I agree with Jean-Claude, let's make the axis of interest research-open access, and leave the business of publishing to others. Otherwise, we introduce a fourth OA bogeyman, confusion, of which there is already far more than needed.
Much as I admire Richard's tenacious journalism, and an eye for a story, it does what such stories often do and takes an extreme case and tries to place it in the centre. This case isn't central to OA; if we look at it from the axis of interest above, it's not even about OA, it's about the publishing business. Another pro-OA case recently that became confused over publishing was Prof. Beaudouin-Lafon in CACM http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/2/69353-open-access-to-scientific-publications/fulltext We have to simplify OA for everyone else. Steve Hitchcock IAM Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 7698 Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 2865 On 17 Feb 2010, at 11:24, Guédon Jean-Claude wrote: > Alas, this whole discussion continues to assume that publishing must rest > mainly on organizations that behave like businesses (hence the call for > sustainability) and often are busineses. Why should they not be treated as > services integral to the research cycle of activities (which should include > publishing)? If so, they should simply be supported by public money. Research > is supported by public money and publishing is an integral part of research. > No one asks if research is sustainable, and they do not for a good reason: it > is not! If publishing is an integral part of research, it follows that > publishing should be supported by public money and not be submitted to market > rules which, in any case, can only distort the "great conversation"of science > and of scholarship more generally. > > The discussion below is also about one kind of Gold Publishing, the so-called > "author-pay model". Personally, I am very skeptical about this model, and > increasingly so. It solves access for third world countries only through > humiliating, piecemeal, requests, and it has opened the door to devious > practices, some of which are precisely being discussed below. Yet,I believe > the Gold Road is viable if constructed correctly. Once again, allow me to > point to SciELO. To my mind, this is the best and most coherent strategy for > the Gold road. It also coincides well with national science policies trying > to promote science and, as SciELO's Abel Packer would say, provide a place in > the sun for Third World scientists. > > This is why I support a public option for scientific and scholarly > publishing, but this public option should be international in nature to avoid > being too vulnerable to national politics. This said, I would rather be > vulnerable to national politics than to Elsevier or any other large, private, > publisher. I can vote in my country but I have no voice inside the Elsevier > (or Springer, or ...) structure. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > PS And, as a reminder, this statement is not in support of the Gold Road as > the exclusive way to reach OA; it simply tries to tweak the Gold Road to make > it more viable. This is also and exactly what I do when I try tweaking the > Green Road by saying that repositories must get involved in the generation of > symbolic value. Both roads are needed, but they must be conceived coherently > and correctly. > > ________________________________ > > Van: American Scientist Open Access Forum namens Richard Poynder > Verzonden: di 16-2-2010 11:59 > Aan: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Onderwerp: OA's Three Bogeymen > > > > I am inclined to agree with Keith. However, it needs to be acknowledged that > researchers are not always very discerning when choosing a publisher. I have > had some say to me, "In an ideal world I would not opt to pay to publish with > this or that particular publisher, but I need to get my work published > urgently, so I am just going to bite the bullet." > > For that reason some OA publishers seem quite content not to be part of the > OASPA community, and happy to operate by their own rules -- in the knowledge > that there is a ready market for their services. So while one might argue > that the research community can afford to ignore these companies and simply > carry on using subscription publishers and Green OA, in the hope that the > market will somehow create an optimal OA publishing ecosystem, I am less > confident. > > > > > > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum > [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On > Behalf Of keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk > Sent: 16 February 2010 12:00 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Interview with Open Access publisher In-Tech/Sciy > > > > > > All - > Richard Poynder recently suggested that there were three bogeymen haunting > the OA movement: (1) asking authors to pay to publish could turn scholarly > publishing into a vanity press; (2) OA publishing will in any case inevitably > lead to lax or even non-existent peer review; (3) OA publishing is not > financially sustainable. > http://poynder.blogspot.com/2010/02/oa-interviews-sciyo-aleksandar-lazinica.html > > > In my opinion..... > > There is already evidence of (1) with various publishers trying to scam > payment for publishing (fortunately very few cases to date). > > As a consequence of (1), (2) inevitably happens - but hopefully only in the > case of a small number of so-called journals. > > It may be that (3) is true; with all information to date indicating gold OA > costs 3 to 4 times more than current subscription models (the figure of 3 > comes from our own estimates at STFC, 4 comes from the recent posting on > AMSCI concerning the ACM article). > > But of course if current subscription models (maintaining peer review) are > backed up by green OA via IRs then everyone has the benefit of OA at a much > reduced cost. > > In my opinion, the answer for academics - especially in these days of > financial stringency - is to keep with the subscription model and go green OA > and let future scholarship ecosystems develop. > > Happy to discuss further... > Keith > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Keith G Jeffery E: keith.jeff...@stfc.ac.uk <mailto:k...@rl.ac.uk> > Director Information Technology & International Strategy > Science and Technology Facilities Council > Rutherford Appleton Laboratory > Harwell Science and Innovation Campus > Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK > T: +44 1235 44 6103 F:+44 1235 44 5147 > President ERCIM & STFC Director: http://www.ercim.org/ > <http://www.ercim.org/> > W3C European Host at ERCIM http://www.w3.org/ > <http://www.w3.org/ > > President euroCRIS http://www.eurocris.org/ > <http://www.eurocris.org/> > Board Member EOS http://www.openscholarship.org/ > <http://www.openscholarship.org/> > Chair, APA http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu/ > <http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu/> > VLDB Trustee Emeritus: http://www.vldb.org/ > <http://www.vldb.org/> > EDBT Board Member http://www.edbt.org/ > <http://www.edbt.org/ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended > recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take > action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender > and delete your copy of it > > The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the > policy available from > <http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm > <http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm> >. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > >
