On 2013-10-23, at 3:06 PM, David Wojick <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh I see, Stevan. The subscription journals go out of business, just as I > thought. I was afraid I had missed something in the analysis. Glad we agree. > > To return to the original point, at this time the US Government has no > interest in driving the subscription publishers out of business. Post-Green Fair Gold is not Out-of-Business, it's just Fair Business. (except to a publisher lobbyist) > > At 02:43 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, David Wojick <[email protected] > >> wrote: >> >> As I understand it your position is that all published articles should be >> immediately available for free. My question is why then anyone would >> subscribe to a journal? I am sure you have an answer but I have no idea what >> it is, as your proposal seems to defy the basic laws of economics. Immediate >> deposit seems to be self defeating. What have I missed? >> >> >> Here's what you have missed: >> >> Harnad, Stevan (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. >> In, Anna, Gacs (ed.) The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the >> Electronic Age. , L'Harmattan, 99-105. >> >> SUMMARY: What the research community needs, urgently, is free online access >> (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output. Researchers can >> provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in OA journals (Gold >> OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and self-archiving their >> final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA Institutional Repositories (Green >> OA). OA self-archiving, once it is mandated by research institutions and >> funders, can reliably generate 100% Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to >> convert to OA publishing (which is not in the hands of the research >> community) and it also requires the funds to cover the Gold OA publication >> costs. With 100% Green OA, the research community's access and impact >> problems are already solved. If and when 100% Green OA should cause >> significant cancellation pressure (no one knows whether or when that will >> happen, because OA Green grows anarchically, article by article, not journal >> by journal) then the cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, >> downsizing and eventually a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing on >> the part of journals. As subscription revenues shrink, institutional >> windfall savings from cancellations grow. If and when journal subscriptions >> become unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be low enough, and >> institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, because publishing >> will have downsized to just peer-review service provision alone, offloading >> text-generation onto authors and access-provision and archiving onto the >> global network of OA Institutional Repositories. Green OA will have >> leveraged a transition to Gold OA. >> >> Harnad, Stevan (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity >> Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine, 16, (7/8) >> >> SUMMARY: Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open >> Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature. Funds are short; 80% of >> journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still >> subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the >> asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to >> publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is >> needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of >> authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for >> publication) ("Green OA"). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when >> universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because >> users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in turn >> induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition, >> access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service of peer >> review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the >> subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these >> residual service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer >> review then will be on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or >> funder paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome >> (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost >> while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality >> standards. >> >> >> At 01:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote: >>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, David Wojick <[email protected] > >>> wrote: >>> >>> The USA has the lead here, as far as major funder mandates are concerned, >>> and they have opted for a 12 month publisher embargo form of green OA. I >>> have several articles on this at >>> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/ >>> Peter does not even discuss what is actually happening on the policy front. >>> >>> >>> On leads vs. lags and analysis vs argument, see: >>> >>> Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI Consultant >>> >>> >>> The exchange is preceded by the following note (by me): >>> >>> Note: David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation >>> at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office >>> of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and >>> philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil >>> engineering. In the exchanges below, he sounds [to me] very much like a >>> publishing interest lobbyist, but judge for yourself. He also turns out to >>> have a rather curious [and to me surprising] history in environmental >>> matters… >>> >>> >>> The topic continued (and continues) to be discussed on the Society for >>> Scholarly Publishing's blog, "The Scholarly Kitchen," where DW is a >>> frequent contributor. >>> >>> DW: "Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an >>> argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually >>> going on…. Happy OA week." >>> >>> And a Happy OA week to DW too... >>> >>> Stevan Harnad >>> >>> At 12:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear David, >>>> Sorry, could you tell us why you have the opinion that the author of the >>>> Guardian piece is oblivious to what is going on? What, in you eyes, is the >>>> main thing he seems not aware of? >>>> Thank you, >>>> Jeroen Bosman >>>> ----------------------------------------------- >>>> Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience >>>> Utrecht University Library >>>> email: [email protected] >>>> twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [ >>>> mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Wojick >>>> Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 18:24 >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA >>>> Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an argument, >>>> not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually going on. >>>> Happy OA week. >>>> David Wojick >>>> At 02:20 PM 10/22/2013, you wrote: >>>> >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): >>>> > http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>> > >>>> >I post this without comment. >>>> > >>>> > http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op >>>> >en-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard >>>> > >>>> >But I would be interested to hear listmembers responses/reactions >>>> > >>>> >BW >>>> > >>>> >Quentin Burrell
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
