Although I am one of a number of authors who have argued that we can afford to flip existing subscriptions revenue to open access (see http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i6.4370), I argue that there are essential flaws in the idea of attempting to transition existing successful commercial scholarly publishers from a subscriptions to an open access based business model. This post will focus on one such flaw In particular, that payment for new articles moving forward via OA APCs does not address other major revenue sources for existing publishers.
In this article I speak to the transition of Elsevier to OA as unlikely: https://doi.org/10.5260/chara.18.3.53 Excerpt: "Realistic APC prices that would be required to sustain Elsevier revenue and profit based on dividing Elsevier’s stated revenue by Elsevier’s two different reports of article production range from over $5,000 to close to $12,000 USD per article. The low-end estimate is higher than estimated global academic library spend (Morrison, 2013<http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/charleston/15254011/v18n3/s14.html?expires=1497975509&id=90910283&titleid=75002231&accname=University+of+Ottawa&checksum=7738947A38667D7749C747C9016E07F6#bib6>). Even if every article produced by Elsevier from this day forward were OA through APC funding, it is important to note that Elsevier derives considerable revenue through subscriptions and pay-per-view for a very substantial collection of back issues, and for search services such as Scopus and Science Direct. It seems likely that even if signatories of the OA020: Expression of Interest in the Large-Scale Implementation of Open Access to Scholarly Journals were to be joined by every university and research organization worldwide, and even if they were to collectively agree to pay more than current spend to transition Elsevier moving forward to Open Access publication, Elsevier would continue to seek subscriptions and pay-per-view revenue for back issues, and paying for OA articles should not be assumed to include payment for search services that libraries and researchers might continue to see as “must-haves.”" To sum up arguments in these two articles, I argue that there is more than enough funding in existing library subscriptions to fund a fully open access scholarly publishing system, and that it would be possible to do at considerable cost savings. However, the possibility and affordability of an OA flip cannot be taken for granted. Providing support for a return to scholar-led journal publishing (the norm until the end of the Second World War) through such means as library support for journal hosting, modest subsidies for journals, and investing in new approaches such as peer-review overlay based on repositories would appear to be the most promising routes. best, Heather Morrison On 2017-06-20, at 11:19 AM, "Reckling, Falk" <falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at<mailto:falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at>> wrote: Right Eric, but it has to be flanked by initiatives like in Finland, Germany and the Netherlands to convince some publishers to change their business models according what buyers are asking for: FIN: http://www.nodealnoreview.org/ GER: https://www.projekt-deal.de/about-deal/ NL: http://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/openaccess-eng.html And as the offsetting / OA deals in the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, UK and Germany already show, some publishers have learnt the lesson, not always perfect but nearly sufficient deals. Some other publishers should learn a lesson given by Ivy Anderson from the Digital Library of the Universities of California: “ … the core problem is the persistence of a friction-based business model in a network environment that is essentially frictionless. Human factors research tells us that when users keep making the same mistake, it isn't a mistake - it's the system that needs to change. Flip the business model to open access, and the Sci-Hub problem goes away - it becomes unnecessary on the one hand and legitimate on the other.“ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone#comment-2648543579<http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pirated-papers-everyone> Best, Falk Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:boun...@eprints.org>] Im Auftrag von Éric Archambault Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Juni 2017 16:04 An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Betreff: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND Dear Gemma The OA2020 proposes a separate business model involving a “large scale transition to open access”. What is the position of Elsevier relative to that initiative? The position of the Max Planck is there is enough money in the system to enable the transition to an open access model so it is largely a matter of shifting that money around. Do you share the same views? What are the challenges and enablers you view in the OA2020 proposal? I think this initiative deserves attention as it would allow us to set aside that mounting “arm race” between users who want unhampered access and publishers who need revenues. Cordially Éric Eric Archambault, PhD CEO | Chef de la direction 1335, Mont-Royal E Montréal QC Canada H2J 1Y6 T. 1.514.495.6505 x.111 C. 1.514.518.0823 eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> science-metrix.