[GOAL] Re: University of California Faculty Senate Passes Open Access Policy

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 on Liblicense, LIBLICENSE Ari Belenkiy wrote:

>
> First, by definition, the Green OA is "a deposit of PRE-peer-reviewed
> article on author's website".
>

Incorrect. By definition Green OA is immediate, permanent toll-free online
access to the post-peer-reviewed "postprint", provided by the author (on
any website, institutional or central).

The only way publishers can agree on this is for a back payment - this
> appears to be made by institutions and not by the authors (a version
> of the Gold OA).
>

Nothing of the sort. The majority of journals endorse immediate,
unembargoed Green OA.

A minority want a 1-year embargo.

The solution is to mandate *immediate deposit of all articles*; authors can
then provide immediate Green OA for the majority, and Button-mediated
"Almost OA" during the embargo for the embargoed minority.

No payment for any of this. Publication is already paid for via
subscriptions, for subscription journals. And Gold OA payments have nothing
whatsoever to do with any of this.

Am I right? Then who in the institution will decide for which
> submission to pay and for which not?
>

You are wrong. You are conflating preprint and postprint, Green OA and Gold
OA. I suggest doing a little background reading on basic concepts and
developments in OA. There's not much, and you will understand it quickly
once you read about it. But just going by the words in postings, and their
free associations with what one thinks they might mean will not get one
anywhere. You might start with the self-archiving
FAQ<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/>
.

Stevan Harnad

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:09 AM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:42:59 -0400
> >
> > >On 2013-08-11, Ari Belenkiy, SFU <ari.belenkiy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Why will publishers agree to this scheme?
> >
> > Peer-review is the most important service they provide ... for nothing?
> >
> > (1) Publishers today are paid for (managing) peer review -- paid in
> > full, many times over -- by institutional subscriptions.
> >
> > (2) The majority of journals today already agree to immediate,
> > unembargoed Green OA self-archiving of the author's peer-reviewed
> > final draft.
> >
> > (3) For the minority of journals that embargo OA, there is the
> > immediate-deposit (ID/OA) mandate - mandatory deposit in the author's
> > institutional repository immediately upon acceptance whether or not
> > access to the deposit is immediately set as OA -- plus the
> > repository's eprint-request Button to tide over user access needs with
> > one click from the requestor and one click from the author
> > ("Almost-OA") for those deposits to which access has been set as
> > Closed Access, to comply with a publisher OA embargo.
> >
> > Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Gold OA
> > Publishing 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
> > ("Fools-Gold"); 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
> > immediate-deposit (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately
> > upon acceptance for publication). (U of C should add such an
> > immediate-deposit clause -- with no opt-out -- to its new Green OA
> > mandate.)
> >
> > This will provide immediate Green OA for all unembargoed deposits +
> > immediate Almost-OA for all embargoed deposits.
> >
> > Then, 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 managing 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 (for affordable, sustainable
> > post-Green Fair-Gold OA).
> >
> > 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
> > peer-review quality standards.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Friend, Fred" <f.friend at ucl.ac.uk>
> > Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:24:50 +0000
> >
> > Experience suggests that the value added to a peer-reviewed manuscript
> > by a copy-editor varies considerably. If the peer-reviewers have done
> > their job, any false facts or illogicality in the research arguments
> > should have been picked up. Precision of language and grammar are
> > important but an author may have as good a grasp of language and
> > grammar as a copy-editor. I am not suggesting that copy-editors do not
> > play any role in the quality of the published article, but quality
> > lies to a greater extent in the quality of the research reported in
> > the article than it does in copy-editing. The question we have to face
> > is whether the variable value added by a publisher through
> > copy-editing or any other service is worth the substantial sum a
> > publisher charges for such services. How much is using the services of
> > a publisher worth?
> >
> > Fred Friend
> > Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130816/25cd499a/attachment.html