[GOAL] Re: Gold OA: Publication costs and journal impact factors

[Ross Mounce]

The high price of these hybrid gold OA options is only a problem if
researcher obsession with journal impact factor (JIF) is immutable.

I believe this behaviour can be changed (and is already changing, moving
the prestige to gold OA) and authors can be taught to submit to appropriate
low-cost gold OA journals rather than expensive high JIF hybrid outlets.
The final product is largely similar after all...
On Oct 12, 2012 4:25 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 2012-10-12, at 10:32 AM, Sally Morris wrote:
>
> high IF journals tend to reject a higher %
> of articles than low or no IF journals.  Accepted articles have to bear a
> share of the costs of processing these articles up to the point of
> rejection.
>
>
> This is exactly why post-Green Gold will be just a no-fault<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/>
>  peer-review
> service: *Accepted papers will no longer be paying for rejected ones.*
>
> Gold OA costs will be *per round of refereeing, regardless of outcome*.
> If/when a paper meets a journal's acceptance standards with no further
> need for revision, "publication" will be cerified by the journal's
> imprimatur.
>
> All the access-provision and archiving will be done by the distributed
> global network of  Green OA institutional repositories.
>
> And journals will only be motivated to create and maintain a track-record
> for high quality, to attract submissions seeking certification of having
> met
> those standards. But papers that meet the standards will no longer be
> subsidizing the costs of refereeing papers that do not.
>
> And of course there will continue to be a hierarchy of journals, and
> their corresponding peer-review quality standards, since human
> endeavor is inevitably Gaussian, and selectivity percentiles are
> selectivity percentiles.
>
> Authors will not pick journals by their price (which will be the same, per
> round)
> but by their quality standards. And even if their paper fails to meet the
> standards
> of a journal whose quality is higher than a given author can reach,
> authors will
> still benefit from the recommendations made by the referees of that
> higher-standard
> journal in revising their paper for a journal more appropriate for its
> quality level.
>
> (And to minimize their costs, authors will make more effort to choose
> journals commensurate with the quality of their articles, instead of all
> trying for the top journals, and thereby increasing the cost of the
> accepted
> articles, as now, in the acceptance-based subscription and Gold OA
> system.)
>
> But for all these good things, we first have to mandate Green globally…
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20121012/de3dfbe4/attachment.html