hi Michael, Peer review or other forms of academic quality control (editorial, funding agency review, thesis, tenure and promotion, hiring committees etc.) has never depended on the subscription or purchase models. For that matter, most of the more stringent forms of quality control in academia have always been outside of the publishing process. Having one's article turned down or revisions required by a journal is not fun, but compared to not getting tenure and losing your job or not getting the funding you need to do the research in the first place, it's not that big a deal.
As for chaotic pluralism, I would argue that completely open approaches have the ability to bring communities together, and perhaps save us all a lot of time by not re-inventing the wheel. For example, consider open bibliographies like John Dupuis' The Canadian War on Science or Steve Hitchcock's bibliography on the citation impact advantage. These are excellent services that make it possible for every scholar interested in these areas to advance their work much more quickly! Now what we need is to recognize this work so that everyone will share in this way. This would be a great deal more resource-effective (time and money), and better for gathering scholarly communities than the current system. What we do now is to have every individual scholar write up a literature review as part of their research, hoarding it until publication (in many fields, this is effect means until it's already outdated), so that the individual scholars can earn their brownie points towards tenure and subscription journals can grab their cut of the action. We can do better, faster, and at much less cost - so let's do it! References: Dupuis: http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/05/20/the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment/ Hitchcock: http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html my two bits, Dr. Heather Morrison p.s. - THANKS!! to everyone like Dupuis and Hitchcock and many others who are putting advancing knowledge first. On 2013-10-30, at 1:44 PM, Michael Schwartz <michael.schwa...@mas1.cnc.net<mailto:michael.schwa...@mas1.cnc.net>> wrote: And when openess prevails - how do we support quality? (Peer review??? who will be the peers in this open open world??) What happens when myriad points of view - many legitimate, many not - all have their own publication silos - all denigrating / ignoring / competing with the others - for all sorts of reasons good and bad? Yes--- some research / scholarly communities can deal with this (eg - the ones that are more mathematizable). What about the others ( the ones that are less mathematizable or the ones that are questionably mathematizable)? In other words - how - when openness triumphs in all fields - do we deal with chaotic pluralism? Through a sort of yet-to-arrive "marketplace"? (But gee, don't we already have one in place??? Will the new one really be better?? ) Michael Schwartz Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Stevan Harnad <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk<mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk>> wrote: On 2013-10-23, at 3:06 PM, David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>> wrote: Oh I see, Stevan. The subscription journals go out of business, just as I thought. I was afraid I had missed something in the analysis. Glad we agree. To return to the original point, at this time the US Government has no interest in driving the subscription publishers out of business. Post-Green Fair Gold is not Out-of-Business, it's just Fair Business. (except to a publisher lobbyist) At 02:43 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > wrote: As I understand it your position is that all published articles should be immediately available for free. My question is why then anyone would subscribe to a journal? I am sure you have an answer but I have no idea what it is, as your proposal seems to defy the basic laws of economics. Immediate deposit seems to be self defeating. What have I missed? Here's what you have missed: Harnad, Stevan (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/>. In, Anna, Gacs (ed.) The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. , L'Harmattan, 99-105. SUMMARY: What the research community needs, urgently, is free online access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output. Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 100% Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing (which is not in the hands of the research community) and it also requires the funds to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% Green OA, the research community's access and impact problems are already solved. If and when 100% Green OA should cause significant cancellation pressure (no one knows whether or when that will happen, because OA Green grows anarchically, article by article, not journal by journal) then the cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, downsizing and eventually a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing on the part of journals. As subscription revenues shrink, institutional windfall savings from cancellations grow. If and when journal subscriptions become unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be low enough, and institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, because publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service provision alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and access-provision and archiving onto the global network of OA Institutional Repositories. Green OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA. Harnad, Stevan (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>. D-Lib Magazine, 16, (7/8) SUMMARY: Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature. Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for publication) ("Green OA"). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality standards. At 01:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote: Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > wrote: The USA has the lead here, as far as major funder mandates are concerned, and they have opted for a 12 month publisher embargo form of green OA. I have several articles on this at http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ Peter does not even discuss what is actually happening on the policy front. On leads vs. lags and analysis vs argument, see: Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI Consultant<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-.html> The exchange is preceded by the following note (by me): Note: David Wojick<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/> works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI<http://www.osti.gov/home/>, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering. In the exchanges below, he sounds [to me] very much like a publishing interest lobbyist, but judge for yourself. He also turns out to have a rather curious [and to me surprising] history in environmental matters<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick>… The topic continued (and continues) to be discussed on the Society for Scholarly Publishing's blog, "The Scholarly Kitchen<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/>," where DW is a frequent contributor. DW: "Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually going on…. Happy OA week." And a Happy OA week to DW too... Stevan Harnad At 12:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote: Dear David, Sorry, could you tell us why you have the opinion that the author of the Guardian piece is oblivious to what is going on? What, in you eyes, is the main thing he seems not aware of? Thank you, Jeroen Bosman ----------------------------------------------- Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience Utrecht University Library email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl> twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman ----------------------------------------------------------------- P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ <mailto:sigmetr...@listserv.utk.edu> mailto:sigmetr...@listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 18:24 To: sigmetr...@listserv.utk.edu<mailto:sigmetr...@listserv.utk.edu> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually going on. Happy OA week. David Wojick At 02:20 PM 10/22/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): > <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >I post this without comment. > > <http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op> > http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op >en-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard > >But I would be interested to hear listmembers responses/reactions > >BW > >Quentin Burrell _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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
