And when openess prevails - how do we support quality? (Peer review??? who will be the peers in this open open world??) What happens when myriad points of view - many legitimate, many not - all have their own publication silos - all denigrating / ignoring / competing with the others - for all sorts of reasons good and bad?
Yes--- some research / scholarly communities can deal with this (eg - the ones that are more mathematizable). What about the others ( the ones that are less mathematizable or the ones that are questionably mathematizable)? In other words - how - when openness triumphs in all fields - do we deal with chaotic pluralism? Through a sort of yet-to-arrive "marketplace"? (But gee, don't we already have one in place??? Will the new one really be better?? ) Michael Schwartz Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:36 PM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
