Contra Prosser, it IS strictly true in the UK that the *Gold* option involves author-pays. The RCUK allows the "Green" approach *for the present time*, but with intonations that they'd really like everything to go Gold. I've read the consultation document. Larry Hurtado
Quoting David Prosser <[email protected]> on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 20:29:14 +0000: > Larry Hurtado wrote: > >> --The "gold" approach here in the UK = author-pay, whatever it may >> mean elsewhere. > > > This is not strictly true. RCUK have given funds to pay APC > charges, but they do not require that publication is in an > APC-charging journal. An author meets the RCUK conditions by either > publishing in an open access journal - irrespective of its business > model - or through green deposit. > > David > > > > On 29 Nov 2013, at 17:06, [email protected] wrote: > >> A few responses to Guedon's comments: >> --The "gold" approach here in the UK = author-pay, whatever it may >> mean elsewhere. >> --If many journals offer "free" services to authors, that's because >> they have an income-stream to pay the people who provide the services, >> whether by some form of subsidy (and I don't know of many in my field) >> or by subscription fees. For these services to be provided will >> either require these income sources or the author-pay model. >> --We can extrapolate roughly what this would cost authors: It would >> be at least multiple(s) of the single-article charge being levied >> already by, e.g., OUP and Brill for "gold" option article publication >> (in each case £2000 or more for articles of ca. 20 pp. printed). >> --I fail to see how any sort of mandate would be of any comfort and >> assistance to authors, whether first-time or established. I repeat: >> Surely a fundamental rule should be that any convention should have >> the confidence and support of the constituency affected. The >> alternative is tyranny. >> >> Larry Hurtado >> >> >> Quoting Guédon Jean-Claude <[email protected]> on Fri, >> 29 Nov 2013 10:24:32 +0000: >> >>> There a number of points to be made regarding Hurtado's message: >>> >>> 1. The "horrid 'Gold'" must refer to the author-pay gold. This is >>> not the whole of gold, only a subset. Gold ciovers a wide variety of >>> financing schemes. >>> >>> 2. The figures given for "horrid gold" - incidentally, I like this >>> term applied to author-pay business models - are real, but not >>> general. Thousands of journals offer gratis services to authors and >>> free use by readers because, simply, they are subsidized in one >>> fashion or another. >>> >>> 3. Even if the cost of £2000+ (Sterling) were accepted for articles, >>> the cost of monographs could not be derived from a simplistic linear >>> extrapolation based on page numbers. >>> >>> 4. Young scholars who may not enjoy Hurtado's stature in the world, >>> would be delighted to have their first work published, if only >>> electronically. Moreover, they would probably prefer open access to >>> ensure maximum visibility and use, provided the evaluation process >>> in force within their universities does not treat electronic >>> publishing as inferior. >>> >>> 5. In many countries, e.g. in Canada, subsidies exist to support the >>> publishing of monographs. This precedent opens the door to possible >>> extensions to full OA-publishing support, for example for a young >>> scholar's first book. >>> >>> Jean-Claude Guédon >>> ________________________________________ >>> De : [email protected] [[email protected]] de la part >>> de [email protected] [[email protected]] >>> Envoyé : jeudi 28 novembre 2013 05:40 >>> À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >>> Objet : [GOAL] Re: Monographs >>> >>> Further to Steven's comment, as a scholar in the Humanities, in which >>> the book/monograph is still THE major medium for high-impact >>> research-publication, mandating a major change such as OA (even >>> "Green", to say nothing of the horrid "Gold"), would be opposed by at >>> least the overwhelming majority (and perhaps even unanimously) in the >>> disciplines concerned. And the reasons aren't primarily author-income >>> that might accrue from traditional print-book publication. For many >>> European-type small-print-run monographs, sold almost entirely to >>> libraries, often no royalty accrues to author. Even serious books >>> intended primarily for other scholars in the field and published by >>> university presses and/or reputable trade publishers, the royalties >>> will still be modest in comparison with, e.g., popular fiction works. >>> >>> My best-selling book, sold ca. 5,000 hardback and has sold now over >>> another 3000 in paperback. Several thousand in royalties, but, >>> seriously, my main aim in writing books has been to get them into the >>> hands of as many fellow scholars in my field as possible, and also >>> then into the hands of advanced students and other serious readers. >>> I've typically gone with a highly-respected and well-established >>> "trade" publisher, mainly because they combine excellent editing, >>> marketing, and a readiness to price the books affordably (e.g., a 700 >>> page hardback at $55 USD, because they committed to a 5000 copy >>> initial print-run.) >>> >>> For an equivalent service to be