In response to Dr. Morrison: If you're getting by with author-pay charges per journal article of $1000 (Canadian, I presume), count yourself lucky. The two articles I've had accepted this year, in journals published by OUP and by Brill, each would have cost me £2000-2500 (UK Pounds). (Now Emeritus, I don't have to comply with RCUK or REF mandates, but I sympathize with colleagues who still do.) Larry Hurtado
Quoting Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:47:42 +0000: > The first-copy cost for monographs (the cost most relevant to > producing open access monographs) is about $10 - $15,000. This > figure comes from research by Greco & Wharton, and confirmed by a > series of interviews with senior people in scholarly monograph > publishing that I did in 2010/11. > > Considering the difference in time investment for writing a > monograph as compared to an article, funding for open access > monographs should be just as feasible as funding open access > scholarly journal articles. If one scholar produces 10 articles over > a period of 3 years and is subsidized at $1,000 per article, it > makes sense to subsidize another scholar's monograph written over > the same period by about the same amount. > > Frances Pinter's Knowledge Unlatched is a program designed to help > libraries shift from pay-to-purchase to pay-to-subsidize that > combines free with premium versions (free on the web, pay for print > or e-book special editions). > > My library at the University of Ottawa gives us new scholars a fund > of $2,000 to develop collections in our area. I have directed the > library to make use of a portion of my funds to support a Knowledge > Unlatched pilot. > > While there are definite disadvantages to the article processing fee > method - to me, it's inefficient, encourages commercialization, and > makes equity for authors difficult - there are pluses as well. > > One potential advantage for us scholars is that pay-for-production > of scholarly works introduces a disincentive to requiring a high > volume of publications. This would give scholars more time to focus > on quality rather than quantity of work! > > References > > > Greco, A. N., & Wharton, R. M. (2008). Should university presses > adopt an open access [electronic publishing] business model for all > of their scholarly books? Paper presented at the Open Scholarship: > Authority, Community, and Sustainability in the Age of Web 2.0 - > Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Electronic > Publishing Held in Toronto, Canada 25-27 June 2008, Milan. pp. > 149-164. Retrieved December 10, 2011 from > http://elpub.scix.net/cgi-bin/works/Show?149_elpub2008 > > Morrison, H. (2012) Freedom for scholarship in the internet age. > Doctoral dissertation. Chapter 6: the changing economic and > technical environment for scholarly monograph publishing: views from > the industry. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/12537 > > Knowledge Unlatched (2013). An interview with Frances Pinter. > http://www.knowledgeunlatched.org/2013/01/an-interview-with-frances-pinter/ > > Morrison, H. (2013). Make my collection open access! The Imaginary > Journal of Poetic Economics > http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ca/2013/10/make-my-collection-open-access.html > > best, > > -- > Dr. Heather Morrison > Assistant Professor > École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies > University of Ottawa > 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 > http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca<mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> > > > On 2013-11-29, at 5:24 AM, Guédon Jean-Claude > <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca<mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> > wrote: > > There a number of points to be made regarding Hurtado's message: > > 1. The "horrid 'Gold'" must refer to the author-pay gold. This is > not the whole of gold, only a subset. Gold ciovers a wide variety of > financing schemes. > > 2. The figures given for "horrid gold" - incidentally, I like this > term applied to author-pay business models - are real, but not > general. Thousands of journals offer gratis services to authors and > free use by readers because, simply, they are subsidized in one > fashion or another. > > 3. Even if the cost of £2000+ (Sterling) were accepted for articles, > the cost of monographs could not be derived from a simplistic linear > extrapolation based on page numbers. > > 4. Young scholars who may not enjoy Hurtado's stature in the world, > would be delighted to have their first work published, if only > electronically. Moreover, they would probably prefer open access to > ensure maximum visibility and use, provided the evaluation process > in force within their universities does not treat electronic > publishing as inferior. > > 5. In many countries, e.g. in Canada, subsidies exist to support the > publishing of monographs. This precedent opens the door to possible > extensions to full OA-publishing support, for example for a young > scholar's first book. