[GOAL] Re-affirmation of Abstemiousness...

[Stevan Harnad]

Now that Graham's GOAL postings have become so relentless (and endless) I
don't think I am violating my vow to Richard that I will no longer respond
until Graham posts something new that has not already been many times
refuted if I point out that the best remedy (for Graham as well as his
readers) is to read the sources and the evidence (much, much) more
carefully.

Stevan

On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 20 December 2013 13:51, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>
>>
> To quote:
>
> "*5. Conclusions.* In sum, the problem is not only that a Rowsean "flip"
> is profligate and premature at today's asking prices in fields where
> universal Green OA self-archiving has not yet downsized publishing and its
> costs to their post-OA essentials."
>
> SCOAP3. High Energy Physics. Isn't this the one field that you keep
> telling us has 1005 Green OA, via arXiv? Which you also say is why 100%
> Green OA is achievable and sustainable, because it hasn't led to journal
> subscriptions?
>
> But wait! We can't "flip" to a cheaper Gold OA that will also deliver
> immediate access and re-use rights to the final published material, because
> it hasn't downsized publishing to "post-OA essentials" - as Green OA
> inevitably will. Despite 20 years of arXiv failing to downsize publishing,
> and having reached 100% there is nowhere left for it to go. So in another
> 20 years we would still be looking at the subscription based status quo -
> unless some additional action is taken to change that.
>
>
>> 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>
>>
>>
> "But the publisher who embargoes Green and then pockets the extra revenue
> derived from hybrid Gold, over and above subscriptions, without even
> reducing subscription charges proportionately, is indeed charging twice for
> publication, i.e., double-dipping (and offering absolutely nothing in
> return except *freedom from the publisher's own Green OA embargo*)."
>
> Oh, but they do reduce subscription prices, based on Gold OA option uptake:
>
> http://www.nature.com/press_releases/emboopen.html
> http://static.springer.com/sgw/documents/1345327/application/pdf/Springer
> +Open+Choice_Journal+Price+Adjustments+2013.pdf
>
> And it offers more than "freedom from the publisher's own Green OA
> embargo". It allows:
>
> 1) Authors to retain full copyright
> 2) [Generally] immediate publication of provisional material upon
> acceptance
> 3) [Generally] freely available machine-readable markup (e.g. XML)
> 4) [Generally] a CC-BY licence for all content consumers
>
> - the use of which can drive economic growth and improve efficiency of
> public spending. According to:
> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/value-and-benefits-of-text-mining
>
> one estimate puts such use of material in the US Health Care sector alone
> as delivering $300bn in value per annum. If you believe those numbers, then
> that would represent twice the the entire 2011 R&D budget for the US (and
> more than half of that was in the defence sector). Again, if that was the
> case, then it could easily not only justify ring-fencing the R&D budget,
> but possibly increasing it - potentially by more than the 1% of the budget
> that it would take to make everything Gold OA.
>
> But lets not do that. Lets not lower the cost of publishing [maybe only by
> a relatively modest amount, but still],. Lets not have authors retain their
> copyright. Lets not have freely available marked up content, which can then
> drive economic growth. Lets not have economic growth be the reason for
> increasing R&D spending, allowing more, better research to be conducted.
> Lets not do any of that, because the absolute worst thing that anyone can
> ever do is make a profit.
>
> But while we're at it, it's probably a good idea to get rid of all of
> those other for-profit companies that supply resources that are used in
> conducting and reporting on research. After all, aren't Apple supposed to
> be making about 25-30% per laptop?
>
> 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/20131221/5813ae7e/attachment.html