As I say, I think I did, accidentally, coin the phrase 'hybrid journals'. As Sally notes, I saw it as a low-risk way for publishers to move subscription journals to open access. It is amazing (and perhaps slight depressing) to think that the article I published describing the model is now ten years old:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2003/00000016/00000003/art00001(freely available) But while the phrase may have been mine, the model wasn't - it was developed from that used by the Journals of the Entomological Society of America. What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model: 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then it is just a bonus. Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get published in that journal for free? And if you really want OA then best go to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality. 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription prices. Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is almost impossible to verify and from a subscriber's point of view very difficult to police. I don't know of any institution, for example, in a multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content. So, the hybrid model has been a disappointment to me and I have some sympathy for those funders that refuse to pay APCs for hybrid journals. A position Stuart Shieber has argued eloquently and compellingly for (see, for example, the relevant section in http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/07/10/ecumenical-open-access-and-the-finch-report-principles/). I was very struck by the recommendation in the recent UK House of Commons BIS report that hybrid APCs should not be funded. Unless we see real movement from publishers to address in a transparent and local manner the double-dipping issue then that is a position that, despite my previous advocacy for the hybrid model, I think I'll increasingly support. David On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, Sally Morris wrote: > Actually, as far as I can recall, the idea of 'hybrid journals' was first > proposed by David Prosser of SPARC Europe in 2003, as a way for publishers to > move towards 100% conversion to OA > > David will no doubt say if this is not so > > Sally > > Sally Morris > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286 > Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of > Jean-Claude Guédon > Sent: 16 December 2013 20:29 > To: goal@eprints.org > Subject: [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of > Beall's List > > Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +0000, Graham Triggs a écrit : >> >> On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon >> <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > >> >> >> 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. > > Who introduced "hybrid journals"? "who introduced "delayed open access" - an > oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's "universal access"? > etc. etc. >> >> >> >> 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. > > Fairly quick indeed! <face-smile.png> >> >> >> > [snip (because irrelevant] >> >> >> 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. > > Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison > between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many > countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my > anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce > its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly in > itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce pricing? >> >> >> >> 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. > > Having looked fairly closely at programmes like HINARI, I beg to differ. The > publishing industry is very creative when it comes to growing fig leaves. >> >> >> >> Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it >> alone? No. > > It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way. >> >> >> >> If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders >> and researchers to work with the publishing industry. > > I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as Scielo > or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need yet > another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets. >> >> >> >> 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. >> > Your last point is correct, at least until now. Laws such as the one recently > passed in Argentina may help further. But you are right: in developing > nations, the best way is to avoid the industry entirely and develop > evaluation methods that are a little more sophisticated than the impact > factor misapplied to individuals. > > Jean-Claude Guédon > >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > _______________________________________________ > 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
