We should not delude ourselves; journals can only be 'free' if someone pays the costs.
All the work involved in creating and running a journal has to be paid for somehow - they don't magically go away if a journal is e-only (in fact, there are some new costs, even though some of the old ones disappear). I can only see three options for who pays: reader-side (e.g. the library); author-side (e.g. publication fees); or 'fairy godmother' (e.g. sponsor). 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 -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Jan Szczepanski Sent: 07 August 2012 10:37 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era Steven Harnad has had and still has an enormous influence on the open access question. But the way he pushes for has, sorry to say, in practice shown not to be able to compet with the market. That is a fact that the British government now recogineses and the rest of the world will follow. The Great Leap in China failed in the same way the green way has failed. What we now can see is a paradigm shift. Now we have to support the free e-journal movement, not by forcing scientists and scholars to accept open access but by cooperate with them in the competion with mainly the global STM industry. It's not going to be easy. But more and more new journals are free e-journals. The rise is spectacular. Latin America has shown the way we have to take. Jan 2012/8/7 Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au>: > Oh dear Stevan. When I try to help you I get rubbished. You really > have to stop using knee-jerk reactions. > > > > I fully agree Pay-per-view (PPV) is not ideal, and you know that I > know it better than most. I was responding to your very off-target > message about 'anarchic' practices (green) vs 'systemic' (gold). > Neither is an accurate epithet. We both want open access to articles, > not toll access, and we know it will be cheaper. I think that totally > deals succinctly with your points (1), (2), 3), (4), (5), (6), and (8). > > > > That leaves points (7), (9) and (10). While I agree that Green OA is > the potentially faster and cheaper route, it simply ain't going to happen soon. > Maybe it might if the OA movement got behind the Titanium route. There > simply isn't the wish amongst researchers, funders, universities or > the governments to push Green OA. So much for point (7). The Green > route leads to another couple of lost decades. > > > > As to (9) and (10) I was taking the point of view of a systemic > bureaucrat (aka devil's advocate). Green mandates are a lost cause. > They have failed to have an impact after too many years. Looking at > the global research publication system, it is anti-competitive as an > industry, calling out for strong competition. What better than to provide some? > > > > Arthur > > > > > > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On > Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2012 1:57 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era > > > > Dear Arthur, > > > > (1) For years and years I did not refer to toll-access as > "subscription access" but as "subscription/license/pay-per-view > (S/L/PPV)". (Google the AmSci Forum archives in the late 90's and > early 2000's and I'll find countless instances.) PPV is neither > satisfactory for most users nor is it affordable, scalable or > sustainable for most institutions. (If it were, subscriptions would > already be cancelled unsustainably. PPV is a parasitic niche market.) > > > > (2) S/L/PPV are all forms of toll access, and I don't believe for a > second that any of them provides sufficient access. > > > > (3) That's why I (and many others) have been struggling for open > access (OA). > > > > (4) It is true that "where we are now [is]paying to read articles" > > > > (5) But for me it is certainly not true that "where we want to be [is] > paying to publish articles" > > > > (6) Where I want to be (and have wanted to be for two decades) is OA: > toll-free online access to articles. > > > > (7) I also think the fastest, surest, most direct and cheapest way to > 100% OA is to mandate Green Gratis OA. > > > > (8) I also happen to expect that 100% Green OA will lead to Gold Libre > OA > (pay-to-publish) and the total cost will be far lower than is was with > S/L/PPV. > > > > (9) If Finch had done a better analysis, then instead of squandering > scarce research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA, they would > have extended and strengthened UK's cost-free Green OA mandates. > > > > (10) I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its > policy and do just that. > > > > Stevan > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > > I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as > it goes. There is however an aspect that you have not covered, and > you should include it in your analysis. > > You write as though reader-side subscriptions were the only > alternative to author-side publishing fees as a way of funding > publishers. (As ways of funding access one must add green access too, > to save you telling me so.) In fact many universities have another > option: pay-per-view. The University of Tasmania (mine) has had a > system of this sort in place since at least 1998, whereby any > researcher can request (online in the intranet) an article from any > journal to which the University does not subscribe, and the Document > Delivery service will provide an e-copy (usually a pdf) usually within > two days. Yes this is not instant, but serious researchers are > prepared to wait that long, despite the nay-sayers. The University > picks up the cost up to a reasonable limit; if the cost is over the > Department has to agree to fund the difference. This seldom happens, and when it does it is for expensive journals in Mining, etc. > > The interesting thing is that this is an system that you describe as > anarchically growing, article-by-article, rather than the > journal-by-journal or publisher bundle system. It has enabled the > University of Tasmania to cancel many of the subscriptions that it > previously held, and still come out in front. Better still, it has > enabled the practical closure of the print journal accessioning system > (where online versions are available), saving substantial salaries. We > know for example that researchers seldom [physically] visit our > [physical] libraries these days, they access articles online. > > If we ever reached the state where we relied on this system totally, > then a per-article viewing fee would be easy to compare with that of a > per-article publication fee. Of course we are never likely to go so > far. But what it does show up is the key difference in where we are > now: paying to read articles, as against where we want to be: paying > to publish articles. The real difference is not between bundling and > aggregations vs articles, but in this. > > I could speculate that if Finch et al had done a better analysis, they > could have suggested applying the money they want to take away from > researchers to University journal presses for start-up costs, on a > competitive basis, and conditional on the funded journal being open > access. Now that would have created a good argument. It would have > created sustainable open access journals, in areas of UK strength, and > the funds would have a sunset clause in them, after which the journals > should be self-sustaining. One could rely on the universities being > economical, because it would not be core business, though prestigious. > > Arthur Sale > Tasmania, Australia > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Jan Szczepański F.d Förste bibliotekare och chef för f.d Avdelningen för humaniora vid Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek E-post: jan.szczepansk...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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
