Dear Heather,

even though I share your thoughts on APCs, I doubt that transparent 
pricing will always lower prices. Conversely, it can also lead to higher 
prices, e.g. by better market analysis. If I remember right, Australia's 
FuelWatch (an open-access database for fuel prices) did not cause prices 
to fall. But maybe someone here knows more.

Best regards,

Ulrich Herb

Am 2019-09-04 19:41, schrieb Heather Morrison:
> Exactly, Lisa. Scholarly communication does not have to be a market,
> and I argue it is better if it is not.
> 
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of
> Ottawa
> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université
> d'Ottawa
> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC
> Insight Project
> sustainingknowledgecommons.org
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
> 
> -------------------------
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of
> Lisa Hinchliffe <lisalibrar...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:28:40 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
> 
> Attention : courriel externe | external email
> 
> I agree these are interesting projects/products/goods. However, as
> examples they aren't examples of a market are they?
> 
> ___
> 
> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
> lisalibrar...@gmail.com
> 
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:22 PM Heather Morrison
> <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
> 
>> Two examples of transparent pricing:
>> 
>> SSHRC Aid to Scholarly Journals (Canad):
>> 
> http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx
>> [1]
>> 
>> This is a peer-reviewed journal subsidy program. The $ value,
>> journal eligibility, application and review process, are all clearly
>> articulated. Canada is not unusual in subsidizing journal
>> publishing. In areas such as the social sciences, humanities and
>> arts, this is necessary because local knowledge is important
>> (everywhere). Law is an important topic in every country, but
>> Canadian law is most relevant in Canada and for scholarship to
>> flourish in this area, scholars need publication venues. This is
>> true of history, culture/arts, local social and environmental
>> issues. Some knowledge is universal; some knowledge is specific to a
>> particular region, group, environment, etc.
>> 
>> One key benefit of this model is cost. The base - maximum per
>> journal is $30 - $35,000 per year (Cdn). At the mid-point of
>> $32,500, a journal publishing 40 peer-reviewed articles per year
>> would receive about $850 Canadian per article. Per-journal funding
>> eliminates the need to count articles and gives journals flexibility
>> to increase or decrease volume based on need. The funding in
>> Canadian dollars gives journals budgeting stability, as costs such
>> as local journal hosting and staffing costs are in Canadian dollars
>> as well. Currency fluctuations are a problem in budgeting for many
>> journals. As Salhab & I discussed here,
>> 
> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/
>> 
>> PLOS One's flat pricing in USD over 3 years was in effect a 6 - 77%
>> price increase for authors and funders based on country and local
>> currency.
>> 
>> To illustrate the potential with a full flip using this kind of
>> approach:
>> 
>> The Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN) spends approximately
>> $100 million per year on subscriptions / purchase and some OA
>> transitional funding. CRKN is just one of the academic library
>> sources of funding in Canada. There are other regional consortia,
>> such as the Ontario Council of University Libraries. Also, large
>> university libraries such as the University of Ottawa and University
>> of Toronto also spend considerably sums.
>> 
>> If the CRKN's 100 million per year were transformed to support a
>> subsidy program modeled on that of SSHRC, this amount could
>> subsidize over 3,000 scholarly journals (at the rate in between the
>> base and maximum).  This example is meant just as an illustration;
>> we also need to fund book publication and new forms of publication
>> such as research blog archiving and data publication, but it is not
>> clear that Canada would need 3,000 journals and there are there
>> existing sources of funding as mentioned in the paragraph above.
