[GOAL] Re: Why should publishers agree to Green OA?

[Jan Velterop]

Peter,

There is no contractual 'green' as far as I am aware. It is just a -- reluctant -- permission (or less, a lack of explicit prohibition). From a publisher's point of view it was for a long time OK to allow 'green' as the calculation was that it would be chaotic, and no real threat to subscriptions (although some were nervous about that from the start). I still don't think 'green' is having a serious impact on their revenues (and even if so, they make up a lot from sales to China), but the level of chaos is reduced somewhat on account of an increasing number of mandates, especially big ones, such as the NIH and other governmental mandates, and that is scary for publishers. They can, of course, at any point withdraw from 'green', or rather, reformulate their conditions of publication, and insist on an 'agreement' between author and the publisher that prohibits 'green'.

As far as I am aware there is no compensation for allowing 'green' and publishers do it in an effort not to alienate their authorship, counting on the fact that only a small number would self-archive anyway. That may change, of course, if mandates take hold.

What would the 'body' be to negotiate with publishers about 'green'? 

Given these difficulties and imponderables associated with 'green', I believe that 'gold' has a much better chance to lead to a stable open access. And the argument that 'green' would be cheaper is not substantiated. In fact, 'gold' is inevitably leading to real competition on price, as authors have a choice, and readers haven't. They need everything that's relevant for them, regardless of price. They can't read one journal out of two in the same field on the ground that it's the cheaper one, even if they are equivalent in terms of perceived quality. Authors can submit to the cheaper one. And where there is real competition, prices have a strong tendency to approach real 'production' costs, of course. 

That said, I am a strong supporter of the notion of submission fees covering all the costs of a journal, instead of only publication fees. As a kind of 'exam fee'. That would allow journals to be selective without very high publication fees for the few articles accepted and published. And there are more advantages: http://theparachute.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/science-publishing-all-about-submission.html

Jan

On 19 Jun 2012, at 19:23, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

> 
> I have some simple questions about Green OA. I don't know the answers.
> 
> * is there any *contractual* relationship between a Green-publisher and any legal body? Or is Green simply a permission granted unilaterally by publishers when they feel like it, and withdrawable when they don't.
> * if Green starts impacting on publishers' revenues (and I understand this is part of the Green strategy - when we have 100% Green then publishers will have to change) what stops them simply withdrawing the permission? Or rationing it? Or any other anti-Green measure
> * Do publishers receive any funding from anywhere for allowing Green? Green is extra work for them - why should they increase the amount they do?
> * Is there any body which regularly "negotiates" with publishers such as ACS, who categorically forbid Green for now and for ever.
> 
> Various publishers seem to indicate that they will allow Green as long as it's a relatively small percentage. But, as Stevan has noted, if your institution mandates Green, then Elsevier forbids it. So I cannot see why, if Green were to reach - say - 50%, the publishers wouldn't simply ration it and prevent 100%.  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
> _______________________________________________
> 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/goal/attachments/20120619/d6e862a2/attachment-0001.html