[GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List

[Graham Triggs]

On 16 December 2013 20:28, Jean-Claude Guédon <
jean.claude.guedon at umontreal.ca> wrote:

>  Who introduced "hybrid journals"? "who introduced "delayed open access"
> - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's "universal
> access"? etc. etc.
>

Admittedly, "universal access" is somewhat confusing.

As for "delayed open access", then publishers themselves likely did not
introduce it. Searching, I could not find any instances of publishers using
the term. Although, there was an article 10 years ago by a publisher's
association that mentioned it.

It shouldn't be surprising that publishers may be very careful about how
they cite terms like Open Access, because - unlike scholars debating the
issue - they could actually be charged with false advertising if they
misled people through incorrect use of the terms.

And yes, if you take the whole definition of "Open Access", which includes
"immediate", then "delayed open access" is an oxymoron, But the so can
"green open access" (and certainly "gratis open access"), when by and large
this does not provide a liberal licence as also defined by BOAI.

Actually, you can find journals (such as RNA), who provide their delayed
access content under a Creative Commons licence. Some would argue that is
closer to "Open Access" than simply providing eyes-only access to content.

> Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging
> with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there
> are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could
> stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee
> that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse.
>
>
> Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison
> between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many
> countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my
> anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce
> its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly
> in itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce
> pricing?
>

Correct, there is little competitive pressure to force publisher's to
reduce the prices they charge.

But for point 2, I never said that they reduce costs to consumers - e.g.
the price. I said they reduce costs. *Their* costs. Aside from any
competitive pressure [that currently doesn't exist] on prices, profit will
always provide an incentive to commercial publishers to drive the
underlying costs down.

If you remove commercial interests from publishing, then there is little
incentive to chase market share, and little incentive to reduce the
underlying costs. And if provision of non-commercial publishing is [too]
fragmented, then it won't benefit from economies of scale either.

Like for like, service for service, the underlying costs for
non-competitive, non-commercial publishing, will likely be higher than the
underlying costs for commercial publishers. And there is no guarantee that
they will be lower than the prices that commercial publishers charge [or
would charge under an open access / APC business model].


>  Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it
> alone? No.
>
>
> It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way.
>

This is speculation. Which may be right. In fact, it may well be right if
you are comparing it to the current subscription market. But it's not
guaranteed, and it's less likely to be true compared to APC-paid Open
Access publishing.

There are good reasons to believe that a truly competitive commercial
market - involving for-profit publishers - would be cheaper than removing
the commercial publishers.

 If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders
> and researchers to work with the publishing industry.
>
>
> I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as
> Scielo or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need
> yet another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets.
>

According to this:
http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/18/how-much-does-it-cost-to-publish-in-open-access/#.Uq-RWvRdV8E,
publishing in SciELO journals ranges from US $660 in one subsidized
journal, to US $900 for foreign authors in another journal.

US $900 puts it in a similar ballpark to the lower prices of the commercial
publishers. It's even more or less the same price that PLoS One "should"
be, once you adjust for their 23% "surplus". And this is whilst the the
market [for Open Access publishing] is still small and not truly
competitive.

At that level, there is every reason to believe that commercial publishing
could, at the low end, compete and better SciELO publishing for price, even
whilst making a profit

But then all funders need do is support publicly supported and commercial
efforts on an equal basis - i.e. funding the APC to publish in either - and
foster an environment that lets the market decide what the right services
and right prices are.

G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131217/37ab1694/attachment-0001.html