The subject header should of course have read "Fair Gold vs...." Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...)
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: > Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should > be because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not > think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally > mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold > <http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa>. > > > Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not, at > least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive > fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a > supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA > publishers. > > > The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA — > both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and > fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA: > > > Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been > mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles > per year”*: > > > *(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green > OA. > > > The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories > hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by > the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository > version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access > to the unrefereed draft. > > > *(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per > article”*: This is a genuine function and expense: > > > The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the > author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be > adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds > right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles > take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will > need to be a no-fault submission fee > <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html> so that accepted > authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher > quality standards will have higher rejection rates.) > > > *“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide > over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either > obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing > paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with > form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor > may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per > accepted article. > > > But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and > pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a > small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green, > whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere > else, over and above subscription expenses. > > > That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its > costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost. > > > To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary, > whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have > made subscriptions unsustainable. > > > And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other > than mandating Green… > > > Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions > unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access > <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>. > *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 * > http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/ > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian >> Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see: >> http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462 >> >> best falk >> ________________________________________________ >> Falk Reckling, PhD >> Strategic Analysis >> Department Head >> Austrian Science Fund (FWF) >> Sensengasse 1 >> A-1090 Vienna >> Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861 >> Mobile: +43-664-5307368 >> Email: [email protected] >> >> Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en >> Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess >> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766 >> >> ________________________________________ >> Von: [email protected] [[email protected]]" im >> Auftrag von "Heather Morrison [[email protected]] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43 >> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Betreff: [GOAL] $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can >> generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing >> >> Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small >> scholar-led journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates >> how $1,300 per article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a >> support small open access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing >> only 20 peer-reviewed articles per year, this amount could fund >> top-of-the-line journal hosting, free up the time of a senior academic to >> devote just a little less than one full day per article, hire a part-time >> senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide over 2 days' support >> per peer-reviewed article, with an annual budget of $2,500 for extra costs. >> >> Calculations here: >> >> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/ >> >> best, >> >> -- >> Dr. Heather Morrison >> Assistant Professor >> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies >> University of Ottawa >> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html >> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
