I agree with almost everything you say here, Stevan, but I
do
wonder how many current publishers using a subscription
model
will convert to Gold OA service-providers, mainly because I
don't
think the fees for these services will ever get high enough
to
provide the profit margins to which commercial publishers
have
become accustomed--and some will probably decide to invest
their
capital elsewhere where it will get a better ROI. University
presses may be more likely to do so because they will charge
less
and have more of a mission-oriented focus anyway, being
units of
universities dedicated to the same values.
Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press
>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.
>
>>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
|