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > ________________________________________ > De : goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> > [goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] de la > part de l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk> > [l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:l.hurt...@ed.ac.uk>] > Envoyé : jeudi 28 novembre 2013 05:40 > À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Objet : [GOAL] Re: Monographs > > Further to Steven's comment, as a scholar in the Humanities, in which > the book/monograph is still THE major medium for high-impact > research-publication, mandating a major change such as OA (even > "Green", to say nothing of the horrid "Gold"), would be opposed by at > least the overwhelming majority (and perhaps even unanimously) in the > disciplines concerned. And the reasons aren't primarily author-income > that might accrue from traditional print-book publication. For many > European-type small-print-run monographs, sold almost entirely to > libraries, often no royalty accrues to author. Even serious books > intended primarily for other scholars in the field and published by > university presses and/or reputable trade publishers, the royalties > will still be modest in comparison with, e.g., popular fiction works. > > My best-selling book, sold ca. 5,000 hardback and has sold now over > another 3000 in paperback. Several thousand in royalties, but, > seriously, my main aim in writing books has been to get them into the > hands of as many fellow scholars in my field as possible, and also > then into the hands of advanced students and other serious readers. > I've typically gone with a highly-respected and well-established > "trade" publisher, mainly because they combine excellent editing, > marketing, and a readiness to price the books affordably (e.g., a 700 > page hardback at $55 USD, because they committed to a 5000 copy > initial print-run.) > > For an equivalent service to be provided, someone has to pay. "Gold" > access articles are costing now £2000+ (Sterling) each, with > page-lengths of ca. 20 print pages. Imagine what an author would have > to pay for a 150-200 page monograph. And don't tell me that > everything will be OK, because university libraries will hand over > their acquisitions budget for this. It won't happen. Moreover, what > about "independent" and retired scholars, who continue to produce > important works? > > And the "Green" approach means no one pays, and so no service > (editing, and other production services, including promotion) will be > done free? Think again. > > But the fundamental thing is this: Any "mandate" that does not have > the enthusiasm of the constituency is tyranny. And neither "Green" > nor "Gold" access has any enthusiasm among Humanities scholars as may > be applied to books/monographs. > > Larry Hurtado > > Quoting Stevan Harnad > <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>> on Mon, 25 Nov > 2013 > 17:09:56 -0500: > > Sandy, I'm all for OA to monographs, of course. > > It's *mandating* OA to monographs that I am very skeptical about, because > there is unanimity among researchers about desiring -- even if not daring, > except if mandated, to provide -- OA to peer-reviewed journal articles, > whereas there is no such unanimity about monographs. > > Not to mention that prestige publishers may not yet be ready to agree to it. > > So mandate Green OA to articles first; that done, mandate (or try to > mandate) whatever else you like. But not before, or instead. > > Meanwhile, where the author and publisher are willing, there is absolute no > obstacle to providing OA to monographs today, unmandated. > > Stevan Harnad > > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Sandy Thatcher > <s...@psu.edu<mailto:s...@psu.edu>> wrote: > > Stevan continues to be hung up on the idea that some academic authors > still have visions of fame and fortune they'd like to achieve through > publishing books in the traditional manner, so he believes that the time > for OA in book publishing has not yet arrived. But perhaps a simple > terminological distinction may suffice to place this problem in proper > perspective. Academic books may be divided into two types: monographs and > trade books. Monographs, by definition, are works of scholarship written > primarily to address other scholars and are therefore unlikely to attract > many, if any, readers beyond the walls of academe. Trade books encompass a > large category that includes, as one subset, nonfiction works written by > scholars but addressed not only to fellow scholars but also to members of > the general public. > > There is an easy practical way to distinguish the two: commercial trade > publishers (as distinct from commercial scholarly publishers that do not > aim at a trade market) have certain requirements for potential sales that > guarantee that monographs will never be accepted for publication. It is > true that the authors of monographs, published by university presses and > commercial scholarly publishers, are sometimes paid royalties. But these > amounts seldom accumulate to large sums (unless the monographs