[BOAI] Beyond Double-Dipping: Free-Choice Fair Gold vs. Forced-Choice Fool's Gold

Sat Oct 26 14:38:52 BST 2013

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Sandy Thatcher <sgt3 at psu.edu> wrote:

**
> Stevan is absolutely right on this point, and it behooves publishers who
> operate hybrid journals to make their finances transparent. Otherwise,
> there will always remain the suspicion that the publishers are
> double-dipping.
>
*Alice Meadows<http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/#comment-1096460637>
* (Social Relations at
Wiley<http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/author/alicejmeadows/page/2/>,
and one of the "chefs" in SSP's Scholarly
Kitchen<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/07/09/welcome-our-newest-chef-alice-meadows/>)
replied:

"*Most major publishers, including Wiley, now have a policy on subscription
pricing for hybrid journals (aka double dipping). Ours can be found
here<http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-816521.html>
.*"

As I have already pointed out in my reply to Bob Campbell (below) what
matters incomparably more (to research, researchers, and the tax-payers who
fund them) than whether or not a hybrid Gold publisher double-dips is *whether
the publisher embargoes Green* -- because when a hybrid Gold publisher
embargoes Green, authors who want to make their article immediately OA are
forced to pay for hybrid Gold -- *with nothing in exchange for the money
except freedom from the embargo*. (Any added frills co-bundled with it were
not asked for, hence certainly no justification for being forced to pay for
immediate OA in order to be freed from a publisher-imposed embargo.)

Wiley-Blackwell<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=580&fIDnum=|&mode=simple&la=en>
is
among the 40% <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php> of publishers
that embargo Green OA. Hence (unlike a hybrid Gold publisher like Cambridge
University Press<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=27&fIDnum=%7C&mode=advanced&la=en>,
which does *not* embargo Green) Wiley-Blackwell is forcing authors to pay
for hybrid Gold OA as the only way to provide immediate OA to their
articles. That the extra revenue from hybrid Gold revenue (despite Bob
Campbell's attempt to justify hybrid Gold revenue as not constituting
double-dipping at all) is not in fact being double-dipped by Wiley -- but
given back as a
rebate<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=rebate+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>
to
all subscribing institutions -- is no consolation for the author who has to
pay it, in full, hence again no justification for being forced to pay for
immediate OA in order to be freed from a publisher-imposed embargo. (Hybrid
Gold authors did not ask to subsidize worldwide institutional subscription
prices with their individual payment.)

Using OA embargoes to guarantee current subscription revenues is not a fair
or acceptable means of transition to universal, affordable,
sustainable OA<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>
and
will inevitably be exposed and seen to be exactly what it is: an attempt by
(part of) the publishing community to hold the research community
hostage<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=hostage+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
to
sustaining their current subscription revenues -- hence over-priced (and
potentially double-dipped) Fool's Gold, paid over and above what must
continue to be paid by institutions for subscriptions -- instead of
allowing Green OA to induce the natural evolution toward post-Green Fair
Gold<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=%22fair+gold%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>
.

At 7:40 AM -0400 10/25/13, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> Bob Campbell<http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/#comment-1094488522>wrote on the Wiley blog:
>
> "*Stevan* <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1061-.html>*accuses me of much conflation yet he himself conflates APCs and
> subscriptions when commenting on double-dipping. APCs are not paying for
> the 'same articles' paid for by subscriptions. Publishers have always
> charged separately for different services/products. For example, a medical
> journal may charge a pharmaceutical company for reprints, advertising space
> and subscriptions. These are priced separately and charged separately, and
> accounted for separately in the publisher's financial management of the
> title. The pharmaceutical company does not demand that the cost of buying
> advertising space is offset against any library subscriptions.*"
>
>  Bob Campbell defends double-dipping by citing journal charges for the
> purchase of reprints, advertising and subscriptions. That's all fine.
>
> But what we are discussing here is the cost of* publication*, not of
> extra products or services.
>
> Worldwide institutional subscriptions pay the cost of publication (in
> full, and fulsomely). It is not at all clear what extra product or service
> is being paid for when an author pays for hybrid Gold OA (for the paper he
> has given the publisher, for free, to sell).
>
> Of course it's an extra source of revenue to the hybrid Gold publisher to
> force the author to pay that extra money (for whatever it is that they are
> paying for). And let there be no doubt that the payment is indeed* forced*(if the hybrid Gold publisher embargoes Green). Is the extra "service,"
> then,* exemption from the publisher-imposed Green OA embargo*?
>
> (Note: If the publisher is among the 60%<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php>who endorse immediate Green OA, then none of my objections matter in the
> least, and I couldn't care less if the publisher earns some extra revenue
> from those authors who are silly enough to pay for hybrid Gold OA when they
> could have had the same, cost-free, by just providing Green OA.)
>
> For the publisher who embargoes Green and then pockets the extra revenue
> derived from hybrid Gold, over and above subscriptions, without even
> reducing subscription charges proportionately, is indeed charging twice for
> publication, i.e., double-dipping (and offering absolutely nothing in
> return except* freedom from the publisher's own Green OA embargo*).
>
> Subscriptions pay the cost of publication. Print reprints are an extra
> product. And adverts are an extra service. But hybrid Gold OA is merely
> fool's gold, if paid unforced. -- And if forced by a publish embargo, there
> is a word to describe the practice, but I will not use it, as a publisher
> has already once threatened to sue me for libel if I doŠ So let's just call
> it double-dipping, with no extra product or service...
>
>
> *Stevan Harnad*
>
>
>
> **
>
> --
>
> **
> Sanford G. Thatcher
> 8201 Edgewater Drive
> Frisco, TX  75034-5514
> e-mail: sgt3 at psu.edu
> Phone: (214) 705-1939
> Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher
>
> "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)
>
> "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people who
> can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20131026/a7009029/attachment.html 