>> 
>> Another important advantage of this model is ensuring academic
>> leadership and hence prioritizing quality.  Journal-level
>> peer-review, by academics, greatly reduces the likelihood of
>> predatory publishing. Journal publishing by academic editors whose
>> promotions depend on the quality of their scholarship is more likely
>> to prioritize quality than commercial outfits seeking APC $ for
>> profit. B
>> 
>> This model also provides local jobs and leadership opportunities
>> for local academics and their universities. Further detail from
>> publishers of such journals via interviews is available here:
>> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015 [2]
>> 
>> Another example of transparent costing is the Public Knowledge
>> Project's Open Journal Systems. The software per se is open source
>> and free for anyone to download, use, and contribute to the
>> community. PKP also offers a journal hosting service; prices are
>> posted on the website that detail what is provided for each service:
>> https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting [3]
>> 
>> There are other examples, and I encourage others on the list to
>> point to them. I am providing just a couple of examples that I am
>> familiar with and consider good models. These are not perfect
>> models, there is always room for improvement, but good models that
>> are easily overlooked. This is because academic-led publishing is
>> led by academics who will tend to go to their disciplinary
>> conferences and participate in disciplinary discussions, so you will
>> not meet many of them at conferences like OASPA, ALPSPS, SSP, etc.,
>> or hear from them on the GOAL discussion list.
>> 
>> In the interests of full disclosure, my funder (SSRHC) is
>> responsible for the Aid to Scholarly Journals program and provided
>> the seed funding for what is now the Public Knowledge Project. As of
>> a few years ago, about half the fully open access journals in the
>> world were using PKP's Open Journal Systems, so I argue that this
>> modest research funding was a very valuable global contribution
>> (thanks to founder John Willinsky, now at Stanford).
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Dr. Heather Morrison
>> 
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of
>> Ottawa
>> 
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,
>> Université d'Ottawa
>> 
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC
>> Insight Project
>> 
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]
>> 
>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
>> 
>> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
>> 
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
>> 
>> -------------------------
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf
>> of Lisa Hinchliffe <lisalibrar...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:11 PM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
>> 
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email
>> 
>> With this analysis, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a
>> transparent market then. Is there?
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
>> lisalibrar...@gmail.com
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Heather Morrison
>> <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> hi Lisa,
>> 
>> Thanks for the question.
>> 
>> If one individual author, institution, or funder looks at the
>> publisher's website and sees a price (list price), but do not know
>> that others do not pay that price, that is a lack of transparency.
>> 
>> This is similar to going to buy a car and thinking the sticker price
>> is the price, not knowing that negotiation is common or how much to
>> ask for. The savvy buyer (perhaps a rich person who buys lots of
>> cars) may pay less and/or get more options than the non-savvy buyer.
>> 
>> If publishers are negotiating pricing with institutions and funders,
>> and list price is the starting point for negotiations, this is an
>> incentive to increase the list price for the next negotiation. For
>> example, double the price so you can offer the next group buyer a
>> 50% discount. The early bird institution / funder can argue for
>> historical funding to keep prices down but newer entrants are stuck
>> at a higher historical basis. OpenAPC does help in making what
>> people pay open, assuming that downstream negotiators are aware of
>> this. Publishers have no incentive to educate on this point.
>> 
>> These kinds of strategies were and probably still are used for
>> subscriptions, and are not unique to publishing.
>> 
>> This is understandable, but the result is a non-transparent market
>> that seems likely to continue the dysfunctional elements of the
>> subscriptions market into OA.
>> 
>> List members who feel they do not have the background to understand
>> things like business and nonprofit approaches to pricing strategy
>> probably know more than they realize.
>> 
>> Some common real-world examples:
>> 
>> When you sell a house or a car, you will probably seek the highest
>> price you can, what the market will bear. This is the same strategy
>> Elsevier uses when they quote you the highest price they think you
>> will pay, or MDPI charges the highest APC they think authors will
>> pay. In any of these cases, the seller may start with a high quote
>> as it is easy to reduce the price but very difficult to increase it
>> after a low initial offer.
>> 
>> When a government funds a public university on the basis of the
>> number of FTE students, on the assumption that it cost x amount to
>> provide an education, that is cost-based budgeting. Similarly, if a
>> research institution receives x annual funding (from a government or
>> philanthropic institution), on the assumption that this will
>> accomplish certain research goals, that is cost-based budgeting.
>> 
>> In scholarly publishing, buyers (libraries, institutions, funders)
>> tend to be under cost-based budgeting while commercial publishers
>> (subscriptions or OA) work under market conditions. This is a
>> fundamental conflict that led to dysfunction in the subscriptions
>> market (serials crisis) and may do the same in OA, assuming
>> commercial market-oriented publishers.
