[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Dana Roth]

I fail to see how identifying a presumed defect (i.e., DOAJ's listing of a 
questionable journal) is defamatory.

Since DOAJ, in the past, was essentially clueless (or reluctant to act) about 
questionable journals, isn't Jeffery Beal is doing the community a very 
important service by alerting us to what might be an unresolved problem?

Dana L. Roth
Millikan Library / Caltech 1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] on behalf of 
Jean-Claude Guédon [jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 9:14 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer 
review?

Surprisingly, Dr. Schwartz has not yet noticed that a rather open and vigorous 
debate about OA has been going on for the better part of two decades, including 
debates among OA supporters. Mr. Beall is absolutely welcomed in this debate, 
so long as he debates (as opposed to taking potshots, for example).

Furthermore, what I was doing was not intervening in  an OA debate; it was 
simply reacting to Mr. Beall's defamatory comment about DOAJ  (I am not too 
surprised... etc.).

DOAJ is an open, transparent, organization that tries to put some good 
information about OA journals. It has limited resources and it relies on a 
number of volunteers; in short, it does its best in a very honest fashion. It 
is not perfect, but few things are perfect in this vale of tears...

Those who see mistakes in the DOAJ list should do as those who see mistakes in 
Wikipedia: rather than criticize the device, help correct the content.

As for the alleged bullying dimension of my statement, I could not even begin 
to comment. I do not have the psychiatric credentials of Dr. Schwartz, and 
would not know how to handle categories that seem to change significantly every 
decade or so. Let me be clear, however, on one crucial point: bullying (as I 
understand this term - i.e. a strong individual imposing his/her will on 
another individual ) was not among my intentions. I was simply rising to the 
defence of an organization that was inappropriately attacked. It may just be 
that one's "vigour" is felt by the other as "bullying", but then what about a 
"vigorous ... debate"?

In conclusion, thank you for the "powerful partisan" characterization: this is 
an evaluation I would never have dared make about myself. [:-)]

--

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 09:14 -0500, Michael Schwartz a écrit :
Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean 
spiritedsmall."


The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with open 
access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in today's OA, 
we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no "slam dunk" here. And, 
sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why...


Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous 
insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the least. 
And the more powerful and influential the bully the more inappropriate.


As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without 
reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts of 
reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad


Michael Schwartz


Michael Schwartz, MD
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine
Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine


Sent from my iPhone

On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> wrote:


In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:

"I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact factors 
and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."

This is totally mean spirited. This is small.

DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review the 
quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his admirable 
energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in total 
negativism, we would all be better off.

Jean-Claude Guédon


___
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: Fair Gold vs. Fools Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon <
jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote:

 We are back here on an old debate between Stevan and myself.
>
> My take on all this is:
>
> 1. Authors seek ways to obtain prestige and visibility; currently,
> journals are about the only way to achieve this;
>

Agreed. A journal is a journal, whether subscription, Fools Gold or Fair
Gold.


>
> 2. Prestige and visibility of researchers are linked to journals that act
> as logos.
>

Agreed. The journal name (and track record) is a tag (as I noted below).


> The impact factor is the present method to evaluate the visibility of a
> journal. This is madness, but it has some degree of purchase socially and
> institutionally, however irrational the foundation for this kind of
> evaluation may be;
>

Agreed. What matters is journal quality standards (i.e., peer review
standards), which in turn are somewhat, but not strongly, correlated with
journal impact factor).

But that is not relevant to the question under discussion: What would be a
fair price for Gold?

3. The mandated green road provides access to some version (depending on
> the publishing house and its whims) of published documents; as such it is a
> useful first step to achieve open access.
>

Green OA means OA to the *refereed, accepted final draft*. That is all the
access that is needed. (And with Fair Gold, that will be the final version.
No more publisher PDF.)


> But it is only a first step. Because it is a very incomplete and imperfect
> first step, a significant fraction of researchers have difficulties in
> seeing the value of this approach and practise inertia. This is what stands
> behind the need for mandates;
>

Agreed that the mandates are needed to remedy author inertia.

Author inertia is for 3 reasons: (1) fear of publisher legal action
(embargoes), (2) fear that depositing is difficult or time-consuming
(groundless), and (3) absence of a mandate (remediable).

The inertia is not because of doubts about refereed, accepted final drafts.

4. Open access journals, provided that they are free for the reader (free
> as in the BOAI of 2016), and gratis for the authors offer alternative
> publishing vehicles that compete with existing journals. As such they are
> useful. And if they are free and gratis as explained above, they will not
> help the rise of rogue or hybrid journals.
>

Agreed. But we are talking about the OA journals that do charge the author.


> Bringing prestige and visibility to these journals is very important.
> However, OA journals that are prestigious tend to be based on APC's, while
> free and gratis journals tend to be less visible and less prestigious. Note
> that visibility and prestige are not to be confused with inherent quality
> of the work published. Note that some parts of the world, particularly in
> latin America, are moving in that direction (Scielo and Redalyc);
>

Agreed. What matters is track-record for quality standards (peer review).

But the journals most authors and users want are either the (established)
subscription journals or the (established) Gold OA journals (and almost all
of those charge).


