<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br><br><br></div><div>On 2013-10-23, at 3:06 PM, David Wojick <<a href="mailto:dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US">dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div> Oh I see, Stevan. The subscription journals go out of business, just as I
thought. I was afraid I had missed something in the analysis. Glad we
agree.<br><br>
To return to the original point, at this time the US Government has no
interest in driving the subscription publishers out of business.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Post-Green Fair Gold is not Out-of-Business, it's just Fair Business.<div><br></div><div>(except to a publisher lobbyist)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>
At 02:43 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Adminstrative info for
SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" eudora="autourl">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a> <br>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, David Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>As I understand it your position is that all published articles
should be immediately available for free. My question is why then anyone
would subscribe to a journal? I am sure you have an answer but I have no
idea what it is, as your proposal seems to defy the basic laws of
economics. Immediate deposit seems to be self defeating. What have I
missed?<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
Here's what you have missed: <br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Harnad, Stevan (2007)
<a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/">The Green Road to Open
Access: A Leveraged Transition</a>. In, Anna, Gacs (ed.) The Culture of
Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. ,
L'Harmattan, 99-105.<br><br>
</dd><dd>SUMMARY: What the research community needs, urgently, is free
online access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output.
Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in
OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and
self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA
Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is
mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 100%
Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing (which is
not in the hands of the research community) and it also requires the
funds to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% Green OA, the
research community's access and impact problems are already solved. If
and when 100% Green OA should cause significant cancellation pressure (no
one knows whether or when that will happen, because OA Green grows
anarchically, article by article, not journal by journal) then the
cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, downsizing and eventually
a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing on the part of journals.
As subscription revenues shrink, institutional windfall savings from
cancellations grow. If and when journal subscriptions become
unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be low enough, and
institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, because
publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service provision
alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and access-provision and
archiving onto the global network of OA Institutional Repositories. Green
OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Harnad, Stevan (2010)
<a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html">No-Fault
Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied
or Delayed</a>. D-Lib Magazine, 16, (7/8)<br><br>
</dd><dd>SUMMARY: Plans by universities and research funders to pay the
costs of Open Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature.
Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top
journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to
pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is
concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower
quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and funders to
mandate OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts,
immediately upon acceptance for publication) ("Green OA"). That
will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go
on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with
just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut
costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving),
downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the
Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations
will have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The
natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a
"no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder
paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance,
revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while
protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality
standards.<br><br>
</dd></dl> <br>
<dl>
<dd>At 01:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a> <br>
</dd><dd>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, David Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>The USA has the lead here, as far as major funder mandates are
concerned, and they have opted for a 12 month publisher embargo form of
green OA. I have several articles on this at
</dd><dd><a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/">
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/</a> <br>
</dd><dd>Peter does not even discuss what is actually happening on the policy
front.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>On leads vs. lags and analysis vs argument, see:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-.html">
Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI
Consultant</a><br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>The exchange is preceded by the following note (by me):<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Note: <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/">David
Wojick</a> works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at
<a href="http://www.osti.gov/home/">OSTI</a>, the Office of Scientific
and Technical Information, in the Office of Science of the US Department
of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and philosophy of science, an MA in
mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineering. In the exchanges
below, he sounds [to me] very much like a publishing interest lobbyist,
but judge for yourself. He also turns out to have a rather curious [and
to me surprising]
<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick">
history in environmental matters</a>… <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>The topic continued (and continues) to be discussed on the Society
for Scholarly Publishing's blog,
"<a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/">The Scholarly
Kitchen</a>," where DW is a frequent contributor.<br><br>
</dd><dd>DW: "Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is
an argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is
actually going on…. Happy OA week."<br><br>
</dd><dd>And a Happy OA week to DW too...<br><br>
</dd><dd>Stevan Harnad<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>At 12:50 PM 10/23/2013, you
wrote:<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">
<dd>Dear David,<br>
</dd><dd>Sorry, could you tell us why you have the opinion that the author of
the Guardian piece is oblivious to what is going on? What, in you eyes,
is the main thing he seems not aware of? <br>
</dd><dd>Thank you,<br>
</dd><dd>Jeroen Bosman
</dd><dd>-----------------------------------------------
</dd><dd>Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience
</dd><dd>Utrecht University Library
</dd><dd>email: <a href="mailto:j.bosman@uu.nl">j.bosman@uu.nl</a>
</dd><dd>twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
</dd><dd>-----------------------------------------------------------------
</dd><dd>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>-----Original Message-----
</dd><dd>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[<a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU">
</a><a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU">
mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of David Wojick
</dd><dd>Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 18:24
</dd><dd>To:
<a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU">
SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA<br>
</dd><dd>Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an
argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually
going on.<br>
</dd><dd>Happy OA week.<br>
</dd><dd>David Wojick<br>
</dd><dd>At 02:20 PM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
</dd><dd>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
</dd><dd>><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">
</a><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>I post this without comment.
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>
><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op">
</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op">http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op</a>
</dd><dd>>en-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>But I would be interested to hear listmembers
responses/reactions
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>BW
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>Quentin Burrell</dd></blockquote></dd></dl></dd></blockquote>
</dd></dl><br>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>