[GOAL] Squashing the brand? Re: Interview with the Scholarly Kitchen's Kent Anderson
Having feasted on Kent Anderson's anti-OA, anti-eLife and anti-PMC views, thanks to Richard Poynder's interview, the gold OA pack are now descending on Nature for having the temerity to charge a higher price for CC-BY OA than for, say, CC-BY-NC-ND http://www.nature.com/press_releases/cc-licenses.html "what’s really outrageous about this: they’re explicitly charging MORE for applying/allowing a CC BY license relative to the more restrictive licenses. Applying a license to a digital work costs nothing. By charging £100-400 more for CC BY they’re really taking the piss – charging more for ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL EFFORT on their part. Horrid. Other than greed what is the justification for this?" http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/ Apparently Nature has a brand value it is ready to exploit, and we haven't yet learned that it's rights we are paying for with gold OA, not OA itself. Or perhaps we have learned that lesson, and the new game is to squash brand value. A PLOS representative apparently says at #berlin10sa "it's not about where you publish it's about who you reach". In other words, make the venue irrelevant? @PLOSBiology The @wellcometrust values the merits of the article over the journal it is published in - Chris Bird at #berlin10sa Another anti-OA cook had already spotted, and applauded, this strategy (see penultimate paragraph) http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/11/06/why-did-publishers-get-so-big/ Meanwhile, the #altmetrics movement gathers steam with the idea that we can measure some new things even if we don't yet know what those things might mean. But one goal is clear: disconnect the impact calculation from the venue and reconnect it to the paper. Actually, it is about time that we moved on from the journal impact factor, but is that the simple agenda here? I suspect this is not where Finch and its publishers, and RCUK, think they are heading with their vision of hybrid gold OA. That approach is going to price some authors out of their familiar, favourite journals; the emerging alternative is those journals may not be there for them at all, to be replaced with faceless collections like (name your publisher) OPEN. Straws in the wind, or connected? Steve Hitchcock WAIS Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Twitter: @stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Squashing the brand? Re: Interview with the Scholarly Kitchen's Kent Anderson
What's wrong with a high quality, peer-reviewed RCUK-funded article appearing in a 'faceless' journal with the word 'Open' in it? If the traditional publishers won't allow CC BY for a reasonable price then of course new 'faceless' entrants will offer more value for money gold OA venues of equivalent technical quality. I for one would quite like this change. Articles would have to be judged on their own merits for once, rather than the journal impact factor of the journal they appear in. As long as its good content, peer-reviewed and available as CC BY with a DOI, article landing page and a few other technical things - I think this would be good. Articles don't need 'face' branded journals to have intellectual merit. My .02 Ross PS who or what are the 'gold oa pack'? Do supporters of OA really have to be so divisive? On Nov 8, 2012 12:12 PM, "Steve Hitchcock" wrote: > Having feasted on Kent Anderson's anti-OA, anti-eLife and anti-PMC views, > thanks to Richard Poynder's interview, the gold OA pack are now descending > on Nature for having the temerity to charge a higher price for CC-BY OA > than for, say, CC-BY-NC-ND > http://www.nature.com/press_releases/cc-licenses.html > > "what’s really outrageous about this: they’re explicitly charging MORE for > applying/allowing a CC BY license relative to the more restrictive > licenses. Applying a license to a digital work costs nothing. By charging > £100-400 more for CC BY they’re really taking the piss – charging more for > ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL EFFORT on their part. Horrid. Other than greed > what is the justification for this?" > http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/ > > Apparently Nature has a brand value it is ready to exploit, and we haven't > yet learned that it's rights we are paying for with gold OA, not OA itself. > > Or perhaps we have learned that lesson, and the new game is to squash > brand value. A PLOS representative apparently says at #berlin10sa "it's not > about where you publish it's about who you reach". In other words, make the > venue irrelevant? > > @PLOSBiology The @wellcometrust values the merits of the article over the > journal it is published in - Chris Bird at #berlin10sa > > Another anti-OA cook had already spotted, and applauded, this strategy > (see penultimate paragraph) > > http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/11/06/why-did-publishers-get-so-big/ > > Meanwhile, the #altmetrics movement gathers steam with the idea that we > can measure some new things even if we don't yet know what those things > might mean. But one goal is clear: disconnect the impact calculation from > the venue and reconnect it to the paper. Actually, it is about time that we > moved on from the journal impact factor, but is that the simple agenda here? > > I suspect this is not where Finch and its publishers, and RCUK, think they > are heading with their vision of hybrid gold OA. That approach is going to > price some authors out of their familiar, favourite journals; the emerging > alternative is those journals may not be there for them at all, to be > replaced with faceless collections like (name your publisher) OPEN. > > Straws in the wind, or connected? > > Steve Hitchcock > WAIS Group, Building 32 > School of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK > Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > Twitter: @stevehit > Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit > Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 > > ___ > 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
[GOAL] Journal Titles Are Not "Brands": They Are Earned Track Records For Peer-Review Quality Standards
