The percentage of OA articles is useful, but no guarantee against double dipping. Subscription publishers set the price. If your normal price increase would be about 5% (well above inflation, but typical in scholarly publishing), but you want to look like you're not double dipping, you can simply increase "normal price" to 6%, then tell your customers what a great OA deal they are getting with only a 5.2% price increase. Springer is owned by private equity firms and is hardly transparent. A publicly traded corporation like Elsevier has public reporting requirements that don't apply to companies like Springer. That's one of the reasons Elsevier profits tend to be highlighted. Their financial statements are transparent.
Another way to look at the .8%: 99.2% of the articles in this journal are published as toll access. The only OA material in the latest volume is the Editor's notes. This piece presents detailed numbers on the journal's publication practices (submissions, rejections, increase in impact factor, innovation in review - considering reviews from prior submissions). There is no mention of open access. Springer is arguably the OA leader among the big traditional publishers. However, looking at this journal, if OA disappeared altogether, it is not clear that they'd even notice. According to Sherpa Romeo, authors in this journal can self-archive both pre-prints and post-prints, with a year's embargo on the post-print. The year's embargo is not optimal, but is a much more realistic solution for access to these articles than waiting for the journal to become OA, along with all back issues, which may never happen. In other words, a year may seem like a long time to wait for access to a post-print, but if the alternative is life of the author plus 70 years to public domain (assuming no further copyright term extensions in the meantime), then a year is not that long in comparison. Conclusion: open access publishing is a good thing, but to achieve the broadest possible access we need archiving, too. best, Heather On May 27, 2015, at 2:18 AM, "brent...@ulg.ac.be<mailto:brent...@ulg.ac.be>" <brent...@ulg.ac.be<mailto:brent...@ulg.ac.be>> wrote: Eric, What is the significance of 0.8% (83/10,429) ? What useful metrics can you draw from that ? Why would Springer deserve a kudo ? Just for "transparency"? What's new if it becomes clear that double-dipping means taking underfunded academic institutions for a ride ? Greetings, Bernard _____________________ BernardRentier Hon. Rector, Université de Liège, Belgium Le 27 mai 2015 à 00:53, Éric Archambault <eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>> a écrit : Dear all Yesterday I was complaining about the fact that journals were not transparent about their gold à la pièce. Here is an example of a positive step in the right direction: http://link.springer.com/journal/10645 Here, one can see clearly what the OA papers are, and one can calculate the proportion of Gold to locked papers. The stats for this journal reveals that 83/10,429 papers are gold à la pièce (aka hybrid). This helps library determine if they are taken for a ride (i.e. with double dipping). I’ll see whether and how Science-Metrix could start monitoring these journals to see how much more they get cited (or less, as this is a hypothesis!) – this would show the golden benefits to scientific publishers. Well, Kudo to Springer! The company should definitely be congratulated for leading the way among the big three, it is the least afraid of embracing OA, the most transparent, and likely to be coming out on top following the transition to OA (which certainly won’t be a simple flip, as Stevan said, rather a Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily unstable strategy. As Schumpeter said, these are certainly gales of creative destruction, and let’s hope that more progressive publishers such as Springer destroy the market share of dinosaurs!). Éric Archambault _______________________________________________ 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