> 5. Repositories, to the extent that they add services similar to those of
> journals (peer review in particular) begin to converge with OA journals and
> they are also useful in helping configure the future communication system
> of science in a healthy way. They too will not give rise to rogue journals
> or hybrid journals. They will give rise to better methods to evaluate the
> quality of work;
>

Institutional repositories do not provide peer review, they provide access.
Journals provide peer review (and certify the outcome with their name and
track-record for quality standards)

6. Far from insisting on a time-dependent series of steps, pushing
> simultaneously for basic Green OA, enhanced Green (with more services) and
> free and gratis-Gold is the optimal strategy. We need all these pathways to
> make headway and achieve true OA;
>

The path to (1) universal OA and (2) Fair Gold OA is (for the reasons I
have many times described) via mandated Green OA.

*Fools Gold: *Pre-Green Gold OA is overpriced, unnecessary, and unscalable,
for the reasons I've described.

*Fair Gold:* Post-Green Gold OA will be fairly priced, affordable,
scaleable and sustainable.

*Free Gold:* *Nolo contendere* (but I suspect that it is unscalable and
unsustainable).

7. Paying for APC's, particularly for hybrid journals makes no sense at
> all. This practise has opened the door to rogue journals (in the case of
> APC-Gold) and it has led to double-dipping and worse in the case of hybrid
> journals;
>

Agreed.


> 8. Given all the money already available for acquisition  of licences and
> materials in academic libraries, there is more money than needed to support
> a world system of scientific communication that is fully under the control
> of the research world;
>

I'm not quite sure what money you are referring to, but if you

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Michael Schwartz]

Well stated, Jean-Claude.

I was not speaking in my role as a psychiatrist here - I speak as an advocate 
of open access - but substantially less enthusiastic than I was years ago.

And you folks DO have a lot of power... 
So does Beall's list of Predatory Publishers. 

Yes everyone and all of us are imperfect yadda yadda but Beall's list has 
played an important - even necessary role in my world and I hope in yours too. 

What is needed is a way to get all you folks in the same room and on the same 
page (there have to be some such page).  I vote for that and I'd work for that!!

Michael Schwartz

Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine (But don't worry, I really don't 
psychoanalyze colleagues)

Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine (a perhaps 
parochial but none the less illuminating experience about open access along 
with my involvement in another 
once-upon-a-time-now-dead-and-REALLY-GONE-journal)

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2015, at 11:14 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
>  wrote:
> 
> Surprisingly, Dr. Schwartz has not yet noticed that a rather open and 
> vigorous debate about OA has been going on for the better part of two 
> decades, including debates among OA supporters. Mr. Beall is absolutely 
> welcomed in this debate, so long as he debates (as opposed to taking 
> potshots, for example).
> 
> Furthermore, what I was doing was not intervening in  an OA debate; it was 
> simply reacting to Mr. Beall's defamatory comment about DOAJ  (I am not too 
> surprised... etc.).
> 
> DOAJ is an open, transparent, organization that tries to put some good 
> information about OA journals. It has limited resources and it relies on a 
> number of volunteers; in short, it does its best in a very honest fashion. It 
> is not perfect, but few things are perfect in this vale of tears...
> 
> Those who see mistakes in the DOAJ list should do as those who see mistakes 
> in Wikipedia: rather than criticize the device, help correct the content.
> 
> As for the alleged bullying dimension of my statement, I could not even begin 
> to comment. I do not have the psychiatric credentials of Dr. Schwartz, and 
> would not know how to handle categories that seem to change significantly 
> every decade or so. Let me be clear, however, on one crucial point: bullying 
> (as I understand this term - i.e. a strong individual imposing his/her will 
> on another individual ) was not among my intentions. I was simply rising to 
> the defence of an organization that was inappropriately attacked. It may just 
> be that one's "vigour" is felt by the other as "bullying", but then what 
> about a "vigorous ... debate"?
> 
> In conclusion, thank you for the "powerful partisan" characterization: this 
> is an evaluation I would never have dared make about myself.  
> 
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
> 
> 
>> Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 09:14 -0500, Michael Schwartz a écrit :
>> Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean 
>> spiritedsmall." 
>> The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with 
>> open access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in 
>> today's OA, we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no "slam 
>> dunk" here. And, sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why...
>> Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous 
>> insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the 
>> least. And the more powerful and influential the bully the more 
>> inappropriate.
>> As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without 
>> reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts 
>> of reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad
>> Michael Schwartz
>> Michael Schwartz, MD
>> Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
>> A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine
>> Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
>>  wrote:
>>> In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:
>>> 
>>> "I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact 
>>> factors and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."
>>> 
>>> This is totally mean spirited. This is small.
>>> 
>>> DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review 
>>> the quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his 
>>> admirable energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in 
>>> total negativism, we would all be better off.
>>> 
>>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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.u

[GOAL] Re: Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

We are back here on an old debate between Stevan and myself.