Journal titles are not designer "brands": They are earned track-records for peer-review quality standards. Track records for peer review have to be established across years of maintaining a peer review quality standard; they are not established overnight by creating a new journal title and publishing a few good articles. There may sometimes be a correlation between journal impact factor and journal peer-review quality standards, but neither the small magnitude of that correlation nor its misuse has anything to do with the need for time and evidence to establish a journal's track-record for quality before the title itself earns its correlation with quality. Stevan Harnad On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ross Mounce wrote: > What's wrong with a high quality, peer-reviewed RCUK-funded article > appearing in a 'faceless' journal with the word 'Open' in it? > > If the traditional publishers won't allow CC BY for a reasonable price > then of course new 'faceless' entrants will offer more value for money gold > OA venues of equivalent technical quality. > > I for one would quite like this change. Articles would have to be judged > on their own merits for once, rather than the journal impact factor of the > journal they appear in. > > As long as its good content, peer-reviewed and available as CC BY with a > DOI, article landing page and a few other technical things - I think this > would be good. Articles don't need 'face' branded journals to have > intellectual merit. > > My .02 > > Ross > > PS who or what are the 'gold oa pack'? Do supporters of OA really have to > be so divisive? > On Nov 8, 2012 12:12 PM, "Steve Hitchcock" wrote: > >> Having feasted on Kent Anderson's anti-OA, anti-eLife and anti-PMC views, >> thanks to Richard Poynder's interview, the gold OA pack are now descending >> on Nature for having the temerity to charge a higher price for CC-BY OA >> than for, say, CC-BY-NC-ND >> http://www.nature.com/press_releases/cc-licenses.html >> >> "what’s really outrageous about this: they’re explicitly charging MORE >> for applying/allowing a CC BY license relative to the more restrictive >> licenses. Applying a license to a digital work costs nothing. By charging >> £100-400 more for CC BY they’re really taking the piss – charging more for >> ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL EFFORT on their part. Horrid. Other than greed >> what is the justification for this?" >> http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/ >> >> Apparently Nature has a brand value it is ready to exploit, and we >> haven't yet learned that it's rights we are paying for with gold OA, not OA >> itself. >> >> Or perhaps we have learned that lesson, and the new game is to squash >> brand value. A PLOS representative apparently says at #berlin10sa "it's not >> about where you publish it's about who you reach". In other words, make the >> venue irrelevant? >> >> @PLOSBiology The @wellcometrust values the merits of the article over the >> journal it is published in - Chris Bird at #berlin10sa >> >> Another anti-OA cook had already spotted, and applauded, this strategy >> (see penultimate paragraph) >> >> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/11/06/why-did-publishers-get-so-big/ >> >> Meanwhile, the #altmetrics movement gathers steam with the idea that we >> can measure some new things even if we don't yet know what those things >> might mean. But one goal is clear: disconnect the impact calculation from >> the venue and reconnect it to the paper. Actually, it is about time that we >> moved on from the journal impact factor, but is that the simple agenda here? >> >> I suspect this is not where Finch and its publishers, and RCUK, think >> they are heading with their vision of hybrid gold OA. That approach is >> going to price some authors out of their familiar, favourite journals; the >> emerging alternative is those journals may not be there for them at all, to >> be replaced with faceless collections like (name your publisher) OPEN. >> >> Straws in the wind, or connected? >> >> Steve Hitchcock >> WAIS Group, Building 32 >> School of Electronics and Computer Science >> University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK >> Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk >> Twitter: @stevehit >> Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit >> Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 >> >> ___ >> 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 > > ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Squashing the brand? Re: Interview with the Scholarly Kitchen's Kent Anderson
Anything other than CC-BY (or CC-zero) cannot really be regarded as open access. Ajar, maybe, with the chain still on, for a peek, but strictly no touch. The idea of colours and flavours and pigeon-holing OA advocates in 'gold-OA packs' or 'green-OA' packs is best ignored. As regards Nature, brand value is clear. But if the brand value has indeed value, why does that value possibly vary with the licence? This kind of shadow-boxing shows that the thinking about what open access really means hasn't quite matured yet. Oh, and 'hybrid OA' doesn't exist. It's just OA in the company of content that's not OA, but under the same 'brand', which stands for a level of credibility of the peer-review and publication practice. The value of brands is often overrated, though. Jan Velterop On 8 Nov 2012, at 12:06, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > Having feasted on Kent Anderson's anti-OA, anti-eLife and anti-PMC views, > thanks to Richard Poynder's interview, the gold OA pack are now descending on > Nature for having the temerity to charge a higher price for CC-BY OA than > for, say, CC-BY-NC-ND > http://www.nature.com/press_releases/cc-licenses.html > > "what’s really outrageous about this: they’re explicitly charging MORE for > applying/allowing a CC BY license relative to the more restrictive licenses. > Applying a license to a digital work costs nothing. By charging £100-400 more > for CC BY they’re really taking the piss – charging more for ABSOLUTELY NO > ADDITIONAL EFFORT on their part. Horrid. Other than greed what is the > justification for this?" > http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/ > > Apparently Nature has a brand value it is ready to exploit, and we haven't > yet learned that it's rights we are