--- On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Carole Mongin wrote: > 1. Are the biological and medical research > communities better served by free access to > research funded through publication charges or by > the current model of subscription charges, mostly > to institutions, resulting in restricted access? Not just the biomedical community but all fields of scholarly and scientific research are better served by having their refereed research accessible free online. The essential costs (not "publication charges" but peer-review-implementation charges) are much more sensibly paid by the author-institution, rather than as access-blocking (even if reduced) subscription/license tolls by the reader-institution: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm So far, so good. But it may be premature to try to levy these charges before the annual institutional windfall savings from subscription/license cancellations are available to pay them out of. It would be more prudent to wait for author/institution self-archiving to grow and exert its natura effect first: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm > 2. Should funding organisations explicitly support > free access to published research, and thus allow > publication charges to be routinely paid for out > of grants? Yes, but again, it would be more prudent to wait till they do so, and concentrate instead on self-archiving rather than levying premature charges, before the transition, and while the established journals are still publishing without charge to the author. > 3. Should a fund be created to help defray charges > for those who find it difficult to pay, but are > not working in regions with limited research > budgets (developing countries)? Definitely, in any case. But for now, their course too is best to keep submission to their preferred established journals, while also freeing their published, refereed papers through self-archiving. > 4. What level of charges seems fair to you, and > should it depend on length of articles or other > criteria? It should definitely be a flat rate, not length-dependent. And the amount should depend on the true cost of implementing peer review. Nothing else, and nothing more. (A lower "review" fee might be considered for rejected papers, as a deterent to spurious submissions eating up the time of referees, who referee in any case for free; this fee could be assimilated to the acceptance fee in case of acceptance. But this is controversial, and needs some thought and pre-testing.) > 5. Should authors have optional charges for > copy-editing and translation services? Fine. But again this is risky, in the face of the competition from the established journals, who currently provide this all at no cost to the author. Let self-archiving exert its natural subversive force. Meanwhile, concentrate on establishing your journal(s) by attracting the highest quality content, and subsidize it until the funds are ready to pay for such services. Otherwise your new journal(s) will be still-born, strangled by their own pre-emptive prices, before there was even a market, and before the inevitable transition. http://cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/nature4.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------- Stevan Harnad harnad_at_cogsci.soton.ac.uk Professor of Cognitive Science harnad_at_princeton.edu Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582 Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865 University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ Highfield, Southampton http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/ SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html You may join the list at the site above. Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.orgReceived on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:46:09 GMT