Re: Certification and Dissemination
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
>
>
Received on Fri May 02 2008 - 17:05:54 BST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:18 GMT