RE: Certification and Dissemination

I was not suggesting for one second that researchers are 
parasitic on the scholarly journals system - the whole
system 
exists for them.

I think, though, that parasitic describes the nature of
unfunded 
mandates requiring deposit into repositories which rely on 
certification from journals rather well.  It was intended to
be 
descriptive rather than pejorative and is actually highly 
accurate.

Ian Russell
CEO ALPSP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-
> llists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of
"FrederickFriend"
> Sent: 03 May 2008 01:02
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Certification and Dissemination
>
> Whatever the rights or wrongs of the effect of
repository deposit
> upon publishers, a pejorative word like
"parasite" does not
> assist the dialogue, as well as being inaccurate. The
academic
> community makes a substantial contribution to the
publishing
> business model in the form of unpaid reviewers' time.
Researchers
> are certainly not parasites on the current funding
mechanism.
>
> Fred Friend
> JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russellcytherean.co.uk>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:55 AM
> Subject: 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