happen to > become widely adopted in classrooms as course assignments--a phenomenon > that happens less these days when coursepacks and e-reserves permit use of > excerpts for classroom assignments). Thus not much is sacrificed, > financially speaking, by publishing these books OA. And, indeed, a scholar > may have more to gain, in terms of increased reputation from wider > circulation that may translate into tenure and promotion, which are vastly > more financially rewarding over the long term than royalties are ever > likely to be from monograph sales. > > Also, of course, financial opportunities do not need to be sacrificed > completely by OA if the CC-BY-NC-ND license is used for monographs, > preserving some money-generating rights to authors even under OA. > > It also needs to be said that even trade authors can benefit from OA, as > the successes of such authors as Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, Jonathan > Zittrain, and others have demonstrated, with the free online versions of > their books serving to stimulate print sales. > > Thus I believe Stevan is not being quite pragmatic enough in recognizing > that the time has arrived for OA monograph publishing also, not just OA > article publishing. > > Sandy Thatcher > > > > At 12:44 PM -0500 11/19/13, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Ann Okerson (as > interviewed<http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ann-okerson-on-state-of-open-access.html>by > Richard Poynder) is committed to licensing. I am not sure > whether > the > commitment is ideological or pragmatic, but it's clearly a lifelong > ("asymptotic") commitment by now. > > I was surprised to see the direction Ann ultimately took because -- as I > have admitted many times -- it was Ann who first opened my eyes to (what > eventually came to be called) "Open Access." > > In the mid and late 80's I was still just in the thrall of the scholarly > and scientific potential of the revolutionarily new online medium > itself ("Scholarly > Skywriting"<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/sky-writing-or-when-man-first-met-troll/239420/>), > eager to get everything to be put online. It was Ann's work on the serials > crisis that made me realize that it was not enough just to get it all > online: it also had to be made accessible (online) to all of its potential > users, toll-free -- not just to those whose institutions could afford the > access-tolls (licenses). > > And even that much I came to understand, sluggishly, only after I had > first realized that what set apart the writings in question was not that > they were (as I had first naively dubbed them) > "esoteric<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Proposal>" > (i.e., they had few users) but that they were* peer-reviewed research > journal articles*, written by researchers solely for impact, not for > income <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1>. > > > But I don't think the differences between Ann and me can be set down to > ideology vs. pragmatics. I too am far too often busy trying to free the > growth of open access from the ideologues (publishing reformers, rights > reformers (Ann's "open use" zealots), peer review reformers, freedom of > information reformers) who are slowing the progress of access to > peer-reviewed journal articles (from "now" to "better") by insisting only > and immediately on what they believe is the "best." Like Ann, I, too, am > all pragmatics (repository software, analyses of the OA impact advantage, > mandates, analyses of mandate effeciveness). > > So Ann just seems to have a different sense of what can (hence should) be > done, now, to maximize access, and how (as well as how fast). And after her > initial, infectious inclination toward toll-free access (which I and others > caught from her) she has apparently concluded that what is needed is to > modify the terms of the tolls (i.e., licensing). > > This is well-illustrated by Ann's view on SCOAP3: "All it takes is for > libraries to agree that what they've now paid as subscription fees for > those journals will be paid instead to CERN, who will in turn pay to the > publishers as subsidy for APCs." > > I must alas disagree with this view, on entirely pragmatic -- indeed > logical -- grounds: the transition from annual institutional subscription > fees to annual consortial OA publication fees is an incoherent, unscalable, > unsustainable Escherian scheme that contains the seeds of its own > dissolution, rather than a pragmatic means of reaching a stable > "asymptote": Worldwide, across all disciplines, there are P institutions, Q > journals, and R authors, publishing S articles per year. The only relevant > item is the article. The annual consortial licensing model -- reminiscent > of the Big Deal -- is tantamount to a global oligopoly and does not scale > (beyond CERN!). > > So if SCOAP3 is the pragmatic basis for Ann's "predict[ion that] we'll see > such journals evolve into something more like 'full traditional OA' before > too much longer" then one has some practical basis for scepticism -- a > scepticism Ann