[GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or offer an acceptable Hybrid Model

[Stevan Harnad]

SCOAP3 and the pre-emptive "flip" model for Gold OA
conversion<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/421-SCOAP3-and-the-pre-emptive-flip-model-for-Gold-OA-conversion.html>

Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher
Embargo?<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1066-Fools-Gold-Publisher-Ransom-for-Freedom-from-Publisher-Embargo.html>

<http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/>


On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Donat Agosti <agosti at amnh.org> wrote:

>  Dear Wouter
>
>
>
> Though you refer to Wall Street Journal that infers journalistic scrutiny,
> it is in fact just a press release of Elsevier and thus, isn’t this
> following  all the discussion on GOAL only part of the reality?  It might
> be interesting to the readers to link this press release to the publication
> of Elsevier’s business <http://t.co/l3AHKTNU1Z> figures.
>
>
>
> You could similarly add another press release<http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php>that announces yet another deal regarding open access in a much more
> sophisticated way, providing through the domain specific semantic markup an
> even greater service to the society, and at a much lower rate. Similarly to
> SOAP3, it is free because the publisher and libraries got together to make
> if free. The publisher and editor is the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin who
> delegated the publishing to Pensoft . Why not compare these two business
> models, where a new publisher enters the field which has not the overhead
> and monopoly of Elsevier and thus can dictate the prize of the deal
> irrespective of the underlying real costs?
>
>
>
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-12/pp-tot121813.php
>
>
>
> In both cases time will tell  - but at simple press release does certainly
> not provide a balanced reply needed at this moment.
>
>
>
> Donat
>
>
>
>
>
> *Von:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *Im
> Auftrag von *Gerritsma, Wouter
> *Gesendet:* Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:21 PM
> *An:* 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
> *Betreff:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or
> offer an acceptable Hybrid Model
>
>
>
> Dear G.
>
>
>
> Elsevier is doing exactly what you ask for
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20131217-903941.html
>
>
>
> At least two of these are financed through SCOAP(3). That might be worth a
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> Wouter
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org<goal-bounces at eprints.org>]
> *On Behalf Of *Graham Triggs
> *Sent:* donderdag 19 december 2013 16:05
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Elsevier, Flip your journals to Gold OA and/or
> offer an acceptable Hybrid Model
>
>
>
> On 18 December 2013 12:47, <christian.gutknecht at ub.unibe.ch> wrote:
>
> 1. Flip your journals to Gold OA. Start with high ranked journals, because
> as you know most researchers still care. Although the true cost of
> publishing remains unclear (http://doi.org/kxz), I think it's safe to say,
> that with an APC between $1500 and $3000 you still can make solid profit.
> Probably not as much as with the subscription model, but still reasonable.
> And if you really have a high ranked journal you can indeed increase the
> price to whatever the demand on researcher side will support.
>
> Others publisher are doing it:
> http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-109721.html
> Why not Elsevier?
>
>
>
> Every single one of those are association / society journals. So this
> wouldn't be a commercial decision by a publisher, but a political one by
> the association / society. After all, you can't really advocate open
> access, if your own journals aren't.
>
>
>
> Simply making a hybrid journal into open access only would not be
> sustainable, unless a significant proportion of the articles are already
> utilising the open access option.
>
>
>
> 2. Offer an acceptable hybrid model. Avoid double dipping on an
> institutional/consortium/national level (not on a global level as you do
> now). We explicitly requested Elsevier to do so in Switzerland. However
>
>  Elsevier refused to come up with a solution that reduces our subscription
> price according the amount of paid hybrid of our authors. Elsevier argued,
> subscription and OA are two independent things and shouldn't be mixed
> financially. This might be true for Elsevier, where local sales manager
> obviously are not aware, what's going on about OA in the own company. But
> it isn't true for any institution which has to care about its budget.
>
>
>
> I realise local budgetary issues are a concern. And if you do not have
> outside funding for research that includes the publication cost of an OA
> option, then making use of an OA option is going to be impossible whilst
> you are paying a subscription.
>
>
>
> But this is not "double dipping". It's just a question of institution /
> national affordability.
>
>
>
> How
> can an institution justify additional hybrid costs in a budget if only a
> tiny share will immediately come back with reduced global list prices.
> This may temporary work in UK, but I¹m quite sure they soon will realize
> that Hybrid without reducing the direct subscription cost is not
> sustainable.
>
>
>
> In theory, Open Access publishing ought to be justifiable in it's own
> right, in terms of doing the right thing and maximizing the benefit of
> funding in research.
>
>
>
> Where the money comes from, how you allocate funds, etc. are a different
> matter, and it may well be that given the funding that you have, an Open
> Access option may only be an illusion of a choice.
>
>
>
> But Hybrid is reducing the direct subscription cost - for Elsevier, it
> appears to be a very minor activity in their hybrid journals, so it is
> having minimal effect. But if you look at Embo Journal, various Springer
> hybrid journals - there are documented cases of the subscription costs not
> just increasing by a lesser amount, but actually reducing in price.
>
>
>
> And yes, other publishers are doing it:
> http://www.rsc.org/publishing/librarians/goldforgold.asp
> Why not Elsevier?
>
>
>
> The publishing arm of a royal society. So, it is a political decision to
> expedite the transition to Open Access.
>
>
>
> And you are right, there is no reason why Elesvier couldn't use the
> subscription income as a limited promotion to drive the adoption of Open
> Access.
>
>
>
> (Note that under this model, as Open Access publishing increases, the
> subscription amount and the subsidy for next year's OA publishing would
> decrease. So the each year's expenditure would be made up of a decreasing
> amount of subscription, and an increasing amount of Open Access APC
> payments).
>
>
>
> There is no reason why they can't offer such a promotion, but there is
> also no reason - for them - why they should. That isn't just an issue about
> revenue / profit either - there will be agreements in place that may make
> this tricky, there is investment and re-organisation that would be needed
> to cope with the transition, and then there are still people questioning
> trust of paying to publish instead of paying to read.
>
>
>
> Whilst we are all very vocal about wanting Open Access, it still doesn't
> quite translate to the entire community just yet.
>
>
>
> G
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131220/afad875a/attachment-0001.html