
> > Laurent Romary
> >
> >
> > INRIA & HUB-IDSL
> >
> >
> > laurent.rom...@inria.fr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
> > Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084
> > (England and Wales).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GOAL mailing list
> > GOAL@eprints.org
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Laurent Romary
> >
> >
> > INRIA & HUB-IDSL
> >
> >
> > laurent.rom...@inria.fr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <ATT00001..txt>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
> > Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084
> > (England and Wales).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GOAL mailing list
> > GOAL@eprints.org
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