My take on all this is:

1. Authors seek ways to obtain prestige and visibility; currently,
journals are about the only way to achieve this;

2. Prestige and visibility of researchers are linked to journals that
act as logos. The impact factor is the present method to evaluate the
visibility of a journal. This is madness, but it has some degree of
purchase socially and institutionally, however irrational the foundation
for this kind of evaluation may be;

3. The mandated green road provides access to some version (depending on
the publishing house and its whims) of published documents; as such it
is a useful first step to achieve open access. But it is only a first
step. Because it is a very incomplete and imperfect first step, a
significant fraction of researchers have difficulties in seeing the
value of this approach and practise inertia. This is what stands behind
the need for mandates;

4. Open access journals, provided that they are free for the reader
(free as in the BOAI of 2016), and gratis for the authors offer
alternative publishing vehicles that compete with existing journals. As
such they are useful. And if they are free and gratis as explained
above, they will not help the rise of rogue or hybrid journals. Bringing
prestige and visibility to these journals is very important. However, OA
journals that are prestigious tend to be based on APC's, while free and
gratis journals tend to be less visible and less prestigious. Note that
visibility and prestige are not to be confused with inherent quality of
the work published. Note that some parts of the world, particularly in
latin America, are moving in that direction (Scielo and Redalyc);

5. Repositories, to the extent that they add services similar to those
of journals (peer review in particular) begin to converge with OA
journals and they are also useful in helping configure the future
communication system of science in a healthy way. They too will not give
rise to rogue journals or hybrid journals. They will give rise to better
methods to evaluate the quality of work;

6. Far from insisting on a time-dependent series of steps, pushing
simultaneously for basic Green OA, enhanced Green (with more services)
and free and gratis-Gold is the optimal strategy. We need all these
pathways to make headway and achieve true OA;

7. Paying for APC's, particularly for hybrid journals makes no sense at
all. This practise has opened the door to rogue journals (in the case of
APC-Gold) and it has led to double-dipping and worse in the case of
hybrid journals;

8. Given all the money already available for acquisition  of licences
and materials in academic libraries, there is more money than needed to
support a world system of scientific communication that is fully under
the control of the research world;

9. If Google Scholar (or another search engine) could quickly and
precisely index the documents in open access, be they in repositories,
or in OA journals, it would help the OA movement enormously.

Jean-Claude Guédon





-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 14:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> The subject header should of course have read "Fair Gold vs" 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...)
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad 
> wrote:
> 
> Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA
> fee should be because (as I have argued and tried to show many
> times before) I do not think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee
> until Green OA has been universally mandated and provided:
> Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold.
> 
> 
> Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all
> — not,  at least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather
> than to spawn a pre-emptive fleet of Gold OA journals
> (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a supplementary source
> of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA publishers.
> 
> 
> The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated
> Green OA — both subscription journals and Gold OA journals
> continue to perform (and fund) functions that will be obsolate
> after universal Green OA:
> 
> 
> Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is
> what has been mentioned “for a small journal publishing only
> 20 peer-reviewed articles per year”:
> 
> 
> (a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”: Obsolete after
> universal Green OA. 
> 
> 
> The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional
> repositories hosts its own paper output, both pre and post
> peer review and acceptance by the journal. Acceptance is just
> a tag. Ref

[GOAL] Re: Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

[Hilton Gibson]

On 14 May 2015 at 21:19, Heather Morrison 
wrote:

> We need to talk about copyediting. There are arguments for and against
> blind vs. open peer review, but blind copyediting is just silly. Many
> authors can do their own copyediting and proofreading; and when outside
> help is needed, it makes more sense for a copyeditor to work closely with
> the author rather than the journal.


​Hi Heather

I totally agree with the sentiment above, ​

Regards

hg


*Hilton Gibson*
Ubuntu Linux Systems Administrator
Stellenbosch University Library
http://staff.lib.sun.ac.za/~hgibson/docs/cv/cv.html
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

[Heather Morrison]

Thanks Stevan. 

Your comments are very helpful to my research, especially the corrections to my 
estimates on editing, and so I've copied them and replied on the blog:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/

For the benefit of those who prefer to keep the discussion on GOAL, some 
highlights focused on topics we haven't discussed a lot to date:

The journal per se as a separate entity may become irrelevant in an open access 
future, with the key functions subsumed in repositories. There are indications 
that technology and services are already evolving in this direction.

Academic editing is a role that some of us are seeing as important continuing 
to be essential into the future. Academic editing combined with peer review is 
a slightly different model than pure peer review with editing limited to a 
coordination role. I think it's a better model. Scholars are not trained to 
conduct peer review. A scholar with a lot of experience, and often a knack, for 
editing, can do a lot to facilitate the process. 

We need to talk about copyediting. There are arguments for and against blind 
vs. open peer review, but blind copyediting is just silly. Many authors can do 
their own copyediting and proofreading; and when outside help is needed, it 
makes more sense for a copyeditor to work closely with the author rather than 
the journal.

Food for thought...

