On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Graham Triggs <grahamtri...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon < > jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > >> Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA >> advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, >> you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its >> utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. >> > > Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority > of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to > have been - by scholars. > > There are probably 20 different terms introduced by publishers. They include: "Author choice" "Free choice" "Free content" and variants. All are imprecisely defined and a cynic might say intended to confuse. And there is blatant misrepresentation: "Fully open Access" (to describe CC-NC-ND with a list of restrictions, all-rights-reserved and huge charges from RightsLink including for teaching.) > The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety > of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the > needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their > business models for as long as possible. > > >> Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. >> Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including >> myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but >> these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to >> imagine alternatives to the present publishing system. >> > > It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing > industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are > attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is > ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on > alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation > that destroys the publishing industry. > > >> Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the >> publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry >> should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready >> to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging >> a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise >> here... [image: :-)] >> > > Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being > pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At > which point: > > 1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to > privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, > advertising... > > 2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the > publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. > > Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging > with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there > are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could > stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee > that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse. > > Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto >> Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of >> nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is >> not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough >> only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake >> about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity >> lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot >> foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your >> shoes, I would be scared. >> > > From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and > charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for > developing nations than the picture you are painting. > > Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it > alone? No. > > If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders > and researchers to work with the publishing industry. > > Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing > research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve > developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their > publishing problems. > > G > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
<<face-smile.png>>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