provided, someone has to pay. "Gold" >>> access articles are costing now £2000+ (Sterling) each, with >>> page-lengths of ca. 20 print pages. Imagine what an author would have >>> to pay for a 150-200 page monograph. And don't tell me that >>> everything will be OK, because university libraries will hand over >>> their acquisitions budget for this. It won't happen. Moreover, what >>> about "independent" and retired scholars, who continue to produce >>> important works? >>> >>> And the "Green" approach means no one pays, and so no service >>> (editing, and other production services, including promotion) will be >>> done free? Think again. >>> >>> But the fundamental thing is this: Any "mandate" that does not have >>> the enthusiasm of the constituency is tyranny. And neither "Green" >>> nor "Gold" access has any enthusiasm among Humanities scholars as may >>> be applied to books/monographs. >>> >>> Larry Hurtado >>> >>> Quoting Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> on Mon, 25 Nov 2013 >>> 17:09:56 -0500: >>> >>>> Sandy, I'm all for OA to monographs, of course. >>>> >>>> It's *mandating* OA to monographs that I am very skeptical about, because >>>> there is unanimity among researchers about desiring -- even if not daring, >>>> except if mandated, to provide -- OA to peer-reviewed journal articles, >>>> whereas there is no such unanimity about monographs. >>>> >>>> Not to mention that prestige publishers may not yet be ready to >>>> agree to it. >>>> >>>> So mandate Green OA to articles first; that done, mandate (or try to >>>> mandate) whatever else you like. But not before, or instead. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, where the author and publisher are willing, there is >>>> absolute no >>>> obstacle to providing OA to monographs today, unmandated. >>>> >>>> Stevan Harnad >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Sandy Thatcher <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Stevan continues to be hung up on the idea that some academic authors >>>>> still have visions of fame and fortune they'd like to achieve through >>>>> publishing books in the traditional manner, so he believes that the time >>>>> for OA in book publishing has not yet arrived. But perhaps a simple >>>>> terminological distinction may suffice to place this problem in proper >>>>> perspective. Academic books may be divided into two types: >>>>> monographs and >>>>> trade books. Monographs, by definition, are works of scholarship written >>>>> primarily to address other scholars and are therefore unlikely to attract >>>>> many, if any, readers beyond the walls of academe. Trade books >>>>> encompass a >>>>> large category that includes, as one subset, nonfiction works written by >>>>> scholars but addressed not only to fellow scholars but also to members of >>>>> the general public. >>>>> >>>>> There is an easy practical way to distinguish the two: commercial trade >>>>> publishers (as distinct from commercial scholarly publishers that do not >>>>> aim at a trade market) have certain requirements for potential sales that >>>>> guarantee that monographs will never be accepted for publication. It is >>>>> true that the authors of monographs, published by university presses and >>>>> commercial scholarly publishers, are sometimes paid royalties. But these >>>>> amounts seldom accumulate to large sums (unless the monographs happen to >>>>> become widely adopted in classrooms as course assignments--a phenomenon >>>>> that happens less these days when coursepacks and e-reserves >>>>> permit use of >>>>> excerpts for classroom assignments). Thus not much is sacrificed, >>>>> financially speaking, by publishing these books OA. And, indeed, >>>>> a scholar >>>>> may have more to gain, in terms of increased reputation from wider >>>>> circulation that may translate into tenure and promotion, which >>>>> are vastly >>>>> more financially rewarding over the long term than royalties are ever >>>>> likely to be from monograph sales. >>>>> >>>>> Also, of course, financial opportunities do not need to be sacrificed >>>>> completely by OA if the CC-BY-NC-ND license is used for monographs, >>>>> preserving some money-generating rights to authors even under OA. >>>>> >>>>> It also needs to be said that even trade authors can benefit from OA, as >>>>> the successes of such authors as Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, Jonathan >>>>> Zittrain, and others have demonstrated, with the free online versions of >>>>> their books serving to stimulate print sales. >>>>> >>>>> Thus I believe Stevan is not being quite pragmatic enough in recognizing >>>>> that the time has arrived for OA monograph publishing also, not just OA >>>>> article publishing. >>>>> >>>>> Sandy Thatcher >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 12:44 PM -0500 11/19/13, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ann Okerson (as >>>>> interviewed<http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/ann-okerson-on-state-of-open-access.html>by >>>>> Richard Poynder) is committed to licensing. I am not >>>>> sure >>>>> whether >>>>> the >>>>> commitment is ideological or pragmatic, but it's clearly a lifelong >>>>> ("asymptotic") commitment by now. >>>>> >>>>> I was surprised to see the direction Ann