Heather

On 2015-05-14, at 2:07 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> The subject header should of course have read "Fair Gold vs" 
> 
> Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...)
> 
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad  wrote:
> Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should be 
> because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not think 
> there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally mandated 
> and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold.
> 
> Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not,  at 
> least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive 
> fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a 
> supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA publishers.
> 
> The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA — 
> both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and 
> fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:
> 
> Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been 
> mentioned “for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles per 
> year”:
> 
> (a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”: Obsolete after universal Green OA. 
> 
> The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories 
> hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by 
> the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository 
> version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access to 
> the unrefereed draft.
> 
> (b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per 
> article”: This is a genuine function and expense: 
> 
> The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the 
> author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be 
> adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds right 
> for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles take time 
> too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will need to be a 
> no-fault submission fee so that accepted authors don’t have to pay for the 
> rejected ones. (Journals with higher quality standards will have higher 
> rejection rates.)
> 
> “(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide over 2 
> days' support per peer-reviewed article”: Copy-editing is either obsolete or 
> needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing paper submissions 
> and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with form-letters using 
> simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor may be needed to 
> manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per accepted article.
> 
> But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and pre-Green 
> Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a small portion 
> institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green, whereas pre-Green 
> they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere else, over and above 
> subscription expenses.
> 
> That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its costs, 
> since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.
> 
> To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary, 
> whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have 
> made subscri

[GOAL] Re: Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

The subject header should of course have read "Fair Gold vs"

Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...)

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad  wrote:

> Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should
> be because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not
> think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally
> mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold
> .
>
>
> Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not,  at
> least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive
> fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a
> supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA
> publishers.
>
>
> The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA —
> both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and
> fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:
>
>
> Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been
> mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles
> per year”*:
>
>
> *(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green
> OA.
>
>
> The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories
> hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by
> the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository
> version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access
> to the unrefereed draft.
>
>
> *(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per
> article”*: This is a genuine function and expense:
>
>
> The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the
> author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be
> adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds
> right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles
> take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will
> need to be a no-fault submission fee
>  so that accepted
> authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher
> quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)
>
>
> *“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide
> over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either
> obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing
> paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with
> form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor
> may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per
> accepted article.
>
>
> But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and
> pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a
> small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green,
> whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere
> else, over and above subscription expenses.
>
>
> That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its
> costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.
>
>
> To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary,
> whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have
> made subscriptions unsustainable.
>
>
> And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other
> than mandating Green…
>
>
> Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
> unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
> .
> *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 *
> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk 
> wrote:
>
>> That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian
>> Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see:
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462
>>
>> best falk
>> 
>> Falk Reckling, PhD
>> Strategic Analysis
>> Department Head
>> Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
>> Sensengasse 1
>> A-1090 Vienna
>> Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
>> Mobile: +43-664-5307368
>> Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
>>
>> Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en
>> Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess
>> ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766
>>
>> 
>> Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im
>> Auftrag von "Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43
>> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Betreff: [GOAL]  $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can
>> generously s

[GOAL] Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should be
because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not
think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally
mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold
.


Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not,  at
least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive
fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a
supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA
publishers.


The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA —
both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and
fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:


Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been
mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles
per year”*:


*(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green OA.


The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories
hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by
the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository
version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access
to the unrefereed draft.


*(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per
article”*: This is a genuine function and expense:


The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the
author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be
adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds
right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles
take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will
need to be a no-fault submission fee
 so that accepted
authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher
quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)


*“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide
over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either
obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing
paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with
form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor
may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per
accepted article.


But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and
pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a
small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green,
whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere
else, over and above subscription expenses.


That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its
costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.


To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary,
whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have
made subscriptions unsustainable.


And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other
than mandating Green…


Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
.
*LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 *
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk 
wrote:

> That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian
> Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see:
> http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462
>
> best falk
> 
> Falk Reckling, PhD
> Strategic Analysis
> Department Head
> Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
> Sensengasse 1
> A-1090 Vienna
> Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
> Mobile: +43-664-5307368
> Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at
>
> Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en
> Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766
>
> 
> Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag
> von "Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43
> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Betreff: [GOAL]  $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can
> generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing
>
> Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led
> journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per
> article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small
> open access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20
> peer-reviewed 

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Surprisingly, Dr. Schwartz has not yet noticed that a rather open and
vigorous debate about OA has been going on for the better part of two
decades, including debates among OA supporters. Mr. Beall is absolutely
welcomed in this debate, so long as he debates (as opposed to taking
potshots, for example).

Furthermore, what I was doing was not intervening in  an OA debate; it
was simply reacting to Mr. Beall's defamatory comment about DOAJ  (I am
not too surprised... etc.).

DOAJ is an open, transparent, organization that tries to put some good
information about OA journals. It has limited resources and it relies on
a number of volunteers; in short, it does its best in a very honest
fashion. It is not perfect, but few things are perfect in this vale of
tears...

Those who see mistakes in the DOAJ list should do as those who see
mistakes in Wikipedia: rather than criticize the device, help correct
the content.

As for the alleged bullying dimension of my statement, I could not even
begin to comment. I do not have the psychiatric credentials of Dr.
Schwartz, and would not know how to handle categories that seem to
change significantly every decade or so. Let me be clear, however, on
one crucial point: bullying (as I understand this term - i.e. a strong
individual imposing his/her will on another individual ) was not among
my intentions. I was simply rising to the defence of an organization
that was inappropriately attacked. It may just be that one's "vigour" is
felt by the other as "bullying", but then what about a "vigorous ...
debate"?

