Sorry, Laurent – my message wasn’t a reply to your post, but rather to David’s concluding that there were no negative impacts on journals participating in PEER. That is correct, and my point is that publisher-set embargo periods (based on all the information and evidence we bring to bear in embargo setting) was essential to that outcome.
With kind wishes, Alicia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Laurent Romary Sent: 22 October 2015 15:27 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story' This does not explain why, when the papers where freely available online, we observed an increase in usage for Publishers’ web sites… Laurent Le 22 oct. 2015 à 15:57, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF) <a.w...@elsevier.com<mailto:a.w...@elsevier.com>> a écrit : Because the journals in the PEER study used publisher-set embargo periods… - Alicia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser Sent: 22 October 2015 14:42 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: BLOG: Unlocking Research 'Half-life is half the story' Marc’s post reminds me that there was the EC-funded, STM-run PEER project that attempted to do exactly this comparison: http://www.stm-assoc.org/public-affairs/resources/peer/ One of the aims of PEER was to discover the effect of Green OA on journal viability - for the journals that took part there were no negative effects on their viability. David On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:50, Couture Marc <marc.cout...@teluq.ca<mailto:marc.cout...@teluq.ca>> wrote: Hi all, What we would like to see here as evidence is something like what is being done about open access to scholarly monographs: rigorous studies, involving control groups and close monitoring, testing the effect of making a toll-free copy available. I’m aware of two such studies, both made as part of the OAPEN initiative: one in the Netherlands and one in the UK (still ongoing, but preliminary results have been released). Interestingly, both found no measurable effect of toll-free availability on the sales. The only “effect” of toll-free access is a tremendous increase of use, as measured by summing the sales and the (much more numerous) downloads. Here also, fears that scholarly publishing is incompatible, or endangered by OA were, and still are, regularly aired. It’s possible that things are not the same for journal publishing. But, pending reliable results, we simply don’t know, and predictions as to a loss of subscriptions are nothing but speculation (or hypotheses). For details: http://www.oapen.nl/images/attachments/article/58/OAPEN-NL-final-report.pdf and http://openaccess.ox.ac.uk/wp-uploads/2014/07/JACKSON-Oxford-OA-Monographs-June-2014.pdf Marc Couture _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal ________________________________ Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal Laurent Romary INRIA laurent.rom...@inria.fr<mailto:laurent.rom...@inria.fr> ________________________________ Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
