[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with profits - or too high a price?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.cawrote: On 28-Jan-13, at 8:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Comment: I know how much you appreciate quantitative evidence, PMR, so here are some quick figures that suggest that scientists do very much want NC: These are not scientific observations - at best anecdotal. Nature's Scientific Reports provides an interesting case study. This journal is similar to PLoS ONE - except that they give authors their choice of CC licenses. I just checked the 8 journals on the front page of scientific reports, and here are the CC license choices of the scientists themselves: CC-BY-NC-ND: 6/8 or 75% CC-BY: 1/8 or 12.5% CC-BY-SA: 1/8 or 12.5% My understanding is that Nature charges more for CC-BY than CC-NC, in which case I hypothesize that price is the determining factor. A larger study would be useful - anyone interested? This is one of the advantages of the leaving the choice in the hands of the author. A quick glance at the DOAJ General Science list shows that about 20 of the 143 journals on this list use the NC element. This compares with about 19 journals on the same list using CC-BY. There is no evidence that this policy is set by scientists. I strongly suspect this is done at non-academic editorial level. I suspect that it is due to simplistic decision-making in the office. In several cases where I have pubklicly challenged editors on this they have changed their policy from NC to BY This means that scholars on editorial boards who are making decisions about gold open access publishing in the area of science are looking at the CC options and deciding that it makes sense to use noncommercial. Note that the majority in this sub-list still are not using CC licenses at all. The lack of knowledge in journals about licences is almost certainly an important factor. To summarize: there is evidence that given a choice, scientists tend to prefer CC licenses including the noncommercial element. There is no evidence to support this claim. This can only be established by a proper controlled study not assumptions from anecdotes. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with, profits - or too high a price?
I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC. First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free? Our long review articles would make perfect (text-)books if anyone could sell them without asking for publisher's or the author's permission. Example: The open access review The Post-Newtonian Approximation for Relativistic Compact Binaries (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2) was republished by Oxford UP as a major part of Equations of Motion in General Relativity (http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001) in 2011. Original price at amazon.com: $98.50 for 156 pages! Of course, this example does not completely illustrate the possible misuse of CC-BY: here, the author agreed to the commercial reprint, and the original review was extended by other authors' contributions. However, they could have easily sold only the Futamase part as a book. With CC-BY, the publisher would not even have to ask the authors or original OA publisher for reprint permission. Moreover, the authors (who usually write time-consuming reviews in addition to their publicly funded research) would not financially benefit from this commercial reuse in any way. Therefore, our authors would object to Peter Murray-Rust, who has never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell them on amazon, why wouldn't there be a marked for commercial OA reprints? (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...) Frank -- == Frank Schulz | Managing Editor Living Reviews BackOffice MPI for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) Am Muehlenberg 1 14476 Potsdam | Germany email: edito...@aei.mpg.de tel: +49 (0)331 567 7115 http://www.livingreviews.org == ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with, profits - or too high a price?
Dear Frank In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell them on amazon, Yes. Anyone can do this because wikipedia articles are openly licenced. This is a good thing. People are happy with paying for a hard (paper) copy of something. Printing on real paper, with real ink, and real delivery costs money. This is no bad thing. why wouldn't there be a market for commercial OA reprints? Indeed there probably is a market for paper copy OA reprints. There is nothing wrong with this. But instead of one company having a monopoly over the provision of these hard-copy reprints, perhaps it is fairer that the customer can choose which company prints a paper copy of this open material? They can choose the quality of print, the weight of the paper, and print-on-demand companies can compete to provide this service. (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...) Why? I don't understand this? I think anyone should be allowed to provide the service (printing). I don't see why one publisher, who may be very expensive, and poor quality, should be allowed a monopoly over printing academic material that is openly available on the internet. my $0.02 Ross -- -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- Ross Mounce PhD Student Open Knowledge Foundation Panton Fellow Fossils, Phylogeny and Macroevolution Research Group University of Bath, 4 South Building, Lab 1.07 http://about.me/rossmounce -/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with profits - or too high a price?