In conclusion, thank you for the "powerful partisan" characterization:
this is an evaluation I would never have dared make about myself. :-) 

-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 09:14 -0500, Michael Schwartz a écrit :
> Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean
> spiritedsmall." 
> 
> 
> The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated
> with open access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate.
> Presently in today's OA, we see the good...the bad...and the ugly.
> There is no "slam dunk" here. And, sadly, there is precious little
> debate. I wonder why...
> 
> 
> Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed.
> Gratuitous insulting comments about their character are inappropriate,
> to say the least. And the more powerful and influential the bully the
> more inappropriate.
> 
> 
> As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit -
> without reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur
> for all sorts of reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad
> 
> 
> Michael Schwartz
> 
> 
> Michael Schwartz, MD
> Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
> Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine
> Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> > In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:
> > 
> > "I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake
> > impact factors and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."
> > 
> > This is totally mean spirited. This is small.
> > 
> > DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to
> > review the quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small
> > fraction of his admirable energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad
> > journals, rather than bask in total negativism, we would all be
> > better off.
> > 
> > Jean-Claude Guédon
> > 
> > ___
> > 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: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Michael Schwartz]

I've read Mr Beall's writings. I'm not being ironic. 

How can the choir speak to more than the choir?

Michael Schwartz

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2015, at 9:59 AM, David Prosser  wrote:
> 
> In defending Jeffrey Beall, Michael Schwartz writes:
> 
> "Gratuitous insulting comments about [] character are inappropriate, to say 
> the least.”
> 
> I assume that Michael hasn’t read much of Mr Beall’s writings.  Or is he 
> being ironic?
> 
> David
> 
> 
>> On 14 May 2015, at 15:14, Michael Schwartz  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean 
>> spiritedsmall." 
>> 
>> The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with 
>> open access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in 
>> today's OA, we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no "slam 
>> dunk" here. And, sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why...
>> 
>> Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous 
>> insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the 
>> least. And the more powerful and influential the bully the more 
>> inappropriate.
>> 
>> As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without 
>> reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts 
>> of reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad
>> 
>> Michael Schwartz
>> 
>> Michael Schwartz, MD
>> Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
>> Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine
>> Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:
>>> 
>>> "I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact 
>>> factors and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."
>>> 
>>> This is totally mean spirited. This is small.
>>> 
>>> DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review 
>>> the quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his 
>>> admirable energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in 
>>> total negativism, we would all be better off.
>>> 
>>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>>> Professeur titulaire
>>> Littérature comparée
>>> Université de Montréal
>>> 
>>> 
 Le mardi 12 mai 2015 à 21:17 +, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit :
 In the interest of presenting different viewpoints on this topic, I too 
 would like to share the blog post I published today. My blog post is about 
 a gold open-access journal that claims it has no article processing 
 charges but, when you read the fine print, you will discover that it 
 demands a "maintenance fee" from authors whose work is accepted for 
 publication. 
 
 The blog post is here: 
 http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/12/low-quality-no-author-fee-oa-journal-has-hidden-charges/
 
 Also, the journal promises to carry out peer review in 3-4 days. It's 
 included in DOAJ, which incorrectly reports that the journal does not 
 charge any author fees. 
 
 The journal also boldly displays fake impact factors from six different 
 companies. 
 
 I believe that this journal will also be of interest to historians, 
 anthropologists, and other social scientists.
 
 
 Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
 Auraria Library
 University of Colorado Denver
 1100 Lawrence St.
 Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
 
 -Original Message-
 From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
 Of Heather Morrison
 Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:39 PM
 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
 Subject: [GOAL] Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer 
 review?
 
 In the early days as many on this list will no doubt remember, open access 
 advocates spent a lot of time defending OA from the ludicrous argument 
 that peer review somehow was dependent on subscription-based publishing. 
 Have we over-reacted, and are we now placing far too much emphasis on the 
 technicalities of peer review? 
 
 This post draws on an example of a journal that is now fully open access 
 and peer reviewed, which emerged from a conference a few decades ago after 
 a 5-year stint as a newsletter, and asks whether we have gone too far in 
 separating the peer-reviewed article from the broader scholarly 
 communication / community of which the article logically forms just one 
 part:
 http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/
 
 I've added two sections to the Research Questions page in the Open Access 
 Directory:
 http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions
 
 Open access in the context o

[GOAL] Re: $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing

[Reckling, Falk]

That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian Science 
Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see: http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462 

best falk

Falk Reckling, PhD
Strategic Analysis
Department Head
Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
Sensengasse 1
A-1090 Vienna
Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
Mobile: +43-664-5307368
Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at

Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en
Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess
ORCID: http://orcid.org/-0002-1326-1766


Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag von 
"Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Betreff: [GOAL]  $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can generously 
support small scholar-led OA journal publishing

Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led 
journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per 
article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small open 
access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed 
articles per year, this amount could fund top-of-the-line journal hosting, free 
up the time of a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day 
per article, hire a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to 
provide over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article, with an annual budget 
of $2,500 for extra costs.