shares when it comes to "hybrid Gold" OA journals -- unless > of course such a transition to Fool's Gold is both mandated and funded by > governments, as the UK and Netherlands governments have lately > proposed<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1073-The-Journal-Publisher-Lobby-in-the-UK-Netherlands-Part-I.html>, > under the influence of their publishing lobbies! But the globalization of > such profligate folly seems unlikely on the most pragmatic grounds of all: > affordability. (The scope for remedying world hunger, disease or injustice > that way are marginally better -- and McDonalds would no doubt be > interested in such a yearly global consortial pre-payment > deal<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=oI6LUpG8LPLCyAHT5IHQDg#q=McNopoly+harnad>for > their Big > Macs > too?) > > I also disagree (pragmatically) with Ann's apparent conflation of the > access problem for journal articles with the access problem for books. > (It's the inadequacy of the "esoteric" criterion again. Many book authors > -- hardly pragmatists -- still dream of sales & riches, and fear that free > online access would thwart these dreams, driving away the prestigious > publishers whose imprimaturs distinguish their work from vanity press.) > > Pragmatically speaking, OA to articles has already proved slow enough in > coming, and has turned out to require mandates to induce and embolden > authors to make their articles OA. But for articles, at least, there is > author consensus that OA is desirable, hence there is the motivation to > comply with OA mandates from authors' institutions and funders. Books, > still a mixed bag, will have to wait. Meanwhile, no one is stopping those > book authors who want to make their books free online from picking > publishers who agree?> > > And there are plenty of pragmatic reasons why the librarian-obsession -- > perhaps not ideological, but something along the same lines -- with the > Version-of-Record is misplaced when it comes to access to journal articles: > The author's final, peer-reviewed, accepted draft means the difference > between night and day for would-be users whose institutions cannot afford > toll-access to the publisher's proprietary VoR. > > And for the time being the toll-access VoR is safe [modulo the general > digital-preservation problem, which is not an OA problem], while > subscription licenses are being paid by those who can afford them. CHORUS > and SHARE have plenty of pragmatic advantages for publishers (and > ideological ones for librarians), but they are vastly outweighed by their > practical disadvantages for research and researchers -- of which the > biggest is that they leave access-provision in the hands of publishers (and > their licensing conditions). > > About the Marie-Antoinette option for the developing world -- R4L -- the > less said, the better. The pragmatics really boil down to time: the access > needs of both the developing and the developed world are pressing. Partial > and makeshift solutions are better than nothing, now. But it's been "now" > for an awfully long time; and time is not an ideological but a pragmatic > matter; so is lost research usage and impact. > > Ann says: "Here's the fondest hope of the pragmatic OA advocate: that we > settle on a series of business practices that truly make the greatest > possible collection of high-value material accessible to the broadest > possible audience at the lowest possible cost - not just lowest cost to end > users, but lowest cost to all of us." > > Here's a slight variant, by another pragmatic OA advocate: "that we settle > on a series of research community policies that truly make the greatest > possible collection of peer-reviewed journal articles accessible online > free for all users, to the practical benefit of all of us." > > The online medium has made this practically possible. The publishing > industry -- pragmatists rather than ideologists -- will adapt to this new > practical reality. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. > > Let me close by suggesting that perhaps something Richard Poynder wrote is > not quite correct either: He wrote "It was [the] affordability problem that > created the accessibility problem that OA was intended to solve." > > No, it was the creation of the online medium that made OA not only > practically feasible (and optimal) for research and researchers, but > inevitable. > > *Stevan Harnad* > > > > -- > > Sanford G. Thatcher > 8201 Edgewater Drive > Frisco, TX 75034-5514 > e-mail: s...@psu.edu<mailto:s...@psu.edu> > Phone: (214) 705-1939 > Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher > > "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > > "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who > can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org<mailto: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 > http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado > www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com > > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com -- 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
