I'll leave it to others to reply to the many questionable details below. Let me just say that "double-dipping," is not motive term but a very clear, objective one (though it might well give rise to some emotions!): It means being paid twice for the same product.
And that's precisely what happens with hybrid-Gold OA: The same publisher is paid twice for the very same article: once by subscribing institutions, once by the author. To ask people to think of this as "two different journals" is double-talk. On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Jan Velterop <[email protected]> wrote: > Hybrid journals – journals that combine toll access to some articles with > open access to others – do not generally enjoy a good press. Terms such as > 'double-dipping' are frequently used. This is not justified, as a general > rule. > > The difficulty is that even a basic understanding of how a subscription > system works is often lacking outside (and even sometimes inside echelons > of) the publishing community. For example, deciding on the price of > subscriptions depends on a number of prior assumptions. There are possibly > more than these three, but they are important ones: > 1) how many subscriptions do we expect to be able to sell; > 2) how many submissions will we get and how many of those will be accepted > for publication (i.e. what will the costs be); and > 3) what margins can we expect to contribute to overheads and profit (or > surplus, in the case of a not-for-profit publisher). > > Typically, a publisher will have a portfolio of journals of which some do > well, some just break even, and some make a loss if all costs, including > overheads, are fully allocated. Hybrid journals will be found in all three > categories. So what does 'double-dipping' mean? Are loss-making hybrid > journals 'half-dipping'? Is 'double-half-dipping' — in the case of those > loss making journals — just 'single dipping'? Does it even make sense to > think in those terms? > > I think not. If a rebate on the subscription price is expected for a > hybrid journal with OA articles in it, would one also expect to pay a > premium on the subscription price of a loss-making hybrid journal? The > objective way to look at it is to see the subscription price as the price > to be paid for the non-OA articles that are published in a hybrid journal, > simply ignoring the OA articles (which are freebies, to the subscriber). > That subscription price may be perceived as low or high — whether or not > expressed in subscription price per non-OA article — but that is what a > subscription to a hybrid journal is: a subscription to the non-OA content. > Incidentally, comparing subscription prices per article (p/a) across a > library collection will show a very wide range, and the inclusion or > exclusion of hybrid journals is not likely to make any difference > whatsoever in the distribution of p/a in that range. > > It may be helpful to think of a hybrid journal as twin journals sharing > the same title, Editor, Editorial Board and editorial policy: one > subscription-based, and one OA. > > The OA articles in a hybrid journal are just as much OA as in any OA > journal as long as they give the reader/user the same rights (of access and > re-use), i.e. as long as they are covered by a licence such as the Creative > Commons Attribution License (CC-BY) and not the CC Attribution > Non-Commercial License (CC-BY-NC). Applying CC-BY-NC licences, which does > happen, is likely to be a sign of insecurity on the part of a publisher > (hanging on to a 'control' element that is wholly inappropriate for OA) or > of a lack of understanding as to what the purpose of open access actually > is. > > As said, hybrid journals do not generally enjoy a good press, but I have > heard positive comments about them as well in the scientific community. > Those relate to the notion that the editorial policy (the > acceptance/rejection policy) of hybrid journals is not influenced by the > potential financial contribution coming from APCs, where the 'open choice' > is given as an option only after the article has passed peer review and is > accepted (which typically the point where the option is presented to the > author). I don't think acceptance and rejection policies of any respectable > OA journal are influenced by the prospect of authors paying anyway, and I > certainly don't know of any such practices at the OA publishers I am > familiar with, but it is an extra assurance hybrid journals offer that that > is indeed not the case for them. > > In any event, 'double-dipping' is an emotive term the use of which is not > conducive to a rational debate. > > Jan Velterop > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