Calculations here:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
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: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[David Prosser]

In defending Jeffrey Beall, Michael Schwartz writes:

"Gratuitous insulting comments about [] character are inappropriate, to say the 
least.”

I assume that Michael hasn’t read much of Mr Beall’s writings.  Or is he being 
ironic?

David


On 14 May 2015, at 15:14, Michael Schwartz 
mailto:michael.schwa...@mas1.cnc.net>> wrote:

Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean 
spiritedsmall."

The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with open 
access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in today's OA, 
we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no "slam dunk" here. And, 
sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why...

Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous 
insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the least. 
And the more powerful and influential the bully the more inappropriate.

As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without 
reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts of 
reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad

Michael Schwartz

Michael Schwartz, MD
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine
Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine

Sent from my iPhone

On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> wrote:

In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:

"I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact factors 
and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."

This is totally mean spirited. This is small.

DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review the 
quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his admirable 
energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in total 
negativism, we would all be better off.

Jean-Claude Guédon

--

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mardi 12 mai 2015 à 21:17 +, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit :

In the interest of presenting different viewpoints on this topic, I too would 
like to share the blog post I published today. My blog post is about a gold 
open-access journal that claims it has no article processing charges but, when 
you read the fine print, you will discover that it demands a "maintenance fee" 
from authors whose work is accepted for publication.

The blog post is here: 
http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/12/low-quality-no-author-fee-oa-journal-has-hidden-charges/

Also, the journal promises to carry out peer review in 3-4 days. It's included 
in DOAJ, which incorrectly reports that the journal does not charge any author 
fees.

The journal also boldly displays fake impact factors from six different 
companies.

I believe that this journal will also be of interest to historians, 
anthropologists, and other social scientists.


Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver
1100 Lawrence St.
Denver, Colo.  80204 USA

-Original Message-
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:39 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

In the early days as many on this list will no doubt remember, open access 
advocates spent a lot of time defending OA from the ludicrous argument that 
peer review somehow was dependent on subscription-based publishing. Have we 
over-reacted, and are we now placing far too much emphasis on the 
technicalities of peer review?

This post draws on an example of a journal that is now fully open access and 
peer reviewed, which emerged from a conference a few decades ago after a 5-year 
stint as a newsletter, and asks whether we have gone too far in separating the 
peer-reviewed article from the broader scholarly communication / community of 
which the article logically forms just one part:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/

I've added two sections to the Research Questions page in the Open Access 
Directory:
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions

Open access in the context of scholarly communication and community flows from 
the challenge to narrow emphasis on peer review described above. There are 
questions here that might interest historians, anthropologists, or other social 
scientists.

The open versus private section may engage scholars from a variety of 
humanities and social sciences; there are interesting theoretical and empirical 
questions in relation to all of the open movements.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University 
of Ottawa ht

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Michael Schwartz]

Jean-Claude Guédon's comment on Jeffrey Beall's Blog is "totally mean 
spiritedsmall." 

The many ongoing changes, consolidations, and innovations associated with open 
access require vigorous, open, and respectful debate. Presently in today's OA, 
we see the good...the bad...and the ugly. There is no "slam dunk" here. And, 
sadly, there is precious little debate. I wonder why...

Critics such as Jeffrey Beall should be welcomed, not shamed. Gratuitous 
insulting comments about their character are inappropriate, to say the least. 
And the more powerful and influential the bully the more inappropriate.

As long as powerful partisan's hammer away from their bully pulpit - without 
reproach, a really vigorous and open debate - which MUST occur for all sorts of 
reasons - cannot and will not happen. How sad

Michael Schwartz

Michael Schwartz, MD
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine
Founding Editor, Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 14, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon 
>  wrote:
> 
> In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:
> 
> "I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact factors 
> and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."
> 
> This is totally mean spirited. This is small.
> 
> DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to review the 
> quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of his admirable 
> energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than bask in total 
> negativism, we would all be better off.
> 
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> 
> --
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> Professeur titulaire
> Littérature comparée
> Université de Montréal
> 
> 
>> Le mardi 12 mai 2015 à 21:17 +, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit :
>> In the interest of presenting different viewpoints on this topic, I too 
>> would like to share the blog post I published today. My blog post is about a 
>> gold open-access journal that claims it has no article processing charges 
>> but, when you read the fine print, you will discover that it demands a 
>> "maintenance fee" from authors whose work is accepted for publication. 
>> 
>> The blog post is here: 
>> http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/12/low-quality-no-author-fee-oa-journal-has-hidden-charges/
>> 
>> Also, the journal promises to carry out peer review in 3-4 days. It's 
>> included in DOAJ, which incorrectly reports that the journal does not charge 
>> any author fees. 
>> 
>> The journal also boldly displays fake impact factors from six different 
>> companies. 
>> 
>> I believe that this journal will also be of interest to historians, 
>> anthropologists, and other social scientists.
>> 
>> 
>> Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
>> Auraria Library
>> University of Colorado Denver
>> 1100 Lawrence St.
>> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf 
>> Of Heather Morrison
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:39 PM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
>> Subject: [GOAL] Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer 
>> review?
>> 
>> In the early days as many on this list will no doubt remember, open access 
>> advocates spent a lot of time defending OA from the ludicrous argument that 
>> peer review somehow was dependent on subscription-based publishing. Have we 
>> over-reacted, and are we now placing far too much emphasis on the 
>> technicalities of peer review? 
>> 
>> This post draws on an example of a journal that is now fully open access and 
>> peer reviewed, which emerged from a conference a few decades ago after a 
>> 5-year stint as a newsletter, and asks whether we have gone too far in 
>> separating the peer-reviewed article from the broader scholarly 
>> communication / community of which the article logically forms just one part:
>> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/
>> 
>> I've added two sections to the Research Questions page in the Open Access 
>> Directory:
>> http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions
>> 
>> Open access in the context of scholarly communication and community flows 
>> from the challenge to narrow emphasis on peer review described above. There 
>> are questions here that might interest historians, anthropologists, or other 
>> social scientists.
>> 
>> The open versus private section may engage scholars from a variety of 
>> humanities and social sciences; there are interesting theoretical and 
>> empirical questions in relation to all of the open movements. 
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> --
>> Dr. Heather Morrison
>> Assistant Professor
>> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies 
>> University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
>> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
>> heather.morri...@uottawa.

