On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote:
We are back here on an old debate between Stevan and myself. > > My take on all this is: > > 1. Authors seek ways to obtain prestige and visibility; currently, > journals are about the only way to achieve this; > Agreed. A journal is a journal, whether subscription, Fools Gold or Fair Gold. > > 2. Prestige and visibility of researchers are linked to journals that act > as logos. > Agreed. The journal name (and track record) is a tag (as I noted below). > The impact factor is the present method to evaluate the visibility of a > journal. This is madness, but it has some degree of purchase socially and > institutionally, however irrational the foundation for this kind of > evaluation may be; > Agreed. What matters is journal quality standards (i.e., peer review standards), which in turn are somewhat, but not strongly, correlated with journal impact factor). But that is not relevant to the question under discussion: What would be a fair price for Gold? 3. The mandated green road provides access to some version (depending on > the publishing house and its whims) of published documents; as such it is a > useful first step to achieve open access. > Green OA means OA to the *refereed, accepted final draft*. That is all the access that is needed. (And with Fair Gold, that will be the final version. No more publisher PDF.) > But it is only a first step. Because it is a very incomplete and imperfect > first step, a significant fraction of researchers have difficulties in > seeing the value of this approach and practise inertia. This is what stands > behind the need for mandates; > Agreed that the mandates are needed to remedy author inertia. Author inertia is for 3 reasons: (1) fear of publisher legal action (embargoes), (2) fear that depositing is difficult or time-consuming (groundless), and (3) absence of a mandate (remediable). The inertia is not because of doubts about refereed, accepted final drafts. 4. Open access journals, provided that they are free for the reader (free > as in the BOAI of 2016), and gratis for the authors offer alternative > publishing vehicles that compete with existing journals. As such they are > useful. And if they are free and gratis as explained above, they will not > help the rise of rogue or hybrid journals. > Agreed. But we are talking about the OA journals that do charge the author. > Bringing prestige and visibility to these journals is very important. > However, OA journals that are prestigious tend to be based on APC's, while > free and gratis journals tend to be less visible and less prestigious. Note > that visibility and prestige are not to be confused with inherent quality > of the work published. Note that some parts of the world, particularly in > latin America, are moving in that direction (Scielo and Redalyc); > Agreed. What matters is track-record for quality standards (peer review). But the journals most authors and users want are either the (established) subscription journals or the (established) Gold OA journals (and almost all of those charge). > 5. Repositories, to the extent that they add services similar to those of > journals (peer review in particular) begin to converge with OA journals and > they are also useful in helping configure the future communication system > of science in a healthy way. They too will not give rise to rogue journals > or hybrid journals. They will give rise to better methods to evaluate the > quality of work; > Institutional repositories do not provide peer review, they provide access. Journals provide peer review (and certify the outcome with their name and track-record for quality standards) 6. Far from insisting on a time-dependent series of steps, pushing > simultaneously for basic Green OA, enhanced Green (with more services) and > free and gratis-Gold is the optimal strategy. We need all these pathways to > make headway and achieve true OA; > The path to (1) universal OA and (2) Fair Gold OA is (for the reasons I have many times described) via mandated Green OA. *Fools Gold: *Pre-Green Gold OA is overpriced, unnecessary, and unscalable, for the reasons I've described. *Fair Gold:* Post-Green Gold OA will be fairly priced, affordable, scaleable and sustainable. *Free Gold:* *Nolo contendere* (but I suspect that it is unscalable and unsustainable). 7. Paying for APC's, particularly for hybrid journals makes no sense at > all. This practise has opened the door to rogue journals (in the case of > APC-Gold) and it has led to double-dipping and worse in the case of hybrid > journals; > Agreed. > 8. Given all the money already available for acquisition of licences and > materials in academic libraries, there is more money than needed to support > a world system of scientific communication that is fully under the control > of the research world; > I'm not quite sure what money you are referring to, but if you mean the money currently being spent on subscriptions, I agree: There is enough money to pay for Fair Gold several times over. But it requires Green OA mandates to downsize journal publishing to Fair Gold, by making subscriptions unsustainable. 9. If Google Scholar (or another search engine) could quickly and precisely > index the documents in open access, be they in repositories, or in OA > journals, it would help the OA movement enormously. > It is doing it already. What Google Scholar does not index is not OA (or badly tagged by the repositories). SH > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > > > Le jeudi 14 mai 2015 à 14:07 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > > The subject header should of course have read "Fair Gold vs...." > > > > Apologies for the typo. (Someone will surely find a punny in there...) > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should > be because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not > think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally > mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold > <http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa>. > > > Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not, at > least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive > fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a > supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA > publishers. > > > The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA — > both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and > fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA: > > > Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been > mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles > per year”*: > > > *(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green > OA. > > > The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories > hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by > the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository > version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access > to the unrefereed draft. > > > *(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per > article”*: This is a genuine function and expense: > > > The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the > author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be > adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds > right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles > take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will > need to be a no-fault submission fee > <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html> so that accepted > authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher > quality standards will have higher rejection rates.) > > > *“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide > over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either > obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing > paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with > form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor > may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per > accepted article. > > > But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and > pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a > small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green, > whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere > else, over and above subscription expenses. > > > That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its > costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost. > > > To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary, > whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have > made subscriptions unsustainable. > > > And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other > than mandating Green… > > > Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions > unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access > <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>. > *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 * > http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/ > > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk < > falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at> wrote: > > That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian > Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see: > http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462 > > best falk > ________________________________________________ > Falk Reckling, PhD > Strategic Analysis > Department Head > Austrian Science Fund (FWF) > Sensengasse 1 > A-1090 Vienna > Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861 > Mobile: +43-664-5307368 > Email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at > > Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en > Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess > ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766 > > ________________________________________ > Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag > von "Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43 > An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Betreff: [GOAL] $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can > generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing > > Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led > journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per > article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small > open access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20 > peer-reviewed articles per year, this amount could fund top-of-the-line > journal hosting, free up the time of a senior academic to devote just a > little less than one full day per article, hire a part-time senior support > staff at a nice hourly rate to provide over 2 days' support per > peer-reviewed article, with an annual budget of $2,500 for extra costs. > > Calculations here: > > http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/ > > best, > > -- > Dr. Heather Morrison > Assistant Professor > École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies > University of Ottawa > http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html > Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > listGOAL@eprints.orghttp://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
