RE: Certification and Dissemination

As I said, if both repository dissemination and peer review
are 
being paid for by subscriptions, gold OA or some other
method 
then I personally have no problem.  I don't know how I could
have 
been clearer on this.

However, the Southampton University mandate (and by
extension 
other similar mandates) is unfunded because the University
has 
made no clear commitment to support the scholarly
communication 
system by continuing to subscribe to journals; or to make a
clear 
and unambiguous commitment to meet gold OA fees; or to come
up 
with some other method of funding the system.

I think that you made the point about subscription revenue 
providing compensation for peer review because you misread
or 
misunderstood my first paragraph.  If it is paid for by 
subscriptions as it has been for 350 years then, of course,
no 
problem.  If you have an unfunded mandate like Southampton 
University's where: 1) authors have to deposit a version of
the 
article after publishers have added value, but 2) the
University 
has not made a commitment to cover gold OA fees, and 3) the

University expects to make 'subscription savings' through 
cancellations then Southampton becomes a free rider on the
rest 
of the system and with enough free riders the system will
break 
down.

This argument is really a side show though as we simply
don't 
know how the subscription journal / repository relationship
will 
work although we have both agreed in the past that it will
most 
likely result in journals going out of business.

As regards the output of publicly funded research:  No, I am

sorry you are quite wrong.  If the output from the
university was 
'peer-reviewed journal articles' then the system would never
have 
needed publishers to organize the peer review.  I believe I

answered in my original post why this is not 'free'. 
Incidentally, 'certification' is one of a number of areas
where 
publishers add value and it really must be noted that 
certification is much more that simply running a peer review

*process*.

Anyway, it seems to me that the issue would easily be solved
if 
Southampton University makes a campus-wide commitment to
meet 
gold OA fees.  Why hasn't it?

Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-
> llists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 28 April 2008 23:43
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Certification and Dissemination
>
> 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