Heather, I could be wrong, but I am thinking that you are implying that Hilda Bastian is an employee, or some kind of spokesperson, for PLOS. If so, you have inferred incorrectly.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/PLOS/status/989174553657032704?s=19 Richard On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, 16:21 Heather Morrison, <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > The Public Library of Science has done important work in the areas of open > access advocacy and open access publishing. However, it is important to > understand that PLOS is also a publishing business, even if it is > not-for-profit. Their business model is based on APCs. PLOS staff arguing > on the importance of APCs and discounting arguments for other business > models is essentially the same thing as traditional commercial publishers > arguing for the subscriptions model and discounting arguments for any OA > business model. PLOS, in this respect, is understandably looking out for > their own interests. > > > I am a recently tenured professor with many friends who are emerging > scholars, students who would like to go on to tenured positions, and a > workload that is impacted by university hiring (or lack thereof) of new > professors and support staff. When I argue for funding for university > hiring, I am arguing for my own interests and the interests of this sector, > one that in my experience has been under-represented in open access > discussions. > > > best, > > > Heather > ------------------------------ > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of > Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2018 10:46:48 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt > with Mahmoud Khalifa > > Heather, > > Personally, I think that any statement that says that most OA journals do > not charge an APC needs to be set alongside the following blog post by > Hilda Bastian: > > > http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2018/04/02/a-reality-check-on-author-access-to-open-access-publishing/ > > Extract: > > 'Technically, the “most journals don’t charge authors” statement could > well be true. Most open access journals may not charge authors. The source > that’s used to support the claim is generally DOAJ – the Directory of Open > Access Journals. One of the pieces of meta-data for journals in DOAJ is > whether or not the journal levies an APC – an author processing charge for > an open access (OA) publication. > > But I think this is a data framing that’s deeply misleading. And it does > harm. As long as people can argue that there are just *so many* options > for fee-free publishing, then there will be less of a sense of urgency > about eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, APCs. As Kyle > Siler and colleagues show in the field of global health research, the APC > is adding a new stratification of researchers globally, between those who > can afford open publishing in highly regarded journals, and those who > can’t.' > > Richard > > > On 25 April 2018 at 15:16, Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> > wrote: > >> Correction: Chris, you have the proportion of OA journals with APCs in >> reverse. Data and calculations follow. >> >> 73% of fully OA journals (about three quarters) do not charge APCs. >> >> To calculate go to DOAJ Advanced Search, select journals / articles >> select journals, and click on Article Processing Charges. As of today, >> April 25, 2108, the response to the DOAJ question of whether a journal has >> an APC is: >> >> 8,250: no (73%) >> 2,979 yes (26%) >> 65: no information (.5%) >> >> Total # of journals in DOAJ: 11,294 >> (Note rounding error) >> >> OA journals with no APCs have a variety of business models. Direct and >> indirect sponsorship appears to be common. For example in Canada our Social >> Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has an Aid to Scholarly >> Journals Program. Journals can apply for grants; these applications go >> through a journal-level peer review process. This program has been in place >> for many years. Originally all supported journals were subscription-based. >> The trend is towards open access, with many journals now fully OA and all >> or almost all have free access after an embargo period. >> >> I recommend this model as a means of support for open access journals >> that also ensure high-level academic quality control. Regions with no >> existing program in place would probably find it easier to start with an OA >> requirement than those with legacy programs like SSHRC. >> >> Local journals are important to ensure publishing venues are available >> for research of local significance. Canadian law, politics, culture, >> history, local environmental and social conditions are important matters to >> study, but not high priority for readers outside Canada. Articles on these >> topics risk rejection from international journal due to selection based on >> reader interest rather than the quality or importance of the work. >> >> Local publishing does not exclude global scholarly engagement. Canada has >> a large francophone population; our researchers in language, culture, and >> history often work with scholars in West Africa, France, Haiti, Belgium, >> etc. >> >> For Canada's arctic researchers, "local" has geographic rather than local >> significance. >> >> This is reflected in authorship and editorial boards. A journal hosted >> and with editorial leadership in Canada will often include international >> content and reviewers. Journals produced locally can be read anywhere, >> especially if they are open access. >> >> best, >> >> Heather Morrison >> Associate Professor, University of Ottawa School of Information Studies >> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons - a SSHRC Insight Project >> Sustainingknowledgecommons.org >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Chris Zielinski <ch...