I agree with much of what Jean-Claude says, particularly his (implied?)
suggestion that there is no obvious role for commercial publishers in an OA
environment. That seems to me to be becoming more and more obvious each day
that passes.
However, I think Jean-Claude is more focussed on ?ought? than ?is?. True, he
proposes an existing service (Brazil's SciELO) as a model for the future,
but given the way that researchers are motivated by their institutions and
their funders today, I suspect the model we are more likely to see emerge --
in the near term at least -- is the one that is apparently becoming common
in China (
http://tiny.cc/5a58S).
Richard Poynder
-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On
Behalf Of Guédon Jean-Claude
Sent: 17 February 2010 06:25
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: OA's Three Bogeymen
Alas, this whole discussion continues to assume that publishing must rest
mainly on organizations that behave like businesses (hence the call for
sustainability) and often are busineses. Why should they not be treated as
services integral to the research cycle of activities (which should include
publishing)? If so, they should simply be supported by public money.
Research is supported by public money and publishing is an integral part of
research. No one asks if research is sustainable, and they do not for a good
reason: it is not! If publishing is an integral part of research, it follows
that publishing should be supported by public money and not be submitted to
market rules which, in any case, can only distort the "great conversation"of
science and of scholarship more generally.
The discussion below is also about one kind of Gold Publishing, the
so-called "author-pay model". Personally, I am very skeptical about this
model, and increasingly so. It solves access for third world countries only
through humiliating, piecemeal, requests, and it has opened the door to
devious practices, some of which are precisely being discussed below. Yet,I
believe the Gold Road is viable if constructed correctly. Once again, allow
me to point to SciELO. To my mind, this is the best and most coherent
strategy for the Gold road. It also coincides well with national science
policies trying to promote science and, as SciELO's Abel Packer would say,
provide a place in the sun for Third World scientists.
This is why I support a public option for scientific and scholarly
publishing, but this public option should be international in nature to
avoid being too vulnerable to national politics. This said, I would rather
be vulnerable to national politics than to Elsevier or any other large,
private, publisher. I can vote in my country but I have no voice inside the
Elsevier (or Springer, or ...) structure.
Jean-Claude Guédon
PS And, as a reminder, this statement is not in support of the Gold Road as
the exclusive way to reach OA; it simply tries to tweak the Gold Road to
make it more viable. This is also and exactly what I do when I try tweaking
the Green Road by saying that repositories must get involved in the
generation of symbolic value. Both roads are needed, but they must be
conceived coherently and correctly.
________________________________
Van: American Scientist Open Access Forum namens Richard Poynder
Verzonden: di 16-2-2010 11:59
Aan: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Onderwerp: OA's Three Bogeymen
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.
html
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 <mailto:kgj_at_rl.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/
<
http://www.ercim.org/>
W3C European Host at ERCIM
http://www.w3.org/
<
http://www.w3.org/Â >
President euroCRIS
http://www.eurocris.org/
<
http://www.eurocris.org/>
Board Member EOS
http://www.openscholarship.org/
<
http://www.openscholarship.org/>
Chair, APA
http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu/
<
http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.eu/>
VLDB Trustee Emeritus:
http://www.vldb.org/
<
http://www.vldb.org/>
EDBT Board Member
http://www.edbt.org/
<
http://www.edbt.org/Â Â >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
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
<
http://dlitd.dl.ac.uk/policy/monitoring/monitoring%20statement.htm> >.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
--
Scanned by iCritical.
Received on Wed Feb 17 2010 - 17:57:20 GMT