Hi Alicia,
Thanks very much for this. I would certainly encourage Elsevier to publish the data. As it is, it all sounds rather hush-hush, or at least nebulous. You have cited a figure produced by a colleague that appears to be somewhat at variance with work that has been done by researchers themselves, and you explain the discrepancy by reference to "buckets, definitions, scope and methodology"! But without more information, and indeed without the underlying data, those researchers who have come up with very different results will not be able to understand why the figures are different. And the reason for that difference could be important for those who want to understand how the scholarly publishing landscape is changing. Best wishes, Richard From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) Sent: 13 December 2012 17:57 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Cc: Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber Hi Richard, Happy to relay this information from my colleague. Answers interspersed below in black. With kind wishes, Alicia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:00 PM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber Thanks for this Alicia. Can you put some numbers on the percentage you cite? I.e. the number of articles assumed as the total, the number of articles from this total (3-4%) for which an APC was charged, and then the number of those charged-for articles that were published in hybrid journals vs. the number published in "pure" Gold OA journals? My colleague conducted an analysis of content on DOAJ - full journals not hybrid journals - categorizing each journal as either "author pays" or 'subsidized' (to use a different term as Sally, rightly, points out that 'free at the point of use' is ambiguous!) journals. Based on this analysis we estimate 3-4% of all STM articles (2.1M articles published as defined in Scopus) are in 'subsidized' journals. And when you say the start of 2012, what time span was used to arrive at these figures? A year? A month? A quarter? These are estimates for full year 2011. Has your colleague published this data? It would certainly be useful if someone published this kind of data on a regular basis, not least in order to track change over time. These data are gathered for internal tracking/modelling purposes, but thanks for the suggestion that we might publish them periodically. I'll feed this back internally. My colleague notes that "We reviewed the fine published work by Bjork and his colleagues. We found the overall uptake numbers quite similar to our internal analysis. However, there were some difference in the proportions of these that are assigned to different OA buckets based on variations in definitions, scope and methodology. " Also, is it possible to provide some more information on the "free-at-the-point-of-use" business models you are referring to, and what percentage of the total market they each represent? Yes, happy to do this. Here are two examples: * titles or supplements where society sponsorship pays for publishing costs rather than APCs or subscriptions * conference proceedings for which the publishing costs are paid by conference organisers and not APCs or subscriptions Richard From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) Sent: 12 December 2012 12:59 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber Hi Richard, My colleague does an in-depth annual study on the uptake of different business models, and suggests that this figure was 3-4% of total articles at the start of 2012. Elsevier, and I'm sure a wide array of other publishers, have used a range of business models to produce free-to-read journals for decades. I find it very interesting that these models are now claimed by the open access community as 'gold oa' titles although I suppose that's much less of a mouthful than 'free-at-the-point-of-use' titles! With kind wishes, Alicia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:42 AM To: 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber Thanks for the comments David. Your point about not equating Gold OA with APCs is well taken. But it also invites a question I think: do we know what percentage of papers(not journals, but papers) published Gold OA today incur no APC charge, and what do we anticipate this percentage becoming in a post-Finch world? Richard From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 11 December 2012 19:53 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Interview with Harvard's Stuart Shieber As ever, Richard has put together a fascinating and entertaining interview, and augmented it with a really useful essay on the current state of OA policies. I have a small quibble. On page two, Richard writes: "...or by means of gold OA, in which researchers (or more usually their funders) pay publishers an article-processing charge (APC) to ensure that their paper is made freely available on the Web at the time of publication." APCs make up just one business model that can be used to support Gold OA. Gold is OA through journals - it makes no assumption about how the costs of publication are paid for. I think it is helpful to ensure that we do not equate Gold with APCs. David On 3 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Richard Poynder wrote: Stuart Shieber is the Welch Professor of Computer Science at Harvard University, <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber> Faculty Co-Director of the <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/sshieber> Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Director of Harvard's Office for Scholarly Communication ( <http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/> OSC), and chief architect of the Harvard Open Access ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access> OA) Policy - a 2008 initiative that has seen Harvard become a major force in the OA movement. http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-oa-interviews-harvards-stuart.html <ATT00001..txt> Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). 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