@chriszielinski.com> >> Date: 2018-04-25 6:38 AM (GMT-05:00) >> To: richard.poyn...@cantab.net >> Cc: goal@eprints.org >> Subject: Re: [GOAL] North, South, and Open Access: The view from Egypt >> with Mahmoud Khalifa >> >> Richard, >> >> In this context, you may be interested in a post I recently submitted to >> the Healthcare Information for All (HIFA) list in the context of a HIFA >> discussion of this topic: >> >> ---------- Original Message ---------- >> To: HIFA - Healthcare Information For All <h...@dgroups.org> >> Date: 18 April 2018 at 19:33 >> Subject: Re: [hifa] Open Access Author Processing Charges (3) >> >> In the bad old days before Open Access (OA), a developing country author >> wrote a paper and submitted it to a journal and, if the paper was good >> enough, the generous people at the journal organized peer review, >> redid/redesigned the tables and most of the graphics, and maybe even did >> some language editing - at no cost to the author. Then they published the >> journal, charging for access to the paper version and pay-walling any >> online version. From the author's perspective, thus, there was no barrier >> to publication, although there were cost barriers to reading the paper >> subsequently, which was particularly onerous in poorer countries. So the >> situation in developing countries was good for authors - who simply had to >> write well - and bad for librarians and readers, who had to find the money >> to buy the content. >> >> Now that Open Access is making serious inroads, we are finding the >> situation reversed - librarians and readers bask in an avalanche of >> cost-free online papers, while authors are scrambling to find the resources >> to pay for publication.From the commentary on this list it is clear that >> authors in developing countries are being restrained from publishing by the >> "Article Processing Charge" (APC). >> >> Zoe Mullan, Editor of The Lancet Global Health makes the point that "we >> assume that this cost will be borne by the funding body". This seems to be >> rather more likely in industrialized countries than in developing ones. >> >> Basic research is much more frequently carried out in industrialized >> countries and supported by the sort of international funding that pays for >> papers. But the kind of health research that is essential in developing >> countries - health services and health systems research - is generally >> undertaken by local institutions and universities. This is a reason for >> serious concern, as the economic model of OA appears to be blocking the >> most important local research. I would add that this research needs to be >> published internationally, not just locally, in order to attract opinions, >> input and (in some cases) validation and consensus from the global health >> community. >> >> Many OA journals have special rates, flexibilities and waivers for >> writers from developing countries. It is also true that about a quarter of >> the OA journals do not charge an APC at all - I presume they pay for their >> work by sales of their print editions in industrialized countries, thus >> enabling those in other countries free access to the online version. >> >> Incidentally, this is not just an issue for developing country writers - >> I am a non-institutional writer in an industrialized country, writing >> papers which are not based on funded research, and it is a real hardship to >> find APC money to pay for my papers. >> >> Best, >> >> Chris >> >> Chris Zielinski >> ch...@chriszielinski.com >> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and >> http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com >> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net >> >> On 25 April 2018 at 08:47 Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net> >> wrote: >> >> To try and get a sense of how open access looks from different parts of >> the world, particularly as the strategy of engineering a global “flip” of >> subscription journals to a pay-to-publish gold OA model gains more >> traction, I am interested in talking to open access advocates in different >> parts of the world, ideally by means of matched interviews. >> >> >> >> Earlier this month, for instance, I published a Q&A with Jeff >> MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley’s University Librarian and Chief Digital >> Scholarship Officer. ( >> https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from.html >> ). >> >> >> >> Yesterday, I published a matched Q&A covering the same themes with >> Mahmoud Khalifa, a librarian at the Library of Congress Cairo Office, and >> DOAJ Ambassador for the Middle East and Persian Gulf. This interview can be >> read here: >> https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-view-from_24.html >> >> >> >> I have also been asking those I interview to comment on the answers given >> by their matched interviewee. Mahmoud Khalifa’s response to the >> MacKie-Mason Q&A is incorporated in this post: >> https://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/north-south-and-open-access-mahmoud.html >> >> >> >> I am open to suggestions for further matched interviews. >> >> >> >> Richard Poynder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> GOAL@eprints.org >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> > > > -- > Richard Poynder > www.richardpoynder.co.uk > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