On 01/28/2013 10:44 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: Question: are you saying that allowing any third party to make use of a scholar's work to advertise their own products and/or to sell their advertising services is one of the reasons people are advocating for CC-BY? I don't know exactly why people are advocating for CC-BY. Maybe they realize that every website and every service needs some source of funding to survive, so if scholars want new - and free - academic services to appear on the web, there must be a way for these services to make a living, and allowing them to sell adverts is one of the ways to support them and let them survive. But maybe scholars don't want new services at all. Maybe they are perfectly fine with what exists today: Elsevier, Springer and the rest of mafia? In such case, -NC doesn't hurt indeed. Best, Marcin -- Marcin Wojnarski, Founder and CEO, TunedIT http://tunedit.org http://www.facebook.com/TunedIT http://twitter.com/TunedIT http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski TunedIT - Online Laboratory for Intelligent Algorithms ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with, profits - or too high a price?
Frank, This is an interesting point and probably the first solid argument in favor of CC-BY-NC that I've heard. But I want to highlight a few circumstances that, in my opinion, make this case an exception rather than a rule. 1. The book - like most (or all?) academic books published for profit - was a _review_ of existing knowledge, not new original research. The paper was also a review, and the entire journal Living Reviews in Relativity is by definition devoted to review papers rather than original research. But: ~99% of other journals and papers are original research not reviews. Nobody would even consider them for inclusion in any book, because the results contained in them are too fresh, too narrow and not yet verified and established in a given discipline. 2. The journal has an exceptionally high impact factor and I guess it's one of the leading journals in your discipline. Again, ~99% of papers out there don't enjoy the benefits of such high impact factors and prestige of the journal, which means that their chances of being even considered for re-publication anywhere else are very low. The primary concern for 99% of authors is not too much interest in their papers, but too little interest, too few readers and too low dissemination. Best, Marcin On 01/29/2013 10:55 AM, Editor Living Reviews wrote: I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC. First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free? Our long review articles would make perfect (text-)books if anyone could sell them without asking for publisher's or the author's permission. Example: The open access review The Post-Newtonian Approximation for Relativistic Compact Binaries (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2) was republished by Oxford UP as a major part of Equations of Motion in General Relativity (http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001) in 2011. Original price at amazon.com: $98.50 for 156 pages! Of course, this example does not completely illustrate the possible misuse of CC-BY: here, the author agreed to the commercial reprint, and the original review was extended by other authors' contributions. However, they could have easily sold only the Futamase part as a book. With CC-BY, the publisher would not even have to ask the authors or original OA publisher for reprint permission. Moreover, the authors (who usually write time-consuming reviews in addition to their publicly funded research) would not financially benefit from this commercial reuse in any way. Therefore, our authors would object to Peter Murray-Rust, who has never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell them on amazon, why wouldn't there be a marked for commercial OA reprints? (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...) Frank -- Marcin Wojnarski, Founder and CEO, TunedIT http://tunedit.org http://www.facebook.com/TunedIT http://twitter.com/TunedIT http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski TunedIT - Online Laboratory for Intelligent Algorithms ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CC-BY-NC (was: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with, profits - or too high a price?)
