Hi Heather I think it’s a fair point to discuss the issue of good will regarding mistakes during the APC-payment. However I think this is especially a problem of hybrid.
And I agree, it’s better to own the issue. And therefore I suggest to eventually move forward with the large scale transition. In fact, the longer we wait hybrid will become a real problem. For a long time most funders and institutions have successfully denied funding for hybrid OA because of the double dip issue. The hybrid share was laughable low. Then there was the push for hybrid in UK and many publishers promoted their hybrid program more offensively on their website and in their workflows. Now this promotion reaches academics with little knowledge about OA. These academic sense that OA is important, but they don’t understand the details and especially not the problem of hybrid. In a survey at the ETH Zurich 23% of the researchers have replied that they have published in hybrid journals in the last 12 months (http://www.library.ethz.ch/en/Media/Files/Open-Access-Survey-at-ETH-Zurich-Summary-Report2 <http://www.library.ethz.ch/en/Media/Files/Open-Access-Survey-at-ETH-Zurich-Summary-Report2> , p.13), despite the library and the national funder have a clear No-Hybrid-Policy since years. An investigation of a librarian (https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2017H3S67-87 <https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2017H3S67-87>) it showed, that it’s extremely difficult to identify these articles and who had paid for them. Neither the university nor the publishers had good data to provide this information. However it was estimated that that in 2015 about 300’000 USD were spent just for hybrid OA by ETHZ. And this number is clearly on the raise. So the longer we postpone the transition to Gold OA, the more money we will loose on the way, and the more no so well informed authors are confused with hybrid options or complex self-archiving policies. Those who pay subscriptions today have the power to make that change in their hand. Best regards Christian > Am 27.11.2017 um 13:58 schrieb Heather Morrison <[email protected]>: > > Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Frédéric. > > Assuming your information is correct, this is the kind of behaviour that has > resulted in publishers being labelled predatory. Perhaps someone from > Springer would like to clarify their business practice here. > > This illustrates one of the drawbacks of the APC model (all models have > drawbacks). Authors must submit work to journals (hybrid or full OA), and > journals must accept articles for peer review, when neither party knows if > the article will be accepted, and in many cases it will not be clear who > would pay an APC and how. > > In this circumstance it is difficult to see how standard business practices > such as up-front credit card or e-transfer payment for products or services > to be delivered later, with acceptance of terms, could work. I believe that > some publishers have experience with old-fashioned print-based page charges > that is relevant here. > > The situation Frédéric describes is problematic for authors and could result > in the same kind of backlash we saw with the "predatory publisher" > phenomenon. My advice to fellow OA advocates is to take this seriously, to > acknowledge and address the issue. Let's own the issue, not leave an opening > for leadership to someone with an anti-OA perspective. > > Green OA policy - just require deposit for OA in the IR - would avoid this > particular problem. > > Best, > > Heather Morrison > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Frédéric Hélein <[email protected]> > Date: 2017-11-27 3:09 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: Frédéric Hélein <[email protected]>, Cost of Knowledge > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Cc: Bureau RNBM <[email protected]>, "Barber, Nick, Springer FR" > <[email protected]>, "Peyle, Philippe, Springer FR" > <[email protected]>, "Byrne, Catriona, Springer DE" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [GOAL] English > > Hello, > For the third time in less than a year, I was reported the case of a > researcher publishing an article in > a Springer journal and who is summoned to pay fees for on line Open Access > (2640 euros) because he had chosen this option > without understanding the consequences and because it is impossible for him > to go back! > > In this case the last message received contains the very nice sentence: > "Please note that we will give our claim to the legal department and debt > collection agency if we should not receive your payment in time. You should > be aware that there are further costs involved, such as interest fees and > administrative fees for the legal action. In order to avoid this you should > remit the outstanding amount immediately. > > We want to provide you one more opportunity in order to clear your debt. " > > The basic problems are always the same: once the Open Choice option, vaunted > by the site, was checked, it > can not be undone because the article is published online in a freely > accessible form before > the payment is made and the publisher refuses to cancel the Open Access > option. > > This mechanism is not very far from a forced sale, a practice prohibited by > the article L122-3 > <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069565&idArticle=LEGIARTI000024039758> > of the French consumer code > and makes impossible any use of the right of withdrawal, as provided e.g. by > the article 121-20-12 > <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069565&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006292075&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid> > of the French consumer code. > > The case in question concerns a researcher who did not imagine that a > publisher to whom he ceded his rights (without compensation) > for the dissemination of his paper would ask him to pay for this article to > be posted on Open Access, while the journal or > Proceedings containing this article continue to be sold to institutions. > > Furthermore the three cases reported to me concern only the community of > mathematicians working in France. > So there are probably other colleagues in other countries and for other > disciplines. > > Sincerely Yours > > Frédéric Hélein > Professor, University Paris Diderot > Scientific Chair of the RNBM <http://www.rnbm.org/> (French National Network > of Mathematics Libraries) > _______________________________________________ > 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