>> 
>> Potential remedies include non-commercial approaches such as library
>> hosted publishing services and modest cost-based journal subsidies,
>> and institutional open access archives and new services based on
>> them.
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Dr. Heather Morrison
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of
>> Ottawa
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,
>> Université d'Ottawa
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC
>> Insight Project
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]
>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
>> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
>> 
>> -------------------------
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf
>> of Lisa Hinchliffe <lisalibrar...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:51:10 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
>> 
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email
>> 
>> Heather, can you explain a bit your claim that different people
>> paying different prices means the market isn't transparent? Is that
>> inherently non-transparent? Or, are you suggesting the issue is that
>> it isn't publicly known what the different prices are? Lisa
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
>> lisalibrar...@gmail.com
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:37 AM Heather Morrison
>> <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> Dirk says with respect to OpenAPCs: "the real costs for academic
>> institutions and funders...deviate from list prices for various
>> reasons".
>> 
>> If correct, as I assume it is, this is not a transparent market. For
>> example, I assume this means authors who are not covered by
>> institutions or funders are expected to pay list price (unless they
>> negotiate an individual waiver), and different institutions and
>> funders pay different prices for the same service, based on their
>> ability to negotiate.
>> 
>> The information on a publisher's website gives the list price and
>> often has a waiver of 50% for authors from low to middle income
>> countries. Is this half of a price that no one in the richest
>> institutions actually pays? Is it sometimes more than a rich
>> institution actually pays for one of its authors?
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Dr. Heather Morrison
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of
>> Ottawa
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,
>> Université d'Ottawa
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC
>> Insight Project
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]
>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
>> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
>> 
>> -------------------------
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf
>> of Pieper, Dirk <dirk.pie...@uni-bielefeld.de>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:30:09 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
>> 
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email
>> 
>> Dear Heather,
>> 
>> thank you, I fully agree. Just some additional remarks:
>> 
>> The monitoring of publishers list prices is very important, the
>> approach of OpenAPC is to monitor the real costs per article for
>> academic institutions and funders, which deviate from list prices
>> for various reasons. Both ways should be regarded as complementary.
>> 
>> I also see the biggest challenge at the moment in creating the
>> above mentioned cost transparency for articles within transformative
>> agreements, especially if they are mixed up with costs for reading
>> access and when historical subscription expenditures of consortia
>> and participating institutions are involved. APCs and so called PAR
>> fees are different of course but in the end they both put a price
>> tag on an OA article. Funders and academic institutions then can
>> make their decisions, which way of OA transition or which publishers
>> they can support with public money within their limited budgets.
>> 
>> Leaving out authors is always a mess. I remember editors in our
>> university, who could not read their own journals, because we as a
>> library were not able to pay the license for reading …
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Dirk
>> 
>> Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im
>> Auftrag von Heather Morrison
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. September 2019 21:07
>> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
>> 
>> Every model for transitioning to open access has its advantages and
>> disadvantages.
>> 
>> One of the potential benefits of the article processing charge
>> method is transparency, which in theory could lead to more price and
>> cost sensibility as Dirk describes. I was more optimistic about this
>> potential in the past than I am today. OA journals and publishers'
>> websites are full of information about APCs being paid for by
>> institutions, funders, not out of authors' pockets. If funders pay
>> for APCs, the cost may be transparent to authors and universities,
>> but who pays attention when someone else is paying? In the
>> transformative (subscriptions + open access) deals, APCs are no more
>> transparent than subscriptions, and based on my prior experience
>> negotiating licensing deals, these combined deals may make both the
>> subscriptions and the APC costs more obscure, because ultimately,
>> buyers and sellers of big deals are agreeing on a bundled price
>> rather than a cost structure, never mind a transparent cost
>> structure. Such deals have a strong potential to alter the APC
>> market, because low APCs might seem to publishers as a weakness in
>> negotiating. Also, for traditional scholarly publishers who have
>> extensive back lists of works for which they own copyright (a major
>> financial asset), the best case scenario is complete failure of the
>> open access movement. New publishers who rely on APCs (e.g. PLOS,
>> Hindawi, MDPI) have incentive to transform the entire system, but
>> not traditional highly profitable publishers like SpringerNature and
>> Elsevier.