paying for with gold OA, not OA itself. > > Or perhaps we have learned that lesson, and the new game is to squash brand > value. A PLOS representative apparently says at #berlin10sa "it's not about > where you publish it's about who you reach". In other words, make the venue > irrelevant? > > @PLOSBiology The @wellcometrust values the merits of the article over the > journal it is published in - Chris Bird at #berlin10sa > > Another anti-OA cook had already spotted, and applauded, this strategy (see > penultimate paragraph) > http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/11/06/why-did-publishers-get-so-big/ > > Meanwhile, the #altmetrics movement gathers steam with the idea that we can > measure some new things even if we don't yet know what those things might > mean. But one goal is clear: disconnect the impact calculation from the venue > and reconnect it to the paper. Actually, it is about time that we moved on > from the journal impact factor, but is that the simple agenda here? > > I suspect this is not where Finch and its publishers, and RCUK, think they > are heading with their vision of hybrid gold OA. That approach is going to > price some authors out of their familiar, favourite journals; the emerging > alternative is those journals may not be there for them at all, to be > replaced with faceless collections like (name your publisher) OPEN. > > Straws in the wind, or connected? > > Steve Hitchcock > WAIS Group, Building 32 > School of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK > Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > Twitter: @stevehit > Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit > Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 > > ___ > 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
[GOAL] Re: Journal Titles Are Not "Brands": They Are Earned Track Records For Peer-Review Quality Standards
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: Anything other than CC-BY (or CC-zero) cannot really be regarded as open > access. Ajar, maybe, with the chain still on, for a peek, but strictly no > touch. The idea of colours and flavours and pigeon-holing OA advocates in > 'gold-OA packs' or 'green-OA' packs is best ignored. > > As regards Nature, brand value is clear. But if the brand value has indeed > value, why does that value possibly vary with the licence? This kind of > shadow-boxing shows that the thinking about what open access really means > hasn't quite matured yet. > > Oh, and 'hybrid OA' doesn't exist. It's just OA in the company of content > that's not OA, but under the same 'brand', which stands for a level of > credibility of the peer-review and publication practice. The value of > brands is often overrated, though. > Green OA is OA provided by the author. Gold OA is OA provided by the journal. Gratis OA is free online access. Libre OA is free online access plus other re-use rights. Green Gratis OA is within authors' (and their institutions' and funders') reach to provide, today, at no extra cost. Gold OA and Libre OA are not. Hybrid Gold OA refers to the journal, not the article. An article is OA either way, but a journal is only Gold OA if all of its articles are Gold OA. Otherwise it is Hybrid Gold OA (a subscription journal that offers per-article Gold OA for those authors who pay extra for it). Nothing is gained by blurring distinctions. Stevan Harnad On 8 Nov 2012, at 12:06, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > > > Having feasted on Kent Anderson's anti-OA, anti-eLife and anti-PMC > views, thanks to Richard Poynder's interview, the gold OA pack are now > descending on Nature for having the temerity to charge a higher price for > CC-BY OA than for, say, CC-BY-NC-ND > > http://www.nature.com/press_releases/cc-licenses.html > > > > "what’s really outrageous about this: they’re explicitly charging MORE > for applying/allowing a CC BY license relative to the more restrictive > licenses. Applying a license to a digital work costs nothing. By charging > £100-400 more for CC BY they’re really taking the piss – charging more for > ABSOLUTELY NO ADDITIONAL EFFORT on their part. Horrid. Other than greed > what is the justification for this?" > > http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/ > > > > Apparently Nature has a brand value it is ready to exploit, and we > haven't yet learned that it's rights we are paying for with gold OA, not OA > itself. > > > > Or perhaps we have learned that lesson, and the new game is to squash > brand value. A PLOS representative apparently says at #berlin10sa "it's not > about where you publish it's about who you reach". In other words, make the > venue irrelevant? > > > > @PLOSBiology The @wellcometrust values the merits of the article over > the journal it is published in - Chris Bird at #berlin10sa > > > > Another anti-OA cook had already spotted, and applauded, this strategy > (see penultimate paragraph) > > > http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/11/06/why-did-publishers-get-so-big/ > > > > Meanwhile, the #altmetrics movement gathers steam with the idea that we > can measure some new things even if we don't yet know what those things > might mean. But one goal is clear: disconnect the impact calculation from > the venue and reconnect it to the paper. Actually, it is about time that we > moved on from the journal impact factor, but is that the simple agenda here? > > > > I suspect this is not where Finch and its publishers, and RCUK, think > they are heading with their vision of hybrid gold OA. That approach is > going to price some authors out of their familiar, favourite journals; the > emerging alternative is those journals may not be there for them at all, to > be replaced with faceless collections like (name your publisher) OPEN. > > > > Straws in the wind, or connected? > > > > Steve Hitchcock > > WAIS Group, Building 32 > > School of Electronics and Computer Science > > University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK > > Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > > Twitter: @stevehit > > Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit > > Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 > > > > ___ > > 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 > ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
