On Open Peer Review, my guess is that it's not so important in the Humanities. I take it that in the Sciences, it's deemed important that such things as lab results, experimental trials, etc., be circulated a.s.a.p. In the Humanities, it's typically a slower pace. We're not so heavily data-driven and often more it's a matter of posing a creative or improved interpretation of a given and known body of data (e.g., texts). For us, the advantage of e-publication journals (which I've been promoting since the early 90s) is that articles (typically somewhat longer in the Humanities than in Sciences) don't have to work within arbitrary page-limits (as is the case in print-journals), and also that articles once ready can be published when ready, rather than waiting for the next "issue" of the journal in which there may be space.
But my big peeve is that university libraries are having to spend such a huge percentage of budgets on journals in STM fields (often 50% or more of total acquisitions budget), leaving less money for books (important in the Humanities). Then also university libraries respond by requiring all areas to cut journals, even though we're not the source of the problem. Larry Hurtado Quoting "E. Hoorn" <e.ho...@rug.nl> on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 14:17:58 +0200: > Hi Larry, > > I can recommend this book by Kathleen Fitzpatrick about Open Access and > open peer review in humanities. > The book is available in the Mediacommons open peer review environment: > http://mediacommons.futureofthebook.org/mcpress/plannedobsolescence/ > > The author elaborates the need for a discipline-specific approach and > she discusses her experiences with open peer review. > She proposes a strong role for university presses. In Europe we ofcourse > have the OAPEN network to develop services to support Open Access to > monographies. > > It seems open peer review is gaining effect, like in STM. > See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389610/ > Would you consider open peer review an interesting option for your > learned society? > > Best regards, > Esther > > On 20-7-2012 12:36, l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk wrote: >> Yes, thanks, Esther. But the Stock YouTube conversation is VERY >> generalized and non-specific about practical issues such as I raised, >> and focused also still mainly on Sciences. The same goes also for the >> Ms Kroes blog posting. >> >> The one thing I take from the Stock YouTube conversation is that we >> may need to develop somewhat varied approaches for the various >> academic sectors. I.e., the financial burden placed on university >> libraries specifically by commercially-produced journals in the >> Sciences-Medicine is one matter. This is not a matter in the >> Humanities. We face other issues, and I'm worried that any "solution" >> to the one problem will bring unintended negative consequences for the >> other. And the problem is further worrying in that I'm not convinced >> that spokespersons for the Humanities have been involved adequately in >> the decision-making process. >> Larry Hurtado >> >> Quoting "E. Hoorn" <e.ho...@rug.nl> on Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:08:29 +0200: >> >>> Hi Larry, >>> >>> Günter Stock, the new president of the European Federation of National >>> Academies of Sciences and Humanities, addresses your concerns in a >>> conversation with Neelie Kroes on the new EU measures on Open Access. >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1M6hMBbaDM&feature=youtu.be >>> >>> See for an excellent blogpost by Neelie Kroes on the new measures: >>> http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/open-science/ >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Esther Hoorn >>> >>> >>> On 20-7-2012 11:41, Laurent Romary wrote: >>>> Hi Larry, >>>> Thanks a lot for your message signaling the situation in the >>>> humanities. This is exactly to this end that alternative models to >>>> the green-gold yoke have been put in place in such platforms as >>>> openedition-revues.org (which I guess you're aware of). We need a >>>> little bit more creativity on the scholarly side if we actually >>>> want to see our results openly disseminated. >>>> Have a read at: http://www.openedition.org/8873 >>>> Laurent >>>> PS: Marin Dacos, the master mind behind openedition >>>> >>>> Le 20 juil. 2012 à 11:13, l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk a écrit : >>>> >>>>> I'm President of my UK learned society, and have had no contact about >>>>> the Finch project or anything connected with scholarly publishing. >>>>> So, I'm not confident that the scholarly community has been involved >>>>> adequately in the Finch process (though I stand to be corrected). >>>>> From what little I've learned thus far of the "Gold OA" proposal, I'm >>>>> worried, particularly for two constituencies: >>>>> --The models all seem heavily driven by the problems and practices of >>>>> the sciences, with little regard for the Humanities. We don't (never >>>>> have) paid page charges. Our journals aren't typically expensive at >>>>> all (an "expensive" journal might cost a univ library a few hundred >>>>> quid at most, and that would be rare). We don't typically have >>>>> research grants to pay page charges (the govts typically don't see >>>>> Humanities research as important enough to fund it in any measure >>>>> other than token). >>>>> --There are a number of private scholars in the Humanities who don't >>>>> hold Univ posts but produce high-quality work. Who will pay their >>>>> page charges? >>>>> >>>>> In short, once again, the Humanities seem to have been left largely >>>>> out of the thinking about consequences of the various models. >>>>> >>>>> Larry Hurtado >>>>> >>>>> Quoting "Hélène.Bosc" <hbosc-tcher...