>> 
>> One of the strong drawbacks of APC is leaving out authors who
>> cannot afford the fees. This is not just authors in low income
>> countries. As Peter Murray-Rust helpfully pointed out recently,
>> active retiree scholars like PMR do not have funding for APCs,
>> either. This is also likely to be true of emerging scholars in the
>> developed world who are in the process of trying to establish a
>> career. Even if every university and research institution covered
>> APCs for regular full-time researchers, it is unlikely that future
>> such researchers would be covered.
>> 
>> Another reason to be cautious about the potential of APC to achieve
>> cost and pricing stability is that whether this will happen or
>> whether we will see a continuation of the decades-old inelastic
>> market for scholarly publishing in an open access market remains to
>> be seen. Will authors see the cost and seek cost-effective
>> publishing solutions? Or, will the underlying dynamic behind the
>> inelastic market - "must purchase / subscribe" simply shift to
>> "must-publish-in"?
>> 
>> To date, based on our longitudinal APC study, while there is not
>> enough data to draw firm conclusions, there is enough evidence of
>> transitioning the inelastic market into APCs to warrant concern. As
>> we have reported in the past few years, price increases that are far
>> beyond inflationary levels, applied to already substantial prices,
>> have been observed among both traditional-transitioning and new
>> OA-only publishers.
>> 
>> Select examples:
>> 
>> SpringerOpen 2018/2019: 8% increase in average APC; 36% of
>> journals, the ones with the highest volumes, increased in price at
>> rates from double the inflation rate to double the price.
>> 
>> 
> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/08/13/springeropen-pricing-trends-2018-2019/
>> 
>> 
>> Frontiers 2018/2019: while the average APC increase is only 3%, 40%
>> of Frontiers journals increased in price from 2018/2019 by 18% - 31%
>> (the EU inflation rate is below 2% for this time frame).
>> 
>> 
> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/04/30/frontiers-in-2019-3-increase-in-average-apc/
>> 
>> 
>> MDPI 2018/2019: "In brief: MDPI has increased prices, in many cases
>> quite substantially (some prices have more than tripled). Even more
>> price increases are anticipated in July 2019, which will have the
>> effect of doubling the average APC and tripling the most common APC.
>> Unlike other publishers’ practices, there are no price decreases".
>> 
> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/
>> [5]
>> 
>> Kudos to Dr. Franck Vasquez, MDPI's CEO, for open discussion about
>> similar price increases in 2018. The key takeaway I was hoping for
>> in the case of new APC based publishers like MDPI is an
>> understanding that this kind of price increases (market-based
>> pricing) is not compatible with budgets of payers (libraries,
>> universities and funding agencies' budgets are based on costs and
>> resource availability). This fundamental conflict seems very likely
>> to drive an inelastic, unsustainable APC market. However, after this
>> open, transparent conversation, here we are again in 2019 with new
>> OA publishers pursuing exactly the same pricing strategy.
>> 
>> To conclude, while my team spends a lot of time studying APC
>> trends, this does not imply endorsement of the method. In the past,
>> I advocated for APCs as a way to introduce transparency and
>> competition into the market. Today, I urge caution and strongly
>> encourage consideration of other models. For example, direct subsidy
>> models such as providing infrastructure for publishing and archives
>> at the university or research organization and supporting editorial
>> work (e.g. modest subsidy to pay for support staff) is much more
>> efficient than APC, which is in effect an indirect subsidy model. If
>> transparency is sought, universities and funding agencies, at least
>> in my part of the world, have a solid reputation for seeking
>> accountability for every cost incurred.
