Anyone who has followed the tedious exchanges with Graham Triggs can find the replies to the few substantive points below by just re-reading the exchanges. The many ideological, hypothetical and irrelevant points too, but they are even less worth the effort. If Graham says something new, substantive and short, I am prepared to listen…
Stevan Harnad On 2013-12-10, at 8:55 AM, Graham Triggs <grahamtri...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 December 2013 12:56, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 4. The majority of publishers with Green OA embargoes have an embargo of one > year (though 60%, including Elsevier and Springer, have no embargo at all). > > That's not true - Springer have adopted a 12 month embargo, and Elsevier > require an embargo for non-voluntary deposits. (You can argue as much as you > like about whether you can call a spade a fork, it doesn't change what the > policy is). > > Further, your claim of 60% seems to be entirely based on Sherpa/RoMEO data - > which you usually provide links to. Except the classifications of RoMEO alone > does not lead to saying that 60% of journals / publishers have no embargo, as > when you read through the restrictions, what you CAN do may be listed as > being subject to an embagro (as in the case of Elsevier and Springer). > > The reasoning is that since free access after a year is a foregone > conclusion, because of Green mandates, it's better if that free access is > provided by publishers as Gold, so it all remains in their hands (navigation, > search, reference linking, re-use, re-publication, etc.). > > Actually, providing that a CTA has been signed as part of publishing the > article, then the re-use and re-publication is only possible in accordance > with the licence(s) that the publisher allows the content to be distributed > under. So, regardless of whether the content is on another site or not, the > [publisher granted rights via CTA] still retain that control. > > Everyone gets Gold access after a year, and that's the end of it. Back to > business as before -- unless the market prefers to pay the same price that it > pays for subscriptions, in exchange for immediate, un-embargoed Gold OA (as > in SCOAP3 or hybrid Gold). > > Where do you get same price from? Estimates put subscription revenue per > article at around $4,000-$5,000, whereas even high-price hybrid Gold is only > $3,000 an article (with an industry average closer to $1,000 per article). > > Your claim regarding SCOAP3 might have more substance if it wasn't a library > and funding agency led initiative to reduce the cost of publishing in physics > - something that 20 years of "100% OA" in arXiv has failed to do. > > And the inevitable is immediate Green OA, with authors posting their > refereed, accepted final drafts immediately upon acceptance for publication. > That version will become the version of record, because subscriptions to the > publisher's print and online version will become unsustainable once the Green > OA version is free for all. > > If it was immediate Green OA of the refereed, accepted final draft (and it > could be trusted that was the case), then there might be a chance of that > happening. Might. > > Not that print is necessarily under threat from that - if people want print > [enough], then they would continue to pay for it, regardless of where else it > may exist, or at what cost. > > But that isn't what's happening, is it? Springer and Elsevier have introduced > and/or lengthened embargoes in response to Green mandates (in Elsevier's > case, the clause is specifically invoked by the presence of a mandate). > > These embargoes are going to exist as long as publishers believe that they > are necessary. And so, if you expect to continue to publish -at no author > cost - in the journals you choose to now, you are only going to see embargoes > disappear if people will continue to pay the subscriptions. > > as Fair Gold (instead of today's over-priced, double-paid and double-dipped > Fool's Gold) out of a fraction of the institutional annual windfall savings > from their cancelled annual subscriptions. > > And the evidence of double-dipping is? > > On the other hand, not only has Wellcome stated there are indications of > subscription price rises being constrained appropriately by limited uptake of > hybrid Gold options, we have actual statements of subscription prices REDUCED > because of Gold uptake in others: > > http://www.nature.com/press_releases/emboopen.html > http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1345327/application/pdf/Springer+Open+Choice_Journal+Price+Adjustments+2013.pdf > > So both the 1-year embargo on Green and the 1-year release of Gold are > attempts to fend off the above: OA has become a fight for that first year of > access: researchers need and want it immediately; publishers want to hold > onto it unless they continue to be paid as much as they are being paid now. > > No, publishers are going to hold onto it unless they continue to be paid what > they see as a fair return on their costs. > > I can't ever see there not being a tension between academics and [commercial] > publishers over profits. But changing the business model so that you pay > upfront for publishing services can and will reduce the overall cost to the > scholarly community. > > However, it would be a mistake to just talk about first year of access. > Ownership of materials is also important. Aside from the other opportunity > costs, not retaining ownership is what allows these embargoes to exist. > > Changing the predominant business model to upfront payment will deliver > immediate access, ownership and lower costs. Failing to do so isn't going to > deliver ownership or lower costs, and it's not going to deliver immediate > access to anything other than pre-print material. > > That's not just the evidenced in the last 20 years of open access provision, > but in what is being attempted by SCOAP3 to deliver what Green OA alone can't. > > G > _______________________________________________ > 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
