On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Ian.Russell wrote:
> But in order to have BOTH, you have to pay for BOTH and
that
> means paying both for repository dissemination and for
peer
> review either using the established subscription model,
author
> side payment (gold) open access or some other
method...
And both *are* being paid for: About $3000 per paper
published
(through institutional journal subscriptions) plus about $10
per
paper archived.
I don't quite understand what you are alluding to here.
> You don't get both by imposing unfunded mandates like
that
> announced by Southampton University.
Subscribing institutions pay for journals by subscribing to
them.
Institutions pay (the little they cost) for their
Institutional
Repositories for the benefits they confer on the
institution:
Inventorying, showcasing, archiving, monitoring and
assessing its
own research output, as well as maximizing its visibility,
accessibility, usage and impact.
The authors' 6 minutes of extra keystrokes per paper
deposited
cost nothing. They are an investment in their research, just
as
all the preceding keystrokes were.
And here is what Southampton University has to say about its
"unfunded" mandate:
"The University of Southampton is to make all its
academic and
scientific research output freely available. A
decision by the
University to provide core funding for its
Institutional Repository
establishes it as a central part of its research
infrastructure..."
http://www.epri
nts.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=University
%20of%20Southampton%20
> And this is my point: Whilst I agree with the argument
that
> the output of publicly funded research (or from a
research
> institution) - which is the author's original article -
should
> be freely available to the public, I do not believe
that the
> 'refereed postprint' (to use your terminology, I prefer
> 'accepted manuscript') should necessarily be freely
given away.
> That decision should be up to the organization that
added the
> value by peer reviewing it and associating it with its
brand.
The output of publicly funded research is peer-reviewed
journal
articles -- which the peers review for free for publishers,
and
the authors give their publishers for free to sell for
subscription, in exchange for having administered the peer
review.
If and when subscriptions become unsustainable, institutions
can
publishers pay for the peer review of their own article
output
out of a small portion of their annual windfall savings from
the
cancelled journal subscriptions.
Maximizing the usage and impact of their own peer-reviewed
research output is certainly not a decision institutions and
funders need to leave up to publishers, and that is what the
growing wave of Green OA self-archiving mandates is about.
http:
//www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
> What right, exactly, do those imposing unfunded
mandates have
> to stipulate that the value added in this way be given
up for
> no compensation?
Would you say that subscription revenue was no
compensation?
> Of course, the authors have the right to choose where
to
> publish and long may that continue.
>
> In anticipation of arguments that peer review is done
'for
> free' I hasten to add that (i) this isn't the only
value added
> (ii) operating peer review processes are very expensive
and
> that (iii) referees have the choice whether or not to
give
> their time and expertise to peer review articles (those
> investing in peer review are given no choice regarding
whether
> or not to give away the fruits of their labours by
unfunded
> mandates).
The operating costs of administering peer review (and much
more)
are paid for today by institutional subscription revenue. If
and
when Green OA should ever make subscriptions unsustainable,
publishing will convert to Gold OA and institutions will pay
for
the costs or administering peer review (and no more) out of
a
portion of their subscription savings.
Publishers today have a choice: They can wait to see whether
universal Green OA eventually makes subscriptions
unsustainable,
or they can convert to Gold OA right now, or they can let
their
titles migrate to publishers that are happy to wait, or
convert,
right now. Only one choice is not open to publishers: To
prevent
authors and institutions from making the choice to maximize
the
impact of their refereed research output by self-archiving
it.
Stevan Harnad
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-liblicense-l lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-
>> llists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
>> Sent: 25 April 2008 14:44
>> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>> Subject: Certification and Dissemination
>>
>> It's not that the author must choose (1) (journal)
>> certification OR (2) (OA repository) dissemination:
The right
>> choice is of course BOTH (1) journal certification
(peer
>> review) AND (2) repository dissemination (OA
self-archiving).
>>
>> Joseph Esposito seems to keep wanting to imagine
that what is
>> being self-archived is only or mostly unrefereed
preprints
>> (and, he goes on to imagine: preprints never even
destined to
>> go on to become refereed postprints).
>>
>> It would be a good idea to look at what it is that
the 41
>> self-archiving mandates in ROARMAP are actually
stipulating
>> must be deposited. (Without a single exception, it
is the
>> refereed postprint.) http://www
.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Joseph J. Esposito wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that what Paul Ginsparg did in
one stroke was
>>> separate, or at least begin to separate, the
publishing
>>> functions of certification (what Ian addresses)
from
>>> dissemination. Prior to arXiv, these two
functions were bound
>>> up with each other. I am not saying that
Ginsparg set out to
>>> do this (How would I know?), but that is the
effect of his
>>> innovation. Ian (rightly) notes that
publishers still control
>>> the certification function, but there is
another point to be
>>> made here, that in some instances the
dissemination and
>>> certification functions compete with each
other.
>>>
>>> For example, a poorly distributed journal or a
journal
>>> published in such a way as to make it difficult
for readers to
>>> find it (e.g., not indexed by Google) may
nonetheless certify
>>> an article and, by extension, its author; but
the author may
>>> still yearn for broader dissemination. Such an
author may, the
>>> next time around, opt for a well-designed open
access
>>> repository that has been optimized for search
engine indexing
>>> and other Internet marketing techniques, with
the hope that
>>> open dissemination will ultimately lead to
certification. We
>>> can call this the principle of certification
through
>>> acclamation; it is intended to supplant
certification through
>>> deliberation.
>>>
>>> Publishers that stress the certification
function alone are, in
>>> my view, making a very big mistake. Yes,
publishers add
>>> enormous value in the editorial process, more
than most authors
>>> could ever bring themselves to admit, but the
real game is to
>>> stroke an author's ego through dissemination.
In other words,
>>> the safe zone for a publisher is not the
editorial fortress of
>>> careful selection, peer review, copy editing,
and the like, but
>>> the sound of trumpets declaring that, yes, our
magnificent
>>> author has arrived.
>>>
>>> The future of toll-access or traditional
publishing lies with
>>> marketing. If an author comes to believe that
an open access
>>> service could lead to wider dissemination of
his or her work,
>>> publishers should fold their tents and go home,
and no amount of
>>> shrewd editorial practices can prevent this.
>>>
>>> Joe Esposito
|
