It is not a question of hating publishers; it is a question of placing them in their rightful place. David Prosser, very aptly, defined publishers as a "service industry". This is excellent. Let publishers behave like a service industry, while recognizing that other kinds of actors and financial schemes may render the same services as well, or even better, than they do.
Researchers "value" journals only because evaluation techniques in the universities narrowly rely on scientometric techniques that are themselves based on journals (and were designed to evaluate journals, not researchers). They have little choice in the matter. However, managers of research institutions, in particular universities, would do well to study how their evaluation procedures relate to the high prices libraries pay for subscriptions, and how poorly they relate to the quality of their researchers. As for what is "added" to research articles, it is done by peers or by editors (and both categories qualify as researchers). Style, clarity, layout are valuable additions, but this is secondary: researchers want access to content; they will gladly accept and even encourage good style, clarity, etc., but content is what they want. Finally, if publishers were really trying only to make scientific work accessible, there would be no quarrel. The real issue is that commercial publishers (and even some society publishers) are unable to imagine a financial scheme that could provide OA and also provide a satisfactory margin of profit. However, as OA is optimal for the communication of validated scientific research, it is the solution of choice for science (and scholarship more generally). If commercial publishers find it "impossible to continue", so be it! Science will go on, and commercial publishers will join manuscript copyists on the junk pile of history. Researchers want access, communication, evaluation; publishers want profits. The two, however much one may believe in the miracles of the invisible hand, are not equivalent, and do not even converge, as the last forty years of price increases amply demonstrate. So, yes, let us have a more reasoned discussion. Let us do it, for example, by accepting that scientific communication is not an activity that is easily reconciled with commerce, share holders, and profit. Let us think a little bit out of the box of liberal economics. Perhaps a reading of Michael Sandel's book, "What Money can't buy" is in order here. Jean-Claude Guédon Le mercredi 20 juin 2012 à 15:22 +0100, Sally Morris a écrit : > I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to > denigrate both the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. > It would seem that the (relatively small number of) primary > contributors to this list take it as an article of faith that > publishers are to be hated and destroyed; they do not want a balanced > approach or a 'mixed economy' (e.g. of green, gold etc). > > However, if researchers themselves, both as authors and as > readers, didn't value what journals, and their publishers, add to > research articles, they would long ago have ceased publishing in, or > reading, journals, and contented themselves with placing their > articles directly in, and reading from, repositories. > > If that were to change, those that benefit from the proceeds of the > current range of publishing models (not just shareholders, but also > learned society members etc...) would indeed face a major challenge. > But until it does, the challenge with which publishers are currently > engaging is how to enable their authors' work to be as accessible as > possible, without making it impossible to continue to do those things > that authors and readers value in journals. I don't see how that > makes publishers bad? > > Can't we grow up and have a rather more reasoned discussion? > > Sally > > > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On > Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon > Sent: 20 June 2012 14:05 > To: goal@eprints.org > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Agreement on Green OA not needed from publishers > but from institutions and funders > > > > > 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 doesnt 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
