[GOAL] Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, David Wojick dwoj...@craigellachie.uswrote: Stevan, I am well aware of your vision. I have read your NRC submission. It just does not happen to be what the US Government is implementing. It may not be what is being implemented at OSTI, where you are advising, but have you read what each of the other agencies is doing? The Brits wanted the US to follow them, but that too is not happening. And a good thing too, since the Finch/RCUK Policy U-Turn was a disaster. But HEFCEhttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=hefce+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/safe=activetbas=0tbm=blgand BIShttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=BIS+Committee+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fsafe=activetbm=blgnow look to be fixing that... The situation is as I describe it. Perhaps at OSTI. The rest remains to be seen. The OA movement has won some and lost some, across the years, but it's not over till it's over... (1994) A Subversive Proposalhttp://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034923758;view=1up;seq=1 (2001) The Self-Archiving Initiativehttp://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html (2002) The Budapest Open Access Initiativehttp://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org (2004) Memorandum to UK To UK Government Science and Technology Select Committeehttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we151.htm Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence (2007). No Need for Canadian PubMed Central: CIHR Should Mandate IR Deposithttp://eprints.soton.ac.uk/264173/ . (2011) What Is To Be Done About Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting From Federally Funded Research?http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273080/ (Response to US OSTP RFI). (2011) Comments on Open Access FAQ of German Alliance of Scientific Organisations http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/272617/ (Allianz der deutschen Wissenschaftsorganisationen). (2012) Digital Research: How and Why the RCUK Open Access Policy Needs to Be Revised http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342647/. Digital Research 2012. (2013). Response to HEFCE REF OA Policy Consultationhttp://eprints.soton.ac.uk/355015/. HEFCE. (2013). Comments on HEFCE/REF Open Access Mandate Proposalhttp://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349893/. Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014 (2013) Evidence to House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on Open Access http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348479/. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on Open Access, Winter Issue, 119-123. (2013) Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Accesshttp://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348483/. Written Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access, Winter Issue (2013). Follow-Up Comments for BIS Select Committee on Open Accesshttp://eprints.soton.ac.uk/352011/ . *UK Parliament Publications and Records*. (2013) Recommandation au ministre québécois de l'enseignement supérieurhttp://www.mesrst.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/administration/librairies/documents/Contributions_courriel_facebook/02-2013_-%3Cu%3EStevan_Harnad%3C/u%3E-_Recommandation_au_ministre_quebecois_de_lenseignement_superieur.pdf . (2013) Comments on Canada’s NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Draft Tri-Agency Open Access Policy http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1063-.html Multiple Comments on CIHR Open Access Policy http://j.mp/Harnad-CIHR Multiple Comments on SSHRC Open Access Policy http://j.mp/Harnad-SSHRC Multiple Comments on OA Progress in Canada http://j.mp/Harnad-Canada-OA Multiple Comments on NIH Public Access Policy http://j.mp/Harnad-NIH-OA Multiple Comments on Harvard Open Access Policy http://j.mp/Harnad-Harvard Multiple Comments on France/HAL Open Access Policyhttp://j.mp/Harnad-France-HAL Comments on H. Varmus's 1999 E-biomed Proposalhttp://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22404/ [1 http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0801.htm] [2http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0725.htm ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Open Access in Australian Quarterly
The latest issue of Australian Quarterly (Vol 84 Issue 4, ISSN 1443-3605) has just appeared in Open Access Week. AQ appears both in print and digitally, by subscription. It is a The following is extracted from the masthead: AQ (Australian Quarterly) is published by the Australian Institute of Policy and Science. This project is supported by the Commonwealth Government through a grant-in-aid administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. The AIPS is an independent body which promotes discussion and understanding of political, social and scientific issues in Australia. It is not connected with any political party or sectional group. Opinions expressed in AQ are those of the authors. The lead article (featured on the cover) is Revolution in the Wings - Recent Developments in Open Access by myself, pp 3-11. Arthur Sale ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher Embargo?