ultimately took because -- as I >>>>> have admitted many times -- it was Ann who first opened my eyes to (what >>>>> eventually came to be called) "Open Access." >>>>> >>>>> In the mid and late 80's I was still just in the thrall of the scholarly >>>>> and scientific potential of the revolutionarily new online medium >>>>> itself ("Scholarly >>>>> Skywriting"<http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/05/sky-writing-or-when-man-first-met-troll/239420/>), >>>>> eager to get everything to be put online. It was Ann's work on >>>>> the serials >>>>> crisis that made me realize that it was not enough just to get it all >>>>> online: it also had to be made accessible (online) to all of its >>>>> potential >>>>> users, toll-free -- not just to those whose institutions could afford the >>>>> access-tolls (licenses). >>>>> >>>>> And even that much I came to understand, sluggishly, only after I had >>>>> first realized that what set apart the writings in question was not that >>>>> they were (as I had first naively dubbed them) >>>>> "esoteric<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversive_Proposal>" >>>>> (i.e., they had few users) but that they were* peer-reviewed research >>>>> journal articles*, written by researchers solely for impact, not for >>>>> income <http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1>. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But I don't think the differences between Ann and me can be set down to >>>>> ideology vs. pragmatics. I too am far too often busy trying to free the >>>>> growth of open access from the ideologues (publishing reformers, rights >>>>> reformers (Ann's "open use" zealots), peer review reformers, freedom of >>>>> information reformers) who are slowing the progress of access to >>>>> peer-reviewed journal articles (from "now" to "better") by insisting only >>>>> and immediately on what they believe is the "best." Like Ann, I, too, am >>>>> all pragmatics (repository software, analyses of the OA impact advantage, >>>>> mandates, analyses of mandate effeciveness). >>>>> >>>>> So Ann just seems to have a different sense of what can (hence should) be >>>>> done, now, to maximize access, and how (as well as how fast). >>>>> And after her >>>>> initial, infectious inclination toward toll-free access (which I >>>>> and others >>>>> caught from her) she has apparently concluded that what is needed is to >>>>> modify the terms of the tolls (i.e., licensing). >>>>> >>>>> This is well-illustrated by Ann's view on SCOAP3: "All it takes is for >>>>> libraries to agree that what they've now paid as subscription fees for >>>>> those journals will be paid instead to CERN, who will in turn pay to the >>>>> publishers as subsidy for APCs." >>>>> >>>>> I must alas disagree with this view, on entirely pragmatic -- indeed >>>>> logical -- grounds: the transition from annual institutional subscription >>>>> fees to annual consortial OA publication fees is an incoherent, >>>>> unscalable, >>>>> unsustainable Escherian scheme that contains the seeds of its own >>>>> dissolution, rather than a pragmatic means of reaching a stable >>>>> "asymptote": Worldwide, across all disciplines, there are P >>>>> institutions, Q >>>>> journals, and R authors, publishing S articles per year. The >>>>> only relevant >>>>> item is the article. The annual consortial licensing model -- reminiscent >>>>> of the Big Deal -- is tantamount to a global oligopoly and does not scale >>>>> (beyond CERN!). >>>>> >>>>> So if SCOAP3 is the pragmatic basis for Ann's "predict[ion that] >>>>> we'll see >>>>> such journals evolve into something more like 'full traditional >>>>> OA' before >>>>> too much longer" then one has some practical basis for scepticism -- a >>>>> scepticism Ann shares when it comes to "hybrid Gold" OA journals >>>>> -- unless >>>>> of course such a transition to Fool's Gold is both mandated and funded by >>>>> governments, as the UK and Netherlands governments have lately >>>>> proposed<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1073-The-Journal-Publisher-Lobby-in-the-UK-Netherlands-Part-I.html>, >>>>> under the influence of their publishing lobbies! But the globalization of >>>>> such profligate folly seems unlikely on the most pragmatic >>>>> grounds of all: >>>>> affordability. (The scope for remedying world hunger, disease or >>>>> injustice >>>>> that way are marginally better -- and McDonalds would no doubt be >>>>> interested in such a yearly global consortial pre-payment >>>>> deal<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=oI6LUpG8LPLCyAHT5IHQDg#q=McNopoly+harnad>for >>>>> their >>>>> Big >>>>> Macs >>>>> too?) >>>>> >>>>> I also disagree (pragmatically) with Ann's apparent conflation of the >>>>> access problem for journal articles with the access problem for books. >>>>> (It's the inadequacy of the "esoteric" criterion again. Many book authors >>>>> -- hardly pragmatists -- still dream of sales & riches, and fear >>>>> that free >>>>> online access would thwart these dreams, driving away the prestigious >>>>> publishers whose imprimaturs distinguish their work from vanity press.) >>>>> >>>>> Pragmatically speaking, OA to articles has already proved slow enough in >>>>> coming, and has turned out to require mandates to induce and embolden >>>>> authors to make their articles OA. But for articles, at least, there is >>>>> author consensus that OA is desirable, hence there is the motivation to >>>>> comply with OA mandates from authors' institutions and funders. Books, >>>>> still a mixed bag, will have to wait. Meanwhile, no one is stopping those >>>>> book authors who want to make their books free online from picking >>>>> publishers who agree?