This seems like trading off the potential for minor revenues/royalties — even no more than hypothetical in most instances — against the benefit of unrestricted open access for science and scholarship. In my view this amounts to profit spite. With a CC-BY-NC licence, why would the OA publisher be exempted from the NC clause? 'Non-commercial' is terribly ambiguous (what's 'commercial', and how far downstream does it apply?), and for that reason subject to potential unintended infringement and the ©-trolling that comes with that. In effect, that means that due to sensible self-censorship, any re-use is best avoided. That in turn means that the article with a CC-BY-NC licence is not truly BOAI-compliant open access, but merely 'ocular access' instead. Unsatisfactory for modern research and scholarship. Jan Velterop On 29 Jan 2013, at 09:55, Editor Living Reviews wrote: I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC. First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free? Our long review articles would make perfect (text-)books if anyone could sell them without asking for publisher's or the author's permission. Example: The open access review The Post-Newtonian Approximation for Relativistic Compact Binaries (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2) was republished by Oxford UP as a major part of Equations of Motion in General Relativity (http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001) in 2011. Original price at amazon.com: $98.50 for 156 pages! Of course, this example does not completely illustrate the possible misuse of CC-BY: here, the author agreed to the commercial reprint, and the original review was extended by other authors' contributions. However, they could have easily sold only the Futamase part as a book. With CC-BY, the publisher would not even have to ask the authors or original OA publisher for reprint permission. Moreover, the authors (who usually write time-consuming reviews in addition to their publicly funded research) would not financially benefit from this commercial reuse in any way. Therefore, our authors would object to Peter Murray-Rust, who has never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell them on amazon, why wouldn't there be a marked for commercial OA reprints? (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...) Frank -- == Frank Schulz | Managing Editor Living Reviews BackOffice MPI for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute) Am Muehlenberg 1 14476 Potsdam | Germany email: edito...@aei.mpg.de tel: +49 (0)331 567 7115 http://www.livingreviews.org == ___ 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] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with profits - or too high a price?
Some responses to PMR: Nature's Scientific Reports website lists just one fee for APFs, in different currencies - $1,350 in the Americas. There is no mention of differential pricing based on CC license choice. From: http://www.nature.com/srep/authors/index.html#costs Here is the advice given to authors about their licensing choices: Scientific Reports does not require authors of original (primary) research papers to assign copyright of their published contributions. Rather, authors can choose one of three licenses: the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license; the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license; or the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. http://www.nature.com/srep/policies/index.html#license-agreement Nature is obviously going to some lengths to be transparent in their information to authors, so I will take it as a given that this journal does not charge more for CC-BY. My data sample of 8 articles on the Scientific Reports home page on the evening of Jan. 28, 2013 PST about 9:30 p.m. is a small sample, but it is data. With such a small sample it is difficult and unwise to draw much by way of conclusions, however this small sample is sufficient to conclude that at least some scientists, given the choice between CC-BY, CC-BY-NC-SA, and CC-BY-NC-ND with all other variables apparently equal, are choosing CC-BY-NC-ND. More research would be needed to establish the current preferences of scientists, and this real-world experimental situation where authors have the choice is useful for such research. With respect to who is making decisions about the CC licenses of journals listed in DOAJ: I have no information about who is making the decisions, regardless of what decision is being made. All I can say is that it appears that many fully open access journals, even in the sciences, either do not use CC licenses at all, or if they do, CC-BY is not the obvious and ubiquitous choice. best, Heather Morrison, PhD The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 2013-01-29, at 12:38 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.ca wrote: On 28-Jan-13, at 8:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Comment: I know how much you appreciate quantitative evidence, PMR, so here are some quick figures that suggest that scientists do very much want NC: These are not scientific observations - at best anecdotal. Nature's Scientific Reports provides an interesting case study. This journal is similar to PLoS ONE - except that they give authors their choice of CC licenses. I just checked the 8 journals on the front page of scientific reports, and here are the CC license choices of the scientists themselves: CC-BY-NC-ND: 6/8 or 75% CC-BY: 1/8 or 12.5% CC-BY-SA: 1/8 or 12.5% My understanding is that Nature charges more for CC-BY than CC-NC, in which case I hypothesize that price is the determining factor. A larger study would be useful - anyone interested? This is one of the advantages of the leaving the choice in the hands of the author. A quick glance at the DOAJ General Science list shows that about 20 of the 143 journals on this list use the NC element. This compares with about 19 journals on the same list using CC-BY. There is no evidence that this policy is set by scientists. I strongly suspect this is done at non-academic editorial level. I suspect that it is due to simplistic decision-making in the office. In several cases where I have pubklicly challenged editors on this they have changed their policy from NC to BY This means that scholars on editorial boards who are making decisions about gold open access publishing in the area of science are looking at the CC options and deciding that it makes sense to use noncommercial. Note that the majority in this sub-list still are not using CC licenses at all. The lack of knowledge in journals about licences is almost certainly an important factor. To summarize: there is evidence that given a choice, scientists tend to prefer CC licenses including the noncommercial element. There is no evidence to support this claim. This can only be established by a proper controlled study not assumptions from anecdotes. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. 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] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with profits - or too high a price?
