On 2012-10-12, at 11:48 AM, Ross Mounce wrote: > The high price of these hybrid gold OA options is only a problem if > researcher obsession with journal impact factor (JIF) is immutable. > > I believe this behaviour can be changed (and is already changing, moving the > prestige to gold OA) and authors can be taught to submit to appropriate > low-cost gold OA journals rather than expensive high JIF hybrid outlets. The > final product is largely similar after all... > I don't detect having mentioned journal impact factors below. I spoke only of peer review quality standards.
(The correlation between the two is probably not zero, though, but a journal needs a track-record to demonstrate it. And authors need to know.) Universal Green OA, followed by Gold OA for no-fault peer-review alone, moots all of this. And (to reply to Jan) subscription journals certainly would not dare to charge a no-fault submission fee today; nor would today's Gold OA journals. But the post-Green ecology will be very different. Once journal publication is just peer-review service provision, it will be quite obvious and natural for it to be no-fault, rather than to continue bundling the cost of rejected papers into the price of accepted ones. Stevan Harnad > On Oct 12, 2012 4:25 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > On 2012-10-12, at 10:32 AM, Sally Morris wrote: > >> high IF journals tend to reject a higher % >> of articles than low or no IF journals. Accepted articles have to bear a >> share of the costs of processing these articles up to the point of >> rejection. > > This is exactly why post-Green Gold will be just a no-fault peer-review > service: Accepted papers will no longer be paying for rejected ones. > > Gold OA costs will be per round of refereeing, regardless of outcome. > If/when a paper meets a journal's acceptance standards with no further > need for revision, "publication" will be cerified by the journal's imprimatur. > > All the access-provision and archiving will be done by the distributed > global network of Green OA institutional repositories. > > And journals will only be motivated to create and maintain a track-record > for high quality, to attract submissions seeking certification of having met > those standards. But papers that meet the standards will no longer be > subsidizing the costs of refereeing papers that do not. > > And of course there will continue to be a hierarchy of journals, and > their corresponding peer-review quality standards, since human > endeavor is inevitably Gaussian, and selectivity percentiles are > selectivity percentiles. > > Authors will not pick journals by their price (which will be the same, per > round) > but by their quality standards. And even if their paper fails to meet the > standards > of a journal whose quality is higher than a given author can reach, authors > will > still benefit from the recommendations made by the referees of that > higher-standard > journal in revising their paper for a journal more appropriate for its > quality level. > > (And to minimize their costs, authors will make more effort to choose > journals commensurate with the quality of their articles, instead of all > trying for the top journals, and thereby increasing the cost of the accepted > articles, as now, in the acceptance-based subscription and Gold OA > system.) > > But for all these good things, we first have to mandate Green globally… > > Stevan Harnad > > ___
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
