[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Christian Gutknecht]

Well, I think Thomas is right. As long libraries do not shift money from the 
subscription side to the Gold OA side, the transformation will be very very 
slow.

Take the University of Zurich for example. I’ve just disclosed for the first 
time ever what they are paying for Elsevier, Springer and Wiley and put that in 
relation with the institutional publication behavior in this blog post: 
http://wisspub.net/2016/01/03/zahlungen-der-universitaet-zuerich/

The University of Zurich has a strong mandate since 2008 with probably one of 
the best staffed OA team (7 persons) in Europe. But regarding publications from 
2014, only 23% (242 out of 1062) from all articles published articles within 
journals from Elsevier, Wiley and Springer Journals are freely accessible via 
the IR. In 2014 too, the University of Zurich paid 3.4 Mio CHF/USD to Elsevier, 
Springer and Wiley only for Journal subscriptions. 

The situation becomes even more absurd, when you learn that in 2014 there were 
176 publications authored by the University of Zurich that were published by 
PLOS (which by the way already is the half of what the University of Zurich 
publishes with Wiley!). But there is only little institutional funding for APCs 
explicitly limited to humanities. So all authors who wish publish with PLOS 
have to throw in additional money by their own research budget, because the 
library claims to have no additional money for large scale Gold OA funding. 
Fortunately for the sake of OA, Swiss authors are willing to pay with the own 
budget that because the financial situation isn’t that bad. But think about the 
chance and the boost for OA, if the University of Zurich would shift all or at 
least a part of the money from the journal subscriptions and create a publisher 
neutral Open Access funds.

So I think we can and should promote more Green OA and care about a better 
compliance. But if we really want to speed up the transition to Gold OA we 
really should consider to give the subscription money a new purpose and use it 
in a coordinated way to force the publishers to change their business model. 
And as I heard this was Berlin 12 about.

Best regards

Christian Gutknecht





> Am 31.12.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Stevan Harnad :
> 
> 
>> On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Krichel > > wrote:
>> 
>>  Stevan Harnad writes
>> 
>>> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
>>> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --
>> 
>>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>>  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.
> 
> That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
> because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."
> 
> Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a monolith
> any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith, 
> but it is completely out of the question for a university library
> to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
> access that content. 
> 
> (Please don’t reply that they do cancel what they cannot afford: that is 
> not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much content that their users need 
> as they can afford to subscribe to.)
> 
> The only way to make subscriptions cancellable is to first mandate 
> and provide (universal — not just local) Green OA 
> .
> 
> SH
> 
> ___
> 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: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Velterop]

I have advocated this for a while now (but am not aware of any 
university or library that's taken it up):
Charge authors of your university who insist on publishing in a 
subscription journal either


 * a nominal amount that is based on an estimate of the average
   per-article revenue of subscription journals/publishers (about
   $5000), or
 * the actual subscription amount paid by the university to a
   publisher, divided by the number of articles by authors from the
   university, published in the journals of that publisher.

These charges should be collected from the authors' grants, be put in an 
open access fund, and then be used by the university/library to support 
authors willing to publish in APC-supported open access journals.


(For those who really don't like the 'gold' strategy and favour the 
'green' one above all: you could use the open access fund to defray the 
cost of your open repositories and of all the effort needed to ensure 
that every single paper from your university or institution is properly 
and 'findably' deposited.)


There will no-doubt be practical difficulties with this, but perhaps it 
can be considered as the seed of an approach?


Jan Velterop

On 03/01/2016 12:39, Christian Gutknecht wrote:
Well, I think Thomas is right. As long libraries do not shift money 
from the subscription side to the Gold OA side, the transformation 
will be very very slow.


Take the University of Zurich for example. I’ve just disclosed for the 
first time ever what they are paying for Elsevier, Springer and Wiley 
and put that in relation with the institutional publication behavior 
in this blog post: 
http://wisspub.net/2016/01/03/zahlungen-der-universitaet-zuerich/


The University of Zurich has a strong mandate since 2008 with probably 
one of the best staffed OA team (7 persons) in Europe. But regarding 
publications from 2014, only 23% (242 out of 1062) from all articles 
published articles within journals from Elsevier, Wiley and Springer 
Journals are freely accessible via the IR. In 2014 too, the University 
of Zurich paid 3.4 Mio CHF/USD to Elsevier, Springer and Wiley only 
for Journal subscriptions.


The situation becomes even more absurd, when you learn that in 2014 
there were 176 publications authored by the University of Zurich that 
were published by PLOS (which by the way already is the half of what 
the University of Zurich publishes with Wiley!). But there is only 
little institutional funding for APCs explicitly limited to 
humanities. So all authors who wish publish with PLOS have to throw in 
additional money by their own research budget, because the library 
claims to have no additional money for large scale Gold OA funding. 
Fortunately for the sake of OA, Swiss authors are willing to pay with 
the own budget that because the financial situation isn’t that bad. 
But think about the chance and the boost for OA, if the University of 
Zurich would shift all or at least a part of the money from the 
journal subscriptions and create a publisher neutral Open Access funds.


So I think we can and should promote more Green OA and care about a 
better compliance. But if we really want to speed up the transition to 
Gold OA we really should consider to give the subscription money a new 
purpose and use it in a coordinated way to force the publishers to 
change their business model. And as I heard this was Berlin 12 about.


Best regards

Christian Gutknecht





Am 31.12.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Stevan Harnad >:



On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Krichel > wrote:


 Stevan Harnad writes


1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --


 oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
 And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.


That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."

Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a 
monolith

any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith,
but it is completely out of the question for a university library
to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
access that content.

(Please don’t reply that they do cancel what they cannot afford: that is
not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much content that their users 
need

as they can afford to subscribe to.)

The only way to make subscriptions cancellable is to first mandate
and provide (universal — not just local) Green OA 
.


SH

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




___
GOAL mailing list

[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Graham Triggs]

> On 31 Dec 2015, at 15:59, Thomas Krichel  wrote:
> 
>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>  And as long as they do, OA remains editable.


With the talk of flipping journals, and where libraries should be allocating 
their funds, maybe it’s worth reflecting on two years of operation for SCOAP3:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/461709/contribution/9/attachments/1195643/1737390/AK_SCOAP3_DK_Librarians_Presentation_Nov2015.pdf

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

[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Thomas Krichel]

  Stevan Harnad writes

> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --

  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.


-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

[Stevan Harnad]

> On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Krichel  wrote:
> 
>  Stevan Harnad writes
> 
>> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
>> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --
> 
>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.

That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."

Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a monolith
any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith, 
but it is completely out of the question for a university library
to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
access that content. 

(Please don’t reply that they do cancel what they cannot afford: that is 
not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much content that their users need 
as they can afford to subscribe to.)

The only way to make subscriptions cancellable is to first mandate 
and provide (universal — not just local) Green OA 
.

SH

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