Marcin, of course there is room for new services, particularly taking advantage of the potential of the internet, and at a quick glance, TunedIT looks promising. What I am wondering is why new services and companies should not build through voluntary participation rather than seeking public policy requiring scholars to make their work available for such purposes? I don't see a compelling public interest here, and I'm wondering if this is even a sound business strategy. Scholars are flocking to new services like Mendeley, Academia.edu, Research Gate, and Google Scholar because they find the services useful. best, Heather Morrison On 2013-01-29, at 5:08 AM, Marcin Wojnarski wrote: On 01/28/2013 10:44 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: Question: are you saying that allowing any third party to make use of a scholar's work to advertise their own products and/or to sell their advertising services is one of the reasons people are advocating for CC-BY? I don't know exactly why people are advocating for CC-BY. Maybe they realize that every website and every service needs some source of funding to survive, so if scholars want new - and free - academic services to appear on the web, there must be a way for these services to make a living, and allowing them to sell adverts is one of the ways to support them and let them survive. But maybe scholars don't want new services at all. Maybe they are perfectly fine with what exists today: Elsevier, Springer and the rest of mafia? In such case, -NC doesn't hurt indeed. Best, Marcin -- Marcin Wojnarski, Founder and CEO, TunedIT http://tunedit.org http://www.facebook.com/TunedIT http://twitter.com/TunedIT http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski TunedIT - Online Laboratory for Intelligent Algorithms ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with profits - or too high a price?
Dear Heather. I believe PMR was referring to these 19ish Nature Publishing Group journals, which do explicitly charge higher for the CC BY licence http://rossmounce.co.uk/2012/11/07/gold-oa-pricewatch/ and as I've told you elsewhere, where open access journals use Creative Commons licences CC BY is by far the most common choice (whether you count that by publisher, journal OR article volume) Ross On 29 January 2013 17:47, Heather Morrison hgmor...@sfu.ca wrote: Some responses to PMR: Nature's Scientific Reports website lists just one fee for APFs, in different currencies - $1,350 in the Americas. There is no mention of differential pricing based on CC license choice. From: http://www.nature.com/srep/authors/index.html#costs Here is the advice given to authors about their licensing choices: Scientific Reports does not require authors of original (primary) research papers to assign copyright of their published contributions. Rather, authors can choose one of three licenses: the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license; the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license; or the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. http://www.nature.com/srep/policies/index.html#license-agreement Nature is obviously going to some lengths to be transparent in their information to authors, so I will take it as a given that this journal does not charge more for CC-BY. My data sample of 8 articles on the Scientific Reports home page on the evening of Jan. 28, 2013 PST about 9:30 p.m. is a small sample, but it is data. With such a small sample it is difficult and unwise to draw much by way of conclusions, however this small sample is sufficient to conclude that at least some scientists, given the choice between CC-BY, CC-BY-NC-SA, and CC-BY-NC-ND with all other variables apparently equal, are choosing CC-BY-NC-ND. More research would be needed to establish the current preferences of scientists, and this real-world experimental situation where authors have the choice is useful for such research. With respect to who is making decisions about the CC licenses of journals listed in DOAJ: I have no information about who is making the decisions, regardless of what decision is being made. All I can say is that it appears that many fully open access journals, even in the sciences, either do not use CC licenses at all, or if they do, CC-BY is not the obvious and ubiquitous choice. best, Heather Morrison, PhD The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com On 2013-01-29, at 12:38 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:57 AM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.ca wrote: On 28-Jan-13, at 8:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Comment: I know how much you appreciate quantitative evidence, PMR, so here are some quick figures that suggest that scientists do very much want NC: These are not scientific observations - at best anecdotal. Nature's Scientific Reports provides an interesting case study. This journal is similar to PLoS ONE - except that they give authors their choice of CC licenses. I just checked the 8 journals on the front page of scientific reports, and here are the CC license choices of the scientists themselves: CC-BY-NC-ND: 6/8 or 75% CC-BY: 1/8 or 12.5% CC-BY-SA: 1/8 or 12.5% My understanding is that Nature charges more for CC-BY than CC-NC, in which case I hypothesize that price is the determining factor. A larger study would be useful - anyone interested? This is one of the advantages of the leaving the choice in the hands of the author. A quick glance at the DOAJ General Science list shows that about 20 of the 143 journals on this list use the NC element. This compares with about 19 journals on the same list using CC-BY. There is no evidence that this policy is set by scientists. I strongly suspect this is done at non-academic editorial level. I suspect that it is due to simplistic decision-making in the office. In several cases where I have pubklicly challenged editors on this they have changed their policy from NC to BY This means that scholars on editorial boards who are making decisions about gold open access publishing in the area of science are looking at the CC options and deciding that it makes sense to use noncommercial. Note that the majority in this sub-list still are not using CC licenses at all. The lack of knowledge in journals about licences is almost certainly an important factor. To summarize: there is evidence that given a choice, scientists tend to prefer CC licenses including the noncommercial element. There is no evidence to support this claim. This can only be established by a proper controlled study not assumptions from anecdotes. P. