On Fri, 2 May 2008, Sandy Thatcher wrote:
> 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.
You may well be right, Sandy, in which case those journal
titles
will migrate from commercial journals to university presses.
That
would be fine (as long as university presses don't try to
specialize in publishing just their own research output,
becoming
house organs or vanity presses!).
Stevan Harnad
> 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
|
