Jan: I agree with almost everything you say. I'd only quibble with the statement about the Big Deal, but that is a concept from the past. In particular, the unbundling of journals is definitely something to pursue. I hope altmetrics and OA accelerate that trend. --Eric.
--Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 Telephone: (626) 376-5415 Skype: efvandevelde -- Twitter: @evdvelde E-mail: [email protected] On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Jan Velterop <[email protected]> wrote: > Eric, > > You talk about "market-distorting practices". The biggest > market-distorting factor in a subscription/licence model is of course that > the party who pays is not the party who choses (at least 'gold' models put > the choice in the hands of those who can sensibly choose: the authors). The > question that I have is whether it is right at all that peer-reviewed > literature is subject to choice when it comes to unfettered availability. > Should peer-reviewed literature not be regarded as a kind of > 'infrastructural' provision, like the road network? Paid for out of common > funds, to enable everyone to reach the knowledge they need or like to have? > > The BigDeal — the site-licence supreme — was intended for just such a > purpose. A national (perhaps regional) 'infrastructural' provision of > access to all peer-reviewed literature to all academics. Paid out of > 'top-sliced' funds. Unfortunately, the wish to choose scuppered that idea. > Rather than having access to everything, many librarians and their > universities wanted to revert to selection of journals available > electronically. Even where it meant paying the same, or even more, for a > smaller selection of journals. I regard that as a historical mistake. In > the modern world with technologies like the web at our disposal, selecting > what should be available to researchers and students seems completely out > of order; a remnant of an old order. Individual researchers and students > should be enabled to decide what they need in terms of peer-reviewed > literature, not having to rely solely on librarians and their local budgets. > > In my opinion notions like 'double dipping' and other denigrating comments > about hybrid OA/subscription journals are not warranted. That said, I am no > great fan of hybrid journals. Actually, I am no great fan of journals. They > are a way of organising and stratifying the peer-reviewed literature that > has had it's time. The article is the meaningful entity; the journal just a > label that is attached to an article, like a branded clothes label to a > jacket. Nobody would read (or not read) an article just because it is in a > particular journal. Nobody would cite (or not cite) an article just because > it is in a particular journal. Researchers worth their salt read and cite > articles that are relevant to their research, irrespective of the properly > peer-reviewed journal they are published in. > > Which brings me to your remark about bundling. A journal is a bundle, too. > > I see the journal disappear over time. Articles will more and more often > appear in repositories of sorts, 'platforms' if you wish, such as arXiv and > PLOS One. (These platforms, by the way, can lay claim to being 'journals' — > daily accounts — much more than most so-called journals that are anything > but. Indeed, PLOS One is called a 'journal', yet it is essentially > different from most traditional journals). Efforts to bring back the > situation as it was in the 1950's are futile and no more than rearguard > battles. > > Jan > > On 3 Jul 2013, at 21:30, "Eric F. Van de Velde" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Jan: > I agree with you that pricing journals for a publisher is complicated, at > least when looking from the inside out. But that is no different from any > other supplier of a product. The problem with the academic journal market > is price transparency. > > With Hybrid Gold OA publishers essentially tell us to trust them to do the > right thing. The problem is that the market is already so distorted because > of other business practices that there is no way for buyers to check they > are doing the right thing. > > Hybrid Gold OA is just one other part of market-distorting practices, > which include: > > 1. Site licenses > a) They force a university to make uniform decisions for a large and > diverse group, rather than let individuals decide what exactly they need, > which would be a far more realistic indicator of usefulness of a journal > than impact factor or surveys. It forces universities to buy more than they > need. > b) Publishers try to hide the costs of journals through nondisclosure > clauses in contracts, thereby reducing transparency. It is impossible for > universities to evaluate how good a negotiator their library is, as there > is no way to compare the results with other universities and libraries. > > 2. Bundling > a) Publishers use the market power of one journal to force > universities to subsidize new and marginal journals. > b) Forces universities to subscribe to more than they need, > exacerbating 1.a) > c) It decreases price transparency, exacerbating 1.b) > > 3. Consortial deals > a) Again, this is a strategy to make universities buy more than they > need, exacerbating 1.a) > b) Decrease price transparency, exacerbating 1.b) > > All of these practices make it impossible to assess prices. Their > complexity increases the total cost at the publisher's end. It increases > the administrative cost at the university's end. And, this market cannot > operate without a plethora of middlemen, each of which add administrative > overhead and profit margins. > > I have no doubt there are many people among publishers who work hard and > try to do right. But, there is no way of knowing. In this context, Hybrid > Gold is impossible to support. > > --Eric. > > > > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com > Twitter: @evdvelde > > Telephone: (626) 376-5415 > E-mail: [email protected] > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