@orange.fr> on Thu, 19 Jul 2012 >>>>> 21:13:57 +0200: >>>>> >>>>>> See also this study : >>>>>> BJÖRK, B.C. A Study of Innovative Features in Scholarly Open Access >>>>>> Journals. Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 13 (4), 2011. >>>>>> http://www.jmir.org/2011/4/e115/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Hélène Bosc >>>>>> Open access to Scientific Communication >>>>>> http://open-access.infodocs.eu/tiki-index.php >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Peter Suber >>>>>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:01 PM >>>>>> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Finding a business model for a growing Open >>>>>> AccessJournal >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> See the list of OA journal business models at the Open Access >>>>>> Directory. >>>>>> http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Peter Suber >>>>>> gplus.to/petersuber >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Peter Murray-Rust >>>>>> <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am forwarding a message from the OKFN's open-access list >>>>>> (http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access which uses the >>>>>> term strictly to mean BOAI-compliant). >>>>>> >>>>>> The poster Katie runs a successful OA journal and asks how she >>>>>> can scale up without APCs. She raises the idea of a SCOAP3-like >>>>>> model for cancer. There must be a number of other people with the >>>>>> same question: >>>>>> * they don't want closed access >>>>>> * they don't want author-side fees >>>>>> * they recognize the money has to come from somewhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Katie (and I) would be interested to know of possible models and >>>>>> possible nuclei of like-minded groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> This seems to me one of the key problems of the current time of >>>>>> transition. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: Katie Foxall <ka...@ecancer.org> >>>>>> Date: Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Open-access] SCOAP3 >>>>>> To: open-acc...@lists.okfn.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello all >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't posted [on OKFN open-access] before but have been >>>>>> following the discussions with much >>>>>> interest and have founds the info and links provided by >>>>>> various people >>>>>> really useful. I run an open access cancer journal >>>>>> http://ecancer.org/ecms >>>>>> which has no author fees - we are currently mainly supported >>>>>> by charity >>>>>> funding but the journal has been growing at a great rate this >>>>>> year so I'm >>>>>> looking into accessing any funding that might be out there to >>>>>> support open >>>>>> access publishing. The reality is that we will have to >>>>>> start charging >>>>>> author fees at some point if we can't get more funding and we >>>>>> really don't >>>>>> want to do that as providing a free service for the oncology >>>>>> community is >>>>>> very important to us. >>>>>> >>>>>> So does anyone know whether there is anything like SCOAP3 in >>>>>> the field of >>>>>> medical publishing? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks in advance for any help or advice anyone might be able >>>>>> to give me, >>>>>> >>>>>> Katie Foxall >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: open-access-boun...@lists.okfn.org >>>>>> [mailto:open-access-boun...@lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of >>>>>> c...@cameronneylon.net >>>>>> Sent: 18 July 2012 15:50 >>>>>> To: open-acc...@lists.okfn.org >>>>>> Subject: [Open-access] SCOAP3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Not got so much press as the big announcements this week but >>>>>> this is a big >>>>>> deal. Communities can just decide unilaterally to move to OA. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://scoap3.org/news/news94.html >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> open-access mailing list >>>>>> open-acc...@lists.okfn.org >>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> open-access mailing list >>>>>> open-acc...@lists.okfn.org >>>>>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Peter Murray-Rust >>>>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics >>>>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry >>>>>> University of Cambridge >>>>>> CB2 1EW, UK >>>>>> +44-1223-763069 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE >>>>> Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology >>>>> Honorary Professorial Fellow >>>>> New College (School of Divinity) >>>>> University of Edinburgh >>>>> Mound Place >>>>> Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX >>>>> Office Phone: (0)131 650 8920. FAX: (0)131 650 7952 >>>>> www.ed.ac.uk/divinity >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> GOAL mailing list >>>>> GOAL@eprints.org >>>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>>> Laurent Romary >>>> INRIA & HUB-IDSL >>>> laurent.rom...@inria.fr >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> GOAL mailing list >>>> GOAL@eprints.org >>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE >> Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology >> Honorary Professorial Fellow >> New College (School of Divinity) >> University of Edinburgh >> Mound Place >> Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX >> Office Phone: (0)131 650 8920. FAX: (0)131 650 7952 >> www.ed.ac.uk/divinity >> > L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology Honorary Professorial Fellow New College (School of Divinity) University of Edinburgh Mound Place Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX Office Phone: (0)131 650 8920. FAX: (0)131 650 7952 www.ed.ac.uk/divinity -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