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/> & MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.science-metrix.com" claiming to be 1science.com<http://www.science-metrix.com/> <image005.jpg> <image006.png> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM) Sent: June 19, 2017 11:18 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND Dear Richard Elsevier's hosting policy<https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/hosting> explains how platforms can host Elsevier content. This includes enabling institutional repositories to share their employee's or student's accepted manuscripts publicly after an embargo period, but not beforehand. The challenge with the proposal below is that it wouldn’t really work very well for very long; an embargo period is needed to enable the subscription model to continue to operate, in the absence of a separate business model. Best wishes Gemma Gemma Hersh VP, Policy and Communications Elsevier I 125 London Wall I London I EC2Y 5AS M: +44 (0) 7855 258 957 I E: g.he...@elsevier.com<mailto:g.he...@elsevier.com> Twitter: @gemmahersh From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Richard Poynder Sent: 18 June 2017 14:30 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] Elsevier's interpretation of CC BY-NC-ND *** External email: use caution *** On a related topic, this poster might be of interest to list members: Exploiting Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Subvert Embargo "In the last round of author sharing policy revisions, Elsevier created a labyrinthine title-by-title embargo structure requiring embargoes from 12-48 months for author sharing via institutional repository (IR), while permitting immediate sharing via author's personal website or blog. At the same time, all pre-publication versions are to bear a Creative Commons-Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) license. "At the time this policy was announced, it was rightly criticized by many in the scholarly communication community as overly complicated and unnecessary. However, this CC licensing requirement creates an avenue for subverting the embargo in the IR to achieve quicker open distribution of the author's accepted manuscript. "In short, authors may post an appropriately licensed copy on their personal site, at which point we may deposit without embargo in the IR, not through the license granted in the publication agreement, but through the CC license on the author's version, which the sharing policy mandates. This poster will outline this issue, our experimentation with application, and engage viewers in questions regarding its potential risks, benefits, and workflows." https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/24107 On 18 June 2017 at 12:24, Mittermaier, Bernhard <b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de<mailto:b.mitterma...@fz-juelich.de>> wrote: Dear colleagues, on sharing in file-sharing networks, Creatice Commons explain: “Can I share CC-licensed material on file-sharing networks? Yes. All CC licenses allow redistribution of the unmodified material by any means, including distribution via file-sharing networks. Note that file-trading is expressly considered to be noncommercial for purposes of compliance with the NC licenses. Barter of NC-licensed material for other items of value is not permitted.” https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-share-cc-licensed-material-on-file-sharing-networks The “Elsevier Sharing Rules” say “CC-BY-NC-ND licensed articles may be shared on non-commercial platforms only.” http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm|StartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm|SkinName=svs_SD<http://help.sciencedirect.com/flare/sdhelp_Left.htm#CSHID=password.htm%7CStartTopic=Content%2Fsharing_pubs.htm%7CSkinName=svs_SD> and again in the table at the bottom of that webpage: “Public posting on commercial platforms (e.g., www.researchgate.net<http://www.researchgate.net>, www.academia.edu<http://www.academia.edu>)” :not allowed I’ve been asking Alicia Wise, on what grounds why Elsevier takes that position. She replied: „Both ResearchGate & academia.edu<http://academia.edu> use content commercially to sell advertising & services around the content they disseminate” and “Both ResearchGate & academia.edu<https://t.co/IQgdiiCF1s> are problems in Germany as they go beyond private use to make NC content publicly available” (https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284792275140609 and https://twitter.com/wisealic/status/874284916644696066 ) My interpretation of the CC licence is that sharing of CC BY-NC-ND article by commercial platforms is OK as long as they don’t sell the articles (which they don’t do). But apart from that - what authors are doing is IMHO definitely not prohibited because they have no commercial gain whatsoever. What do you think? Kind regards Bernhard ########################################### Dr. Bernhard Mittermaier Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH Leiter der Zentralbibliothek / Head of the Central Library 52425 Jülich Tel ++49-2461-613013<tel:+49%202461%20613013> Fax ++49-2461-616103<tel:+49%202461%20616103> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Richard Poynder www.richardpoynder.co.uk<http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk> ________________________________ Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales. _______________________________________________ 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
