On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian.Russell [Chief Executive, ALPSP]
wrote:
> 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.
A bit of mix-up there. Journals and their expenses
(including the
cost of administering peer review) are being paid for by
institutional subscriptions today.
Institutional repositories pay their own IR and deposit
expenses.
I certainly hope that Ian is not suggesting that the
institutions
and their authors should pay journals *extra* today in order
to
self-archive their own published output in their own IRs
while
all those journals' expenses are being paid by institutional
subscriptions, for that would sound very much like
double-dipping.
The "Double-Pay"/"Buy-Back"
Argument for Open Access is Invalid
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/290-guid.html
Think Twice Instead of Double-Paying for Open Access
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/269-guid.html
OA or mOre-pAy?
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/234-guid.html
Gold Fever and Trojan Folly
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/218-guid.html
Double-Paying for Optional Gold OA Instead of
Mandating Green OA
While Subscriptions Are Still Paying for Publication:
Trojan Folly
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/215-guid.html
Trojan Horse from American Chemical Society: Caveat
Emptor
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/213-guid.html
> 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.
(We were talking about subscription journals, so let's leave
Gold
OA journals out of it for now; we'll get back to them in
moment.)
Institutions are continuing to subscribe to journals, but
this
has nothing to do with institutions self-archiving: They
self-archive their own refereed research output. Their
subscriptions buy in the refereed research output of other
institutions.
If and when Green OA self-archiving should ever make
subscriptions unsustainable (as I have already pointed out
several times), *then* journals can downsize to become
peer-review service-providers alone (and institutions will
have
plenty of windfall subscription savings out of which to pay
the
much-reduced Gold OA fees for their own article output).
But right now, while subscriptions are still sustaining
journals,
there is no question of extracting additional fees from
author-institutions (double-dipping).
> 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.
I wonder where the connection between Southampton
University's
self-archiving mandate and Southampton University
'subscription
savings' came from? How can an author-institution cancel
journals
just because it is making its own *article* output OA? The
subscriptions don't buy in the institution's own article
output:
The institution already has that! Its subscriptions buy in
the
article output of other institutions.
But perhaps you are referring to what might eventually
happened
if all universities follow the cue from Southampton (and the
41
other universities [including Harvard] and research funders
[including RCUK, ERC and NIH] that have mandated OA
self-archiving, as the EUA has recommended for its 791
universities)?
But I have already answered that: If and when universal
Green OA
should ever make subscriptions unsustainable, then journals
can
downsize and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model to
cover
the costs of administering and certifying the outcome of
peer-review with their titles and track-records.
That's the natural remedy for free riding (not
double-dipping).
> 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.
I don't recall agreeing about that! I am certain journal
titles
will continue to exist, along with their editorial boards,
referees, authors, and track-records. Some titles may
migrate to
Gold OA publishers if their subscription-based publishers
don't
want to stay in business, but that's not *journals* (or peer
review) 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'.
And I believe I answered how peer review is being paid for
today.
> 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*.
Much more? It seems to me that once the peer review is done
and
the article is accepted, certification simply amounts to
affixing
the journal title (and with it its track record for
quality).
> 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?
Why should it? Most Southampton articles (like most articles
everywhere) are being published in subscription journals
today,
not in Gold OA journals, and those subscriptions are being
paid
by the subscribing institutions today (and Southampton is
subscribing to whatever journals it feels it needs and can
afford
today).
Stevan Harnad
|
