I am inclined to agree with Keith. However, it needs to be acknowledged that
researchers are not always very discerning when choosing a publisher. I have had
some say to me, “In an ideal world I would not opt to pay to publish with this
or that particular publisher, but I need to get my work published urgently, so I
am just going to bite the bullet.”
For that reason some OA publishers seem quite content not to be part of the
OASPA community, and happy to operate by their own rules -- in the knowledge
that there is a ready market for their services. So while one might argue that
the research community can afford to ignore these companies and simply carry on
using subscription publishers and Green OA, in the hope that the market will
somehow create an optimal OA publishing ecosystem, I am less confident.
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf
Of keith.jeffery_at_STFC.AC.UK
Sent: 16 February 2010 12:00
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Interview with Open Access publisher In-Tech/Sciy
All -
Richard Poynder recently suggested that there were three bogeymen haunting the
OA movement: (1) asking authors to pay to publish could turn scholarly
publishing into a vanity press; (2) OA publishing will in any case inevitably
lead to lax or even non-existent peer review; (3) OA publishing is not
financially sustainable.
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2010/02/oa-interviews-sciyo-aleksandar-lazinica.htm
l
In my opinion…..
There is already evidence of (1) with various publishers trying to scam payment
for publishing (fortunately very few cases to date).
As a consequence of (1), (2) inevitably happens - but hopefully only in the case
of a small number of so-called journals.
It may be that (3) is true; with all information to date indicating gold OA
costs 3 to 4 times more than current subscription models (the figure of 3 comes
from our own estimates at STFC, 4 comes from the recent posting on AMSCI
concerning the ACM article).
But of course if current subscription models (maintaining peer review) are
backed up by green OA via IRs then everyone has the benefit of OA at a much
reduced cost.
In my opinion, the answer for academics - especially in these days of financial
stringency - is to keep with the subscription model and go green OA and let
future scholarship ecosystems develop.
Happy to discuss further...
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------
Prof Keith G Jeffery E: keith.jeffery_at_stfc.ac.uk
Director Information Technology & International Strategy
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
Didcot, OXON OX11 0QX UK
T: +44 1235 44 6103 F:+44 1235 44 5147
President ERCIM & STFC Director:
http://www.ercim.org/
W3C European Host at ERCIM
http://www.w3.org/
President euroCRIS
http://www.eurocris.org/
Board Member EOS
http://www.openscholarship.org/
Chair, APA
http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu/
VLDB Trustee Emeritus:
http://www.vldb.org/
EDBT Board Member
http://www.edbt.org/ ??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
The contents of this email are sent in confidence for the use of the intended
recipient only. If you are not one of the intended recipients do not take
action on it or show it to anyone else, but return this email to the sender and
delete your copy of it
The STFC telecommunications systems may be monitored in accordance with the
policy available from
<
http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Tue Feb 16 2010 - 18:43:58 GMT