On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Dana Roth <[email protected]>wrote:
> I generally agree with Stevan … and think the key point here is blatant > nature of commercial “publishers trying to protect their current revenue > streams”. **** > > ** ** > > I do, however, appreciate the needs of non-profit major society > publishers, in order to maintain the quality of their journals, to > establish reasonable article charges for OA. > There is absolutely no difference between for-profit and non-profit journal publishers insofar as the true essential costs of post-Green publishing are concerned. They all co-bundle obsolete and obsolescent Gutenberg-era costs today, pre-Green (such as the print edition, the online edition, markup, access provision, archiving, fulfillment, advertising). Globally mandated Green OA can and should force all of them to phase out the inessential products and services, and their costs. But insofar as learned society publishers are concerned: The only thing that matters now is that they should be fully Green, endorsing their authors' right to provide immediate, un-embargoed Green OA. If they do that, they are on the side of the angels, insofar as OA is concerned. If they embargo Green, they are no better than their for-profit fellow publishers. (And their "good works" -- subsidizing meetings, scholarships and lobbying -- is certainly no justification for embargoing Green: they are in fact subsidizing these "good works" out of their users' lost usage and their authors' lost impact, and holding back universal OA.) Post-Green, learned society publishers will downsize to Fair-Gold like all other publishers. That will be -- and need be -- no bigger or smaller for them. Stevan Harnad
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
