[ The following text is in the "WINDOWS-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
On 29-Sep-09, at 2:23 AM, C.J.Smith wrote:
Having just read Richard Poynder?s excellent article on the Compact for
Open-Access Publishing Equity, and putting aside the discussion of Green
first Gold second, Gold first Green second, Gold and Green together etc.
etc., I am interested in exploring why Gold OA funding initiatives tend to
focus on the reimbursing of cost. Mention is made of capping the amount of
money an individual can receive from a Gold OA fund, in order that that
individual becomes aware of what he or she is paying for publication, thus
helping to avoid the disconnect/moral hazard scenario currently imposed by
the subscription-based system.
It strikes me that a better approach would be for the researcher to think
about his or her research output at a much earlier stage, at the beginning
of the research project. I may be being naïve about the research process,
but I imagine most researchers must have a fair idea of the amount of papers
he or she expects to publish during and at the end of a piece of research.
Would it not be better, therefore, for the researcher to factor in OA
publication costs into the research grant application, thereby creating a
heightened awareness of the economics (not only for the researcher, but for
the funding body as well) even earlier in the research process? Given that
funding bodies are one of the main sets of stakeholders interested in
achieving OA, surely they (perhaps over and above universities) need to be
more willing to put up the cash?
Under this approach, perhaps the function of a university-based Gold OA fund
would be to allow its researchers to apply to top up the sum they receive
from the funding body (if the amount applied for from the funding body is
not met), and to cover the OA publication costs of unfunded research. To me
this seems like a much fairer way to spread the cost of OA publishing among
the various stakeholders wishing it to succeed, while simultaneously keeping
the economics of the model at the forefront of the minds of all those
involved, thus avoiding a repeat moral hazard.
As I say, however, I may be being naïve about/oversimplifying the research
process, having never been a researcher myself!
Comment:
Colin raises an excellent point. Some funding agencies provide funds
specifically for OA article processing fees (e.g. Wellcome Trust), while
others have long provided the option of using funds for dissemination
purposes, such as the page and colour charges of traditional
subscription-based publishers, which can equally be used - now for OA APFs
(e.g., NIH, CIHR).
It could be very helpful indeed to further open access, to educate
researchers about how to fill out the forms in advance so that OA APFs will
be covered at the appropriate time.
For members of COPE and others following similar initiatives, this could be
a good question for the application form for the funds. Given that authors'
funds are new, authors who did not think of this should not be penalized,
however in the long run as the demand for such funds grow, it might make
sense to prioritize support for authors who have made best efforts to secure
funding from their research grants.
Heather Morrison, MLIS
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
hgmorris_at_sfu.ca
Received on Tue Sep 29 2009 - 22:59:42 BST