SCOAP3 and the pre-emptive "flip" model for Gold OA conversion<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/421-SCOAP3-and-the-pre-emptive-flip-model-for-Gold-OA-conversion.html>
Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher Embargo?<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1066-Fools-Gold-Publisher-Ransom-for-Freedom-from-Publisher-Embargo.html> <http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Donat Agosti <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Wouter > > > > Though you refer to Wall Street Journal that infers journalistic scrutiny, > it is in fact just a press release of Elsevier and thus, isn’t this > following all the discussion on GOAL only part of the reality? It might > be interesting to the readers to link this press release to the publication > of Elsevier’s business <http://t.co/l3AHKTNU1Z> figures. > > > > You could similarly add another press > release<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php>that > announces yet another deal regarding open access in a much more > sophisticated way, providing through the domain specific semantic markup an > even greater service to the society, and at a much lower rate. Similarly to > SOAP3, it is free because the publisher and libraries got together to make > if free. The publisher and editor is the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin who > delegated the publishing to Pensoft . Why not compare these two business > models, where a new publisher enters the field which has not the overhead > and monopoly of Elsevier and thus can dictate the prize of the deal > irrespective of the underlying real costs? > > > > http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php > > > > In both cases time will tell - but at simple press release does certainly > not provide a balanced reply needed at this moment. > > > > Donat > > > > > > *Von:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *Im > Auftrag von *Gerritsma, Wouter > *Gesendet:* Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:21 PM > *An:* 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' > *Betreff:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or > offer an acceptable Hybrid Model > > > > Dear G. > > > > Elsevier is doing exactly what you ask for > > http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131217-903941.html > > > > At least two of these are financed through SCOAP(3). That might be worth a > discussion. > > > > Yours sincerely > > Wouter > > > > *From:* [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Graham Triggs > *Sent:* donderdag 19 december 2013 16:05 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or > offer an acceptable Hybrid Model > > > > On 18 December 2013 12:47, <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. Flip your journals to Gold OA. Start with high ranked journals, because > as you know most researchers still care. Although the true cost of > publishing remains unclear (http://doi.org/kxz), I think it's safe to say, > that with an APC between $1500 and $3000 you still can make solid profit. > Probably not as much as with the subscription model, but still reasonable. > And if you really have a high ranked journal you can indeed increase the > price to whatever the demand on researcher side will support. > > Others publisher are doing it: > http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-109721.html > Why not Elsevier? > > > > Every single one of those are association / society journals. So this > wouldn't be a commercial decision by a publisher, but a political one by > the association / society. After all, you can't really advocate open > access, if your own journals aren't. > > > > Simply making a hybrid journal into open access only would not be > sustainable, unless a significant proportion of the articles are already > utilising the open access option. > > > > 2. Offer an acceptable hybrid model. Avoid double dipping on an > institutional/consortium/national level (not on a global level as you do > now). We explicitly requested Elsevier to do so in Switzerland. However > > Elsevier refused to come up with a solution that reduces our subscription > price according the amount of paid hybrid of our authors. Elsevier argued, > subscription and OA are two independent things and shouldn't be mixed > financially. This might be true for Elsevier, where local sales manager > obviously are not aware, what's going on about OA in the own company. But > it isn't true for any institution which has to care about its budget. > > > > I realise local budgetary issues are a concern. And if you do not have > outside funding for research that includes the publication cost of an OA > option, then making use of an OA option is going to be impossible whilst > you are paying a subscription. > > > > But this is not "double dipping". It's just a question of institution / > national affordability. > > > > How > can an institution justify additional hybrid costs in a budget if only a > tiny share will immediately come back with reduced global list prices. > This may temporary work in UK, but I¹m quite sure they soon will realize > that Hybrid without reducing the direct subscription cost is not > sustainable. > > > > In theory, Open Access publishing ought to be justifiable in it's own > right, in terms of doing the right thing and maximizing the benefit of > funding in research. > > > > Where the money comes from, how you allocate funds, etc. are a different > matter, and it may well be that given the funding that you have, an Open > Access option may only be an illusion of a choice. > > > > But Hybrid is reducing the direct subscription cost - for Elsevier, it > appears to be a very minor activity in their hybrid journals, so it is > having minimal effect. But if you look at Embo Journal, various Springer > hybrid journals - there are documented cases of the subscription costs not > just increasing by a lesser amount, but actually reducing in price. > > > > And yes, other publishers are doing it: > http://www.rsc.org/publishing/librarians/goldforgold.asp > Why not Elsevier? > > > > The publishing arm of a royal society. So, it is a political decision to > expedite the transition to Open Access. > > > > And you are right, there is no reason why Elesvier couldn't use the > subscription income as a limited promotion to drive the adoption of Open > Access. > > > > (Note that under this model, as Open Access publishing increases, the > subscription amount and the subsidy for next year's OA publishing would > decrease. So the each year's expenditure would be made up of a decreasing > amount of subscription, and an increasing amount of Open Access APC > payments). > > > > There is no reason why they can't offer such a promotion, but there is > also no reason - for them - why they should. That isn't just an issue about > revenue / profit either - there will be agreements in place that may make > this tricky, there is investment and re-organisation that would be needed > to cope with the transition, and then there are still people questioning > trust of paying to publish instead of paying to read. > > > > Whilst we are all very vocal about wanting Open Access, it still doesn't > quite translate to the entire community just yet. > > > > G > > _______________________________________________ > 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