[GOAL] $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing

[Heather Morrison]

Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led 
journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per 
article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small open 
access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed 
articles per year, this amount could fund top-of-the-line journal hosting, free 
up the time of a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day 
per article, hire a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to 
provide over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article, with an annual budget 
of $2,500 for extra costs.

Calculations here:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/

best,

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

In his blog, Jeffrey Beall writes:

"I am not too surprised to find a journal that advertises fake impact
factors and does a four-day peer review included in DOAJ:.."

This is totally mean spirited. This is small.

DOAJ relies on all of us, and in fact regularly asks for people to
review the quality of journals. If Mr. Beall devoted a small fraction of
his admirable energy to helping DOAJ weed out bad journals, rather than
bask in total negativism, we would all be better off.

Jean-Claude Guédon

-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mardi 12 mai 2015 à 21:17 +, Beall, Jeffrey a écrit :

> In the interest of presenting different viewpoints on this topic, I too would 
> like to share the blog post I published today. My blog post is about a gold 
> open-access journal that claims it has no article processing charges but, 
> when you read the fine print, you will discover that it demands a 
> "maintenance fee" from authors whose work is accepted for publication. 
> 
> The blog post is here: 
> http://scholarlyoa.com/2015/05/12/low-quality-no-author-fee-oa-journal-has-hidden-charges/
> 
> Also, the journal promises to carry out peer review in 3-4 days. It's 
> included in DOAJ, which incorrectly reports that the journal does not charge 
> any author fees. 
> 
> The journal also boldly displays fake impact factors from six different 
> companies. 
> 
> I believe that this journal will also be of interest to historians, 
> anthropologists, and other social scientists.
> 
> 
> Jeffrey Beall, MA, MSLS, Associate Professor
> Auraria Library
> University of Colorado Denver
> 1100 Lawrence St.
> Denver, Colo.  80204 USA
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
> Heather Morrison
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 2:39 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Has the OA movement over-reacted to challenges on peer review?
> 
> In the early days as many on this list will no doubt remember, open access 
> advocates spent a lot of time defending OA from the ludicrous argument that 
> peer review somehow was dependent on subscription-based publishing. Have we 
> over-reacted, and are we now placing far too much emphasis on the 
> technicalities of peer review? 
> 
> This post draws on an example of a journal that is now fully open access and 
> peer reviewed, which emerged from a conference a few decades ago after a 
> 5-year stint as a newsletter, and asks whether we have gone too far in 
> separating the peer-reviewed article from the broader scholarly communication 
> / community of which the article logically forms just one part:
> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/12/from-conference-to-newsletter-to-journal-a-challenge-to-the-emphasis-on-peer-review/
> 
> I've added two sections to the Research Questions page in the Open Access 
> Directory:
> http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Research_questions
> 
> Open access in the context of scholarly communication and community flows 
> from the challenge to narrow emphasis on peer review described above. There 
> are questions here that might interest historians, anthropologists, or other 
> social scientists.
> 
> The open versus private section may engage scholars from a variety of 
> humanities and social sciences; there are interesting theoretical and 
> empirical questions in relation to all of the open movements. 
> 
> best,
> 
> --
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Assistant Professor
> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies 
> University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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: How a flat APC with no price increase for 3 years can be a 6% - 77% price increase at the same time

[Heather Morrison]

hi Michael,

$1,350 USD plus or minus 25% is less than $2,000 USD, agreed. 

Can you explain what PLOS ONE does that justifies the $1,350 USD APC? 

My impression from my one attempt to serve as a PLOS ONE reviewer is that the 
model aims at something close to full automation of the process. Review 
requests are sent from "do-not-reply" e-mails with no human to contact with 
questions. Peer reviewers are directed to automated forced-choice forms, and 
even asked to verify whether authors have complied with PLOS ONE's data policy. 
There appears to be little to no human editorial participation in the 
publication process. This is a model that I personally reject as inhuman and 
inhumane (others might like the model). From my perspective, this model is also 
not consistent with the highest quality peer review. A good review does not fit 
an automated forced-choice form. In other areas of life, we have compromised on 
the human touch in favour of the greatly lower cost of automated processes. 
PLOS ONE seems to give us the worst of both - automation with loss of the human 
touch, de-skilling for peer reviewers, but ongoing high costs.