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with, profits - or too high a price?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Editor Living Reviews edito...@aei.mpg.dewrote: Therefore, our authors would object to Peter Murray-Rust, who has never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. Now I have (assuming Frank Schulz is a practising scientist) . And I cannot understand his/MPG's reasons. In fact I hope this mail may convince him/them to change the strategy. I'd just like to add the point of view of the Living Reviews OA journals with an example why we currently argue in favor of CC-BY-NC. Actually the journal is not CC-BY-NC, it's CC-BY-NC-ND (no derivatives as well). First, since not only Marcin Wojnarski doubts that anyone want to pay for a paper which is elsewhere available for free? Our long review articles would make perfect (text-)books if anyone could sell them without asking for publisher's or the author's permission. Example: The open access review The Post-Newtonian Approximation for Relativistic Compact Binaries (http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2007-2) was republished by Oxford UP as a major part of Equations of Motion in General Relativity (http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584109.001.0001 ) in 2011. Original price at amazon.com: $98.50 for 156 pages! This figures seems quite good value to me. I assume you get a bound paper book. But many scientific publishers charge 50 USD for a 1-day rental of a single article. Of course, this example does not completely illustrate the possible misuse of CC-BY: here, the author agreed to the commercial reprint, and the original review was extended by other authors' contributions. However, they could have easily sold only the Futamase part as a book. They didn't. They added significant value by (a) format and (b) aggregation. With CC-BY, the publisher would not even have to ask the authors or original OA publisher for reprint permission. Moreover, the authors (who usually write time-consuming reviews in addition to their publicly funded research) would not financially benefit from this commercial reuse in any way. I'm assuming your authors don't benefit financially at present. Therefore, our authors would object to Peter Murray-Rust, who has never met a scientist who has argued for CC-NC over CC-BY. Have you asked them in a controlled survey by an independent agent? In short, in a world where companies collate wikipedia articles and sell them on amazon, why wouldn't there be a marked for commercial OA reprints? (And, if someone wants to sell them, e.g., as book-on-demand, at least it should be the OA publishers and authors themselves...) First the MPG has stated: http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/mpg-open-access-policy/ The Max Planck Society and Open Access Financed by the national government and federal states, the Max Planck Society http://www.mpg.de/english/portal/index.html engages in basic research in the public interest. Making its scientists’ research findings available for the benefit of the whole of humanity, free of charge whenever possible (Open Access), is a key aspiration of the Society. In contrast you wish to restrict access to the science in your publications. You wish it to be controlled by you, and you don't want anyone else to receive money. I see your position as: * we have some form of ownership of the material and wish to control how it is used after we've published it * it is morally/ethically wrong for anyone to resell material which they got for free. I'll argue that you are actually *preventing* the dissemination of scientific knowledge. A third party P takes your material and resells it. The purchasers choose for whatever reason to buy from P rather than use your website for free. I can make speculations why. * they add value in the formatting * they add value by aggregation * they add value by enhanced discovery * they add content value In the current case I think it's all of these. But even if it wasn't it means: * more people will read and use the paper. * the paper will be cited more * your impact factor will increase. Suppose you write to your authors: Publisher P is reselling you article for money. As a result our impact factor has doubled and you have twice the number of citations. Do you wish us to take legal action against publisher P? I wonder if they would agree with you? Note also that publisher P is enhancing *your* market, not diminishing it. They are doing free advertising. They make your role more essential. You are not losing money by their activities - nor are your authors. If you feel so strongly, create a rival product that is better or cheaper. If it isn't worth your while, then they have justifiably created a new market. Note, by the way that *I* might have been interested in republishing your article (for free, but CC-BY) if you had not forbidden me. I am generally interested in mathematics in the scientific literature. My software can extract the equations from your article (this is not fantasy
[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with profits - or too high a price?
