RE: Certification and Dissemination

No, I am not talking about "double dipping" (the
only way that 
could possibly be relevant is in the context of hybrid
journals 
which have not previously been mentioned in this exchange). 
I am 
talking about clearly and unambiguously making a commitment
to 
fund the certification function in the scholarly journal 
publishing system rather than acting as a parasite on the
current 
funding mechanism.

Regarding our previous agreement on self archiving causing 
subscription cancellations, I refer to the quote attributed
to 
you at: 
http://www.libraryjournal.com/clear/CA6392242.h
tml?nid=2673#news2 
"it is possible, indeed probable, that self-archiving
will cause 
some cancellations".

As I said, though, to some extent this is a side show.

The real issue is unfunded mandates - like the one imposed
by 
Southampton University on its researchers.  Going back to my

original post:

>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."

and that is why I believe it is unacceptable for Southampton

University to announce its mandate without also making a 
commitment to fund OA fees.

Ian Russell
ALPSP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-
> llists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 30 April 2008 23:10
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Certification and Dissemination
>
> 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.

[SNIP]