PLOS ONE has published a great many worthwhile articles over the years, and you 
and PLOS have contributed considerably to open access advocacy. Thank you for 
this and your comment on the list. This comment is intended as a friendly 
critique. PLOS ONE may not need to change at all, but it may be helpful to ask 
whether some of us might prefer to consider rather different models.

best,

Heather 



On 2015-05-13, at 11:27 PM, Michael Eisen wrote:

> It is true that distributing publication services locally would diminish the 
> risk of currency fluctuations affecting APC stability, but it does not 
> necessarily reduce costs for authors. I am sure, for example, that most 
> authors would be happier to pay APCs that varied +/- 25% around $1350 than 
> they would a fixed $2000. 
> 
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Heather Morrison 
>  wrote:
> In this post Jihane Salhab & I explain the impact of currency variations and 
> fluctuations on the APC model. PLOS ONE has been a good model for the past 
> few years in at least one respect: maintaining the APC of $1,350 USD with no 
> price increase over several years. However, if you happen to be paying in 
> Euros, the PLOS ONE APC rose 14% from March to December of 2014, or 23% from 
> March 20, 2014 to March 20, 2015. In South Africa, the price increased 58% in 
> the same 3-year period; in Brazil, the price increase was 77%.
> 
> For details and to view a table illustrating the PLOS ONE pricing in 8 
> currencies:
> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/
> 
> Any scholarly publishing system that involves cross-border payments, whether 
> demand side (subscriptions / payments) or supply side (APC, journal hosting 
> or other production services) has this disadvantage of pricing variability 
> almost everywhere. In this case, US payers benefit from the flat fee, but 
> anytime an APC is paid for a US scholar publishing in an international venue 
> the same pricing variations based on currency will apply. In contrast, any 
> scholarly publishing system that involves local payments (e.g. hosting of 
> local journals, paying local copyeditors and proofreaders) has the advantage 
> of relative pricing stability that comes with paying in the local currency.
> 
> Also on Sustaining the Knowledge Commons today: does the market economy 
> really work for social reality? Reflections on an interview with David Simon 
> by Alexis Calvé-Genest.
> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/market-economy-and-social-reality-a-pragmatic-view-from-a-well-known-author/
> 
> best,
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Assistant Professor
> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
> University of Ottawa
> Desmarais 111-02
> 613-562-5800 ext. 7634
> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship
> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
> Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
> Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
> Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
> University of California, Berkeley
> ___
> 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: How a flat APC with no price increase for 3 years can be a 6% - 77% price increase at the same time

[Graham Triggs]

Also worth noting that a flat APC in one currency actually equates to a price 
decrease in real terms over time.

The effect of regional pricing in real terms is quite a bit less when you 
factor in e.g. local inflation.

On 14/05/2015 07:08:49, Michael Eisen  wrote:
It is true that distributing publication services locally would diminish the 
risk of currency fluctuations affecting APC stability, but it does not 
necessarily reduce costs for authors. I am sure, for example, that most authors 
would be happier to pay APCs that varied +/- 25% around $1350 than they would a 
fixed $2000. 

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Heather Morrison mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]> wrote:

In this post Jihane Salhab & I explain the impact of currency variations and 
fluctuations on the APC model. PLOS ONE has been a good model for the past few 
years in at least one respect: maintaining the APC of $1,350 USD with no price 
increase over several years. However, if you happen to be paying in Euros, the 
PLOS ONE APC rose 14% from March to December of 2014, or 23% from March 20, 
2014 to March 20, 2015. In South Africa, the price increased 58% in the same 
3-year period; in Brazil, the price increase was 77%.

For details and to view a table illustrating the PLOS ONE pricing in 8 
currencies:
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/
 
[http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/]

Any scholarly publishing system that involves cross-border payments, whether 
demand side (subscriptions / payments) or supply side (APC, journal hosting or 
other production services) has this disadvantage of pricing variability almost 
everywhere. In this case, US payers benefit from the flat fee, but anytime an 
APC is paid for a US scholar publishing in an international venue the same 
pricing variations based on currency will apply. In contrast, any scholarly 
publishing system that involves local payments (e.g. hosting of local journals, 
paying local copyeditors and proofreaders) has the advantage of relative 
pricing stability that comes with paying in the local currency.

Also on Sustaining the Knowledge Commons today: does the market economy really 
work for social reality? Reflections on an interview with David Simon by Alexis 
Calvé-Genest.
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/market-economy-and-social-reality-a-pragmatic-view-from-a-well-known-author/
 
[http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/market-economy-and-social-reality-a-pragmatic-view-from-a-well-known-author/]

best,

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
Desmarais 111-02
613-562-5800 ext. 7634 [tel:613-562-5800%20ext.%207634]
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship
http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ [http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/]
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html 
[http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html]
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca [mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca]




___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org [mailto:GOAL@eprints.org]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal 
[http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal]





--

Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California, Berkeley
___ 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