On 2013-01-29, at 11:01 AM, Ross Mounce wrote: ...and as I've told you elsewhere, where open access journals use Creative Commons licences CC BY is by far the most common choice (whether you count that by publisher, journal OR article volume) Comment From Peter Suber's SPARC Open Access Newsletter - as of May 2012: for present purposes we can say that roughly 88% of OA journals don't use CC-BY. For details and data, see the June 2012 SPARC Open Access Newsletter: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-12.htm Do you have any data to support your assertion that the majority of OA publishers use CC-BY? This strikes me as counter to logic. If less than 12% of OA journals use CC-BY and some of the larger OA publishers (with a number of journals each) use CC-BY, this suggests that the majority of OA publishers do not use CC-BY. Remember that PLoS + BMC / Springer + Hindawi = 3 publishers. If you have any actual data on article volume that would be helpful. In interpreting this data, it is important to take into account the total volume. When PLoS ONE became the world's largest journal a couple of years ago, publishing 14,000 articles in one year, that was remarkable, a real milestone for OA. But let's not forget that that 14,000 articles is still less than 1% of the approximately 1.5 million scholarly articles published in a year. For the future: now that PLoS ONE has a number of competitors, it will be interesting to see whether this pioneer retains this volume. If other publishers offer authors a choice of CC licenses, and not all authors prefer CC-BY, this could give PLoS ONE competitors a bit of an edge. best, Heather Morrison, PhD The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Is $99 per article realistic and compatible with profits - or too high a price?
My statement and Peter Suber's statement do not conflict. He said 'of all OA journals' Whilst I said 'of OA journals using creative commons licences' Both statements are thus correct On Jan 29, 2013 10:09 PM, Heather Morrison heath...@eln.bc.ca wrote: On 2013-01-29, at 11:01 AM, Ross Mounce wrote: ...and as I've told you elsewhere, where open access journals use Creative Commons licences CC BY is by far the most common choice (whether you count that by publisher, journal OR article volume) Comment From Peter Suber's SPARC Open Access Newsletter - as of May 2012: for present purposes we can say that roughly 88% of OA journals don't use CC-BY. For details and data, see the June 2012 SPARC Open Access Newsletter: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-12.htm Do you have any data to support your assertion that the majority of OA publishers use CC-BY? This strikes me as counter to logic. If less than 12% of OA journals use CC-BY and some of the larger OA publishers (with a number of journals each) use CC-BY, this suggests that the majority of OA publishers do not use CC-BY. Remember that PLoS + BMC / Springer + Hindawi = 3 publishers. If you have any actual data on article volume that would be helpful. In interpreting this data, it is important to take into account the total volume. When PLoS ONE became the world's largest journal a couple of years ago, publishing 14,000 articles in one year, that was remarkable, a real milestone for OA. But let's not forget that that 14,000 articles is still less than 1% of the approximately 1.5 million scholarly articles published in a year. For the future: now that PLoS ONE has a number of competitors, it will be interesting to see whether this pioneer retains this volume. If other publishers offer authors a choice of CC licenses, and not all authors prefer CC-BY, this could give PLoS ONE competitors a bit of an edge. best, Heather Morrison, PhD The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com ___ 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