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> Dr. Heather Morrison
>> 
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of
>> Ottawa
>> 
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,
>> Université d'Ottawa
>> 
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC
>> Insight Project
>> 
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]
>> 
>> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
>> 
>> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [6]
>> 
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
>> 
>> -------------------------
>> 
>> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf
>> of Pieper, Dirk <dirk.pie...@uni-bielefeld.de>
>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 4:00 AM
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
>> 
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> (a)    even in “richer” countries it is necessary to reduce APC
>> prices because of limited budgets of academic institutions and
>> funder policies. In many cases authors and libraries are successful
>> to get reduced APCs from publishers
>> 
>> (b)   I agree that APCs are in most cases not related to the costs
>> of producing an article, but they indicate the costs for
>> institutions or authors to publish OA in journals with certain
>> publishers. That is a progress compared to the subscription system,
>> because this is slowly leading to more price and cost sensibility.
>> That is why I like APCs J) …
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Dirk
>> 
>> Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] Im
>> Auftrag von Peter Murray-Rust
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. August 2019 17:18
>> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
>> Cc: wam...@list.nih.gov; radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk; scholcomm
>> <scholc...@lists.ala.org>
>> Betreff: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts
>> 
>> Thank you Chris,
>> 
>> I feel exactly as you do, maybe more. This is wrong on several
>> counts.
>> 
>> (a) as you say it requires the underprivileged (the "scholarly
>> poor") to beg. Some journals give lower prices for World Bank LMIC
>> countries - but often Brasil and India are classified as
>> high-income. Even reducing the price to half is impossible for many
>> countries.
>> 
>> (b) the APC is NOT cost-related (see another post form me about
>> DEAL). DEAL pays Springer the price of an article (2750 E) whereas
>> the cost of processing is ca 400 E (Grossman and Brembs, 2019)
>> 
>> Costs are almost never transparent, therefore cause prices to be
>> whatever the publisher can get away with. This adds another layer of
>> injustice.
>> 
>> I am affected by the APCs. I am on the board of two journals and
>> being retired have to pay and APC myself. I feel diminished if I
>> have to ask to get a waiver, and in any case it looks very unethical
>> to gve waivers to the board. I therefore cannot publish in the
>> journals that I give my time freely to.
>> 
>> The system is now completely out of date. Many places and
>> organizations CAN run platinum journals (no fee open to all). It's
>> more ethical equitable and makes knowledge fully available.
>> 
>> 70% of climate papers are behind paywalls. Making a no-fee publish
>> system is the only way to get the knowledge flowing. My software can
>> read 10000 papers in a morning, but the broken societal system
>> prevents that.
>> 
>> P.
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 2:17 PM Chris Zielinski
>> <ch...@chriszielinski.com> wrote:
>> 
>> (Apologies for cross-posting)
>> 
>> This is to raise a question about how editors of Open Access
>> journals that demand an article processing charge (APC) should deal
>> with discounts for non-institutional authors or those from poorer
>> countries.
>> 
>> The offering of substantial APC waivers to authors from specific
>> countries or to researchers with financial constraints in specific
>> cases is familiar. My question relates to the way in which such
>> discounts are offered.
>> 
>> Usually, a researcher needs to assert or demonstrate his/her
>> inability to pay the APC before getting relief. The problem is that
>> obliging researcher to request a lower or zero APC feels a bit like
>> inviting them to beg – and the result often seems to depend on the
>> benevolence and good humour of the editor, responding on an
>> individual, case-by-case basis, rather than by applying some
>> pre-established rule.
>> 
>> This is surely not good enough. It can’t be correct and ethical
>> scientific practice to require unsupported authors to face the
>> embarrassment of having to turn out their pockets and demonstrate
>> the holes in their socks before they get a discount.
>> 
>> Any views on this? Should there be a norm among OA journals that
>> each should adopt a standardized system to determine APC charges
>> (ranging from 0 to the full APC, depending on an explicit list of
>> circumstances), avoiding the need for any negotiation?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Chris
>> 
>> Chris Zielinski
>> ch...@chriszielinski.com
>> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and
>> http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com
>> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL@eprints.org
>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any
>> contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You
>> should do the same".
>> 
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069 _______________________________________________
>> 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
>  _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx
> [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015
> [3] https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting
> [4] http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org
> [5]
> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/
> [6] https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-- 
Dr. Ulrich Herb
./scidecode
Postfach 11 54
D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf
https://scidecode.com/en
+49-(0)157 30306851
twitter.com/scidecode
twitter.com/scinoptica
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to