Bob Campbellhttp://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/#comment-1094488522 wrote on the Wiley blog: *Stevan http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1061-.html accuses me of much conflation yet he himself conflates APCs and subscriptions when commenting on double-dipping. APCs are not paying for the ‘same articles’ paid for by subscriptions. Publishers have always charged separately for different services/products. For example, a medical journal may charge a pharmaceutical company for reprints, advertising space and subscriptions. These are priced separately and charged separately, and accounted for separately in the publisher’s financial management of the title. The pharmaceutical company does not demand that the cost of buying advertising space is offset against any library subscriptions.* Bob Campbell defends double-dipping by citing journal charges for the purchase of reprints, advertising and subscriptions. That's all fine. But what we are discussing here is the cost of *publication*, not of extra products or services. Worldwide institutional subscriptions pay the cost of publication (in full, and fulsomely). It is not at all clear what extra product or service is being paid for when an author pays for hybrid Gold OA (for the paper he has given the publisher, for free, to sell). Of course it's an extra source of revenue to the hybrid Gold publisher to force the author to pay that extra money (for whatever it is that they are paying for). And let there be no doubt that the payment is indeed *forced*(if the hybrid Gold publisher embargoes Green). Is the extra service, then, *exemption from the publisher-imposed Green OA embargo*? (Note: If the publisher is among the 60%http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php who endorse immediate Green OA, then none of my objections matter in the least, and I couldn't care less if the publisher earns some extra revenue from those authors who are silly enough to pay for hybrid Gold OA when they could have had the same, cost-free, by just providing Green OA.) For the publisher who embargoes Green and then pockets the extra revenue derived from hybrid Gold, over and above subscriptions, without even reducing subscription charges proportionately, is indeed charging twice for publication, i.e., double-dipping (and offering absolutely nothing in return except *freedom from the publisher's own Green OA embargo*). Subscriptions pay the cost of publication. Print reprints are an extra product. And adverts are an extra service. But hybrid Gold OA is merely fool's gold, if paid unforced. -- And if forced by a publish embargo, there is a word to describe the practice, but I will not use it, as a publisher has already once threatened to sue me for libel if I do… So let's just call it double-dipping, with no extra product or service... *Stevan Harnad* ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher Embargo?
Stevan is absolutely right on this point, and it behooves publishers who operate hybrid journals to make their finances transparent. Otherwise, there will always remain the suspicion that the publishers are double-dipping. Sandy Thatcher At 7:40 AM -0400 10/25/13, Stevan Harnad wrote: http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/#comment-1094488522Bob Campbell wrote on the Wiley blog: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1061-.htmlStevan accuses me of much conflation yet he himself conflates APCs and subscriptions when commenting on double-dipping. APCs are not paying for the 'same articles' paid for by subscriptions. Publishers have always charged separately for different services/products. For example, a medical journal may charge a pharmaceutical company for reprints, advertising space and subscriptions. These are priced separately and charged separately, and accounted for separately in the publisher's financial management of the title. The pharmaceutical company does not demand that the cost of buying advertising space is offset against any library subscriptions. Bob Campbell defends double-dipping by citing journal charges for the purchase of reprints, advertising and subscriptions. That's all fine. But what we are discussing here is the cost of publication, not of extra products or services. Worldwide institutional subscriptions pay the cost of publication (in full, and fulsomely). It is not at all clear what extra product or service is being paid for when an author pays for hybrid Gold OA (for the paper he has given the publisher, for free, to sell). Of course it's an extra source of revenue to the hybrid Gold publisher to force the author to pay that extra money (for whatever it is that they are paying for). And let there be no doubt that the payment is indeed forced (if the hybrid Gold publisher embargoes Green). Is the extra service, then, exemption from the publisher-imposed Green OA embargo? (Note: If the publisher is among the http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php60% who endorse immediate Green OA, then none of my objections matter in the least, and I couldn't care less if the publisher earns some extra revenue from those authors who are silly enough to pay for hybrid Gold OA when they could have had the same, cost-free, by just providing Green OA.) For the publisher who embargoes Green and then pockets the extra revenue derived from hybrid Gold, over and above subscriptions, without even reducing subscription charges proportionately, is indeed charging twice for publication, i.e., double-dipping (and offering absolutely nothing in return except freedom from the publisher's own Green OA embargo). Subscriptions pay the cost of publication. Print reprints are an extra product. And adverts are an extra service. But hybrid Gold OA is merely fool's gold, if paid unforced. -- And if forced by a publish embargo, there is a word to describe the practice, but I will not use it, as a publisher has already once threatened to sue me for libel if I do So let's just call it double-dipping, with no extra product or service... Stevan Harnad -- Sanford G. Thatcher 8201 Edgewater Drive Frisco, TX 75034-5514 e-mail: s...@psu.edu Phone: (214) 705-1939 Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying.-John Ruskin (1865) The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who can write know anything.-Walter Bagehot (1853) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