> >>>>> >>>>> And there are plenty of pragmatic reasons why the librarian-obsession -- >>>>> perhaps not ideological, but something along the same lines -- with the >>>>> Version-of-Record is misplaced when it comes to access to >>>>> journal articles: >>>>> The author's final, peer-reviewed, accepted draft means the difference >>>>> between night and day for would-be users whose institutions cannot afford >>>>> toll-access to the publisher's proprietary VoR. >>>>> >>>>> And for the time being the toll-access VoR is safe [modulo the general >>>>> digital-preservation problem, which is not an OA problem], while >>>>> subscription licenses are being paid by those who can afford them. CHORUS >>>>> and SHARE have plenty of pragmatic advantages for publishers (and >>>>> ideological ones for librarians), but they are vastly outweighed by their >>>>> practical disadvantages for research and researchers -- of which the >>>>> biggest is that they leave access-provision in the hands of >>>>> publishers (and >>>>> their licensing conditions). >>>>> >>>>> About the Marie-Antoinette option for the developing world -- R4L -- the >>>>> less said, the better. The pragmatics really boil down to time: >>>>> the access >>>>> needs of both the developing and the developed world are >>>>> pressing. Partial >>>>> and makeshift solutions are better than nothing, now. But it's been "now" >>>>> for an awfully long time; and time is not an ideological but a pragmatic >>>>> matter; so is lost research usage and impact. >>>>> >>>>> Ann says: "Here's the fondest hope of the pragmatic OA advocate: that we >>>>> settle on a series of business practices that truly make the greatest >>>>> possible collection of high-value material accessible to the broadest >>>>> possible audience at the lowest possible cost - not just lowest >>>>> cost to end >>>>> users, but lowest cost to all of us." >>>>> >>>>> Here's a slight variant, by another pragmatic OA advocate: "that >>>>> we settle >>>>> on a series of research community policies that truly make the greatest >>>>> possible collection of peer-reviewed journal articles accessible online >>>>> free for all users, to the practical benefit of all of us." >>>>> >>>>> The online medium has made this practically possible. The publishing >>>>> industry -- pragmatists rather than ideologists -- will adapt to this new >>>>> practical reality. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. >>>>> >>>>> Let me close by suggesting that perhaps something Richard >>>>> Poynder wrote is >>>>> not quite correct either: He wrote "It was [the] affordability >>>>> problem that >>>>> created the accessibility problem that OA was intended to solve." >>>>> >>>>> No, it was the creation of the online medium that made OA not only >>>>> practically feasible (and optimal) for research and researchers, but >>>>> inevitable. >>>>> >>>>> *Stevan Harnad* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Sanford G. Thatcher >>>>> 8201 Edgewater Drive >>>>> Frisco, TX 75034-5514 >>>>> e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> Phone: (214) 705-1939 >>>>> Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html >>>>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher >>>>> >>>>> "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) >>>>> >>>>> "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who >>>>> can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> GOAL mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE >>> Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology >>> Honorary Professorial Fellow >>> New College (School of Divinity) >>> University of Edinburgh >>> Mound Place >>> Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX >>> Office Phone: (0)131 650 8920. FAX: (0)131 650 7952 >>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado >>> www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com >>> >>> -- >>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE >> Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology >> Honorary Professorial Fellow >> New College (School of Divinity) >> University of Edinburgh >> Mound Place >> Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX >> Office Phone: (0)131 650 8920. FAX: (0)131 650 7952 >> http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado >> www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com >> >> -- >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > L. W. Hurtado, PhD, FRSE Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology Honorary Professorial Fellow New College (School of Divinity) University of Edinburgh Mound Place Edinburgh, UK. EH1 2LX Office Phone: (0)131 650 8920. FAX: (0)131 650 7952 http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/staff-profiles/hurtado www.larryhurtado.wordpress.com -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
