I am puzzled by this statement in Professor Harnad's reply below.
I quote:
"It is very likely that if and when universal Green Open Access
(as a result of universal mandates to self-archive the author's
final refereed drafts of all peer-reviewed journal articles
immediately upon acceptance for publication) causes subscriptions
to become unsustainable"
Yet this is the same Professor Harnad who suggests that
institutional repositories are intended to make available
refereed content for those who cannot afford access and not to
damage journals.
There are also others and maybe among his disciples who claim
that there is no evidence that self-archiving will harm journal
subscriptions because there is no evidence that this has
happened. There are also those who suggest to university
authorities that mandates are mainly to project the profile of
the university concerned.
What is the real aim of some parts of the IR movement? What is
Professor Harnad's main aim? Is it not to impose a universal Open
Access regime by stealth?
I think most publishers know what it is but does the academy?
Perhaps they should be told. Or am I guilty of what former
Professor Suber would call a misunderstanding my suggesting more
transparency here?
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 1:18 AM
Subject: Re: Submission Fees (was: RE: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...)
>A subscription journal charging submission fees (or acceptance
> fees or both) seems like a bit of double- (or triple-) dipping ,
> unless it is honestly faithfully and fully translated into lower
> subscription fees.
>
> It is very likely that if and when universal Green Open Access
> (as a result of universal mandates to self-archive the author's
> final refereed drafts of all peer-reviewed journal articles
> immediately upon acceptance for publication) causes subscriptions
> to become unsustainable -- and hence causes journals to cut
> expenses, phase out the print edition as well as access-provision
> and archiving, provide only the service of peer review, and
> convert to the publication-fee- based Gold OA model, paid for out
> of a portion of the institutional windfall savings from the
> subscription cancellation -- then the Gold OA fee will be a
> conditional one, with an initial, lower, submission fee, credited
> toward part of the acceptance fee, if accepted.
>
> But this is all premature and unnecessary now, when most journals
> are still subscription-based, institutional funds to pay Gold
> fees are still tied up in subscriptions, Green OA is far from
> universal, and hence journals have not yet phased out the print
> edition, access- provision and archiving. For all this to happen,
> universal Green OA is needed first. Otherwise we are doing voodoo
> calculations.
>
> All this will be familiar to readers of the AmSci Forum, where it
> has been discussed many times before, in years past:
> http://bit.ly/4gg7k7
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On 3-Jul-09, at 11:38 PM, Zac Rolnik wrote:
>
>> The use of submission fees for journals in the area of business
>> and economics journal publishing is not unusual. As a matter of
>> fact, I cannot think of any top ranked finance journals that do
>> not charge a submission fee. Some of these fees can range
>> between $250-500 and often they are charged for resubmission if
>> the article is given a "revise and resubmit" decision. And the
>> more prestigious the journal, the more price inelastic this
>> submission fee becomes.
>>
>> I am not sure if you could create a sustainable business model on
>> submission fees, but I never understood why open access journals
>> would not implement them. It seems wholly unfair to charge only
>> the papers that make it "successfully" through the review process
>> to acceptance, while the majority of papers that are being
>> rejected (I am assuming this, but it may be a big assumption) get
>> a free ride through the process. Maybe the submission fee could
>> be applied to the acceptance fee once the article is accepted --
>> this would be even fairer to the accepted authors.
>>
>> I do not think submission fees encourage journals to accept
>> papers or increases the potential for abuse as some may have
>> claimed. In a certain way, fees charged on acceptance only would
>> create a greater incentive for abuse and "acceptance" decisions
>> for less worthy papers.
>>
>> Finally, charging submission fees may make authors think twice
>> before submitting a paper that may not be ready for prime time.
>> As a publisher, I often see authors submit articles too early
>> knowing that the chance of acceptance on the first submission is
>> low and hoping the reviewer can provide some constructive
>> feedback. In talking to some journal editors, they feel that
>> submission fees is a rationing mechanism -- you are less likely
>> to submit a paper if there is a fee unless you feel it is ready
>> for the review process.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Zac Rolnik
>> now publishers
Received on Tue Jul 07 2009 - 03:38:47 BST