[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
On 16 December 2013 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > Who introduced "hybrid journals"? "who introduced "delayed open access" > - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's "universal > access"? etc. etc. > Admittedly, "universal access" is somewhat confusing. As for "delayed open access", then publishers themselves likely did not introduce it. Searching, I could not find any instances of publishers using the term. Although, there was an article 10 years ago by a publisher's association that mentioned it. It shouldn't be surprising that publishers may be very careful about how they cite terms like Open Access, because - unlike scholars debating the issue - they could actually be charged with false advertising if they misled people through incorrect use of the terms. And yes, if you take the whole definition of "Open Access", which includes "immediate", then "delayed open access" is an oxymoron, But the so can "green open access" (and certainly "gratis open access"), when by and large this does not provide a liberal licence as also defined by BOAI. Actually, you can find journals (such as RNA), who provide their delayed access content under a Creative Commons licence. Some would argue that is closer to "Open Access" than simply providing eyes-only access to content. > 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? > Correct, there is little competitive pressure to force publisher's to reduce the prices they charge. But for point 2, I never said that they reduce costs to consumers - e.g. the price. I said they reduce costs. *Their* costs. Aside from any competitive pressure [that currently doesn't exist] on prices, profit will always provide an incentive to commercial publishers to drive the underlying costs down. If you remove commercial interests from publishing, then there is little incentive to chase market share, and little incentive to reduce the underlying costs. And if provision of non-commercial publishing is [too] fragmented, then it won't benefit from economies of scale either. Like for like, service for service, the underlying costs for non-competitive, non-commercial publishing, will likely be higher than the underlying costs for commercial publishers. And there is no guarantee that they will be lower than the prices that commercial publishers charge [or would charge under an open access / APC business model]. > 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. > This is speculation. Which may be right. In fact, it may well be right if you are comparing it to the current subscription market. But it's not guaranteed, and it's less likely to be true compared to APC-paid Open Access publishing. There are good reasons to believe that a truly competitive commercial market - involving for-profit publishers - would be cheaper than removing the commercial publishers. 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. > According to this: http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/18/how-much-does-it-cost-to-publish-in-open-access/#.Uq-RWvRdV8E, publishing in SciELO journals ranges from US $660 in one subsidized journal, to US $900 for foreign authors in another journal. US $900 puts it in a similar ballpark to the lower prices of the commercial publishers. It's even more or less the same price that PLoS One "should" be, once you adjust for their 23% "surplus". And this is whilst the the market [for Open Access publishing] is still small and not truly competitive. At that level, there is every reason to believe that commercial publishing could, at the low end, compete and better SciELO publishing for price, even whilst making a profit But then all funders need do is support publicly supported and commercial efforts on an equal basis - i.e. funding the APC to publish in ei
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
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 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon 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! :-) [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] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
> Who introduced "hybrid journals"? I'm not 100% sure, but that may have been me! It seemed like a good idea at the time... David On 16 Dec 2013, at 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote: > Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : >> >> On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon >> 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! >> >> >> > [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
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +, Graham Triggs a écrit : > On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon > 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! :-) > > [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] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Graham Triggs wrote: > On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon < > jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > >> Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA >> advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, >> you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its >> utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. >> > > 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. > > There are probably 20 different terms introduced by publishers. They include: "Author choice" "Free choice" "Free content" and variants. All are imprecisely defined and a cynic might say intended to confuse. And there is blatant misrepresentation: "Fully open Access" (to describe CC-NC-ND with a list of restrictions, all-rights-reserved and huge charges from RightsLink including for teaching.) > 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. > > >> Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. >> Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including >> myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but >> these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to >> imagine alternatives to the present publishing system. >> > > It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing > industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are > attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is > ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on > alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation > that destroys the publishing industry. > > >> Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the >> publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry >> should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready >> to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging >> a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise >> here... [image: :-)] >> > > 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. > > Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto >> Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of >> nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is >> not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough >> only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake >> about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity >> lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot >> foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your >> shoes, I would be scared. >> > > 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. > > Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it > alone? No. > > If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders > and researchers to work with the publishing industry. > > 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. > > G > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 <>_
[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List
On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote: > Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA > advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, > you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its > utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms. > 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. 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. > Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying > this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself, > are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are > individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine > alternatives to the present publishing system. > It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation that destroys the publishing industry. > Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the > publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry > should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready > to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging > a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise > here... [image: :-)] > 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. Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto > Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of > nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is > not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough > only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake > about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity > lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot > foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your > shoes, I would be scared. > >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. Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No. If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry. 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. G <>___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
