[GOAL] Re: Hybrid Open Access

[Peter Murray-Rust]

I have written several articles round about this date. click forward or
back...

http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2013/07/31/elsevier-charge-for-re-use-of-author-paid-open-access-article-in-teaching/


On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Laura Quilter <lquilter at lquilter.net>wrote:

> Can you clarify regarding instances of CCC RightsLink demanding payments
> for OA reuse?  I'd really like to know details.
>
> ----------------------------------
> Laura Markstein Quilter / lquilter at lquilter.net
>
> *Attorney, Geek, Militant Librarian, Teacher*
> Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
> University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> lquilter at library.umass.edu
>
> Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
> laura.quilter at simmons.edu
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>> Moving the discussion to a new title...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but
>>> which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model:
>>>
>>> 1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC.
>>>  It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for
>>> born-OA journals.  But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue
>>> from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then
>>> it is just a bonus.  Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate
>>> for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get
>>> published in that journal for free?  And if you really want OA then best go
>>> to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality.
>>>
>>> 2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription
>>> prices.  Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is
>>> almost impossible to verify and  from a subscriber's point of view very
>>> difficult to police.  I don't know of any institution, for example, in a
>>> multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are several other concerns about "hybrid":
>>
>> * the unacceptable labelling and licensing of many TA publishers. Many
>> hybrid papers are not identified as OA of any sort, others are labelled
>> with confusing words "Free content". Many do not have licences, some have
>> incompatible rights.
>> * many are linked to RightsLink which demand payment (often huge) for
>> Open Access reuse
>> * many deliberately use Non-BOAI compliant licences. One editor mailed me
>> today and said the the publisher was urging them to use NC-ND as it
>> protected authors from exploitation.
>> * they are not easily discoverable. I mailed the Director of Universal
>> Access at Elsevier asking for a complete list of OA articles and she
>> couldn't give it to me. I had to use some complex database query - I have
>> no idea how reliable that was.
>>
>> Leaving aside the costing of hybrid, if someone has paid for Open Access
>> then it should be:
>>
>> * clearly licensed on splash page, HTML, and PDFs.
>> * the XML should be available
>> * there should be a complete list of all OA articles from that publisher.
>>
>> Currently I am indexing and extracting facts from PLoSONE and BMC on a
>> daily basis. Each of these does exactly what I need:
>> * lists all new articles every day
>> * has a complete list of all articles ever published
>> * collaborates with scientists like me to make it easy to iterate over
>> all the content.
>>
>> It is easy to get the impression that TA publishers don't care about
>> these issues. BMC and PLoS (and the OASPAs) do it properly - an honest
>> product.
>>
>> Any publisher who wishes to be respected for their OA offerings has to do
>> the minimum of what I list here:
>> * CC-BY
>> * list of all articles
>> * easy machine iteration and retrieval.
>>
>> Anything else is holding back progress
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>


-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131217/761ec0eb/attachment.html