[GOAL] Re: Fool's Gold vs. Fair Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>wrote:


> *SH:* But with post-Green Fair Gold, the production and distribution and
>> their costs are gone
>> -- offloaded onto the global network of Green OA IRs. And the peer review
>> costs are paid
>> for as a service (most sensibly, a no-fault service for the review,
>> regardless of outcome).
>>
>
> *GT:* There would of course be no implications to the quality of
> production, discoverability or usability of the research. It's as if you
> are saying simply making a PDF is good enough, when PDFs are not all
> created equal, and aren't always as portable as they should be.
>

Nothing of the sort. The only function of post-Green Fair-Gold OA is peer
review: no type-setting, no print edition, no online edition, no PDFs, no
access-provision, no archiving. -- All of that will be offloaded onto the
global network of Green OA repositories.

*GT:* Maintaining a track record will inevitably involve higher (per-paper)
> costs than having a low standard - even if you were only paying for
> peer-review, on a per round basis.
>

So what? $300 instead of $200? Worth it, if the peer review and
track-record are higher quality.


> *GT:*
> https://scholasticahq.com/innovations-in-scholarly-publishing/announcement/one-of-the-biggest-bottlenecks-in-open-access-publishing-is-typesetting-it-shouldn-t-be
>

No type-setting.


> *SH:* Pre-Green Fool's Gold, with all that other stuff bundled in, can
>> cost from $1000-$5000+
>> per accepted articles.
>>
>
>> My guess is that post-Green Fair Gold should cost around $200 per round
>> of no-fault
>> refereeing (because the costs of rejected or multiply revised and
>> re-refereed papers
>>  will not have to be borne by the accepted papers only).
>>
>
> *GT:* Based on what? Is that the cost, or the price? What margins are you
> allowing for? How many rounds are there going to be (on average)?
>

Based on 25 years as editor-in-chief of a rigorously peer-reviewed journal.

Number of rounds depends on quality of paper.


> *GT: *And you've still not factored in the costs of running the IRs, of
> them being able to provide for all the accesses on top of what they do
> right now, or any provision for quality control, typesetting, etc. that
> somebody really ought to be doing if you want this to be useful.
>

What costs (per paper)? And what costs for "providing access"? We're
talking about a server, disk-space and clicks.

And the quality control was the peer review (remember)?

And no type-setting (remember)?


> *GT:* And that's without any provision for being able to innovate in the
> delivery services provided - making things accessible from mobile devices,
> or possibly even in just making them accessible at all (nobody wants to
> fall foul of disability discrimination laws).
>

And sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry.

Let's cross those bridges when we get to them. This is just about providing
Green OA by depositing the refereed draft in the institutional repository
immediately upon acceptance for publication...


> *SH: *If it's hybrid Fool's Gold, then their payments may even be
> double-dipped.
>
> The only evidence I've seen - e.g. Wellcome Trust's presentation -
> indicates the contrary.
>

Say what...?


> *GT:* And besides - if you are paying an APC for an article to be made
> open access, then you have entered into a contract with the publisher
> whereby they have to make it available openly, in accordance with the terms
> in that contract. They are only double-dipping if they are making it closed
> access and charging for it - in which case they are in breach of contract.
>

No, that's not what double-dipping means.

Double-dipping by a hybrid-Gold OA journal (i.e., a journal that charges
institutions for subscription access and also makes those individual
articles OA, free for all, for which the author pays an extra hybrid Gold
OA fee).

Subscription revenue + Gold OA revenue = double-dipping: Charging twice for
the publication of the same article.

*GT:* What do you normally do when vendors are in breach of contract?
>

I have no idea what you are thinking about here, Graham. Hybrid Gold
vendors are not in breach of contract unless they promise not to
double-dip, and then do it anyway.

Not double-dipping would mean lowering subscription prices (for all
institutions) by their fraction of the revenue from any Gold OA fee.

In this sort of Fool's Gold (double-paid but not double-dipped) the victim
is the foolish payer for the Fool's Gold -- a  payment from which all
subscribing institutions get a rebate, the foolish payer's institution
receiving exactly the same rebate as every other institution...

*SH:* The much lower cost of post-Green Fair Gold (for peer review) will be
>> single-paid
>
> out of a fraction of the institutional windfall subscription cancellation
>> savings.
>>  And it will all be fair, affordable, scaleable and sustainable.
>>
>
> *GT:* When you really look at the total of what will need to be provided
> - even if you aren't paying a publisher for all of those services - then I
> don't believe the true costs will be "a fraction" (not globally anyway -
> there may be some small institutions that could benefit).
>

Well, our beliefs differ. So let's just let Green OA and Green OA mandates
proceed apace, and when we get to 100% Green OA, we'll find out who was
right...


> *GT:* But lets see how we get to those subscription cancellations. In
> order to do that, we have to look at publisher incentives. As you submitted
> to the BIS report:
>
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/99we07.htm
>
> "The UK’s new policy of funding Gold OA pre-emptively ... encouraging
> publishers to adopt or lengthen Green OA embargoes in order to makes sure
> UK authors must choose the paid Gold option."
>

Yes, that's why I strongly oppose Finch/RCUK. And your point is...?

Meanwhile, the immediate-deposit mandate (plus the facilitated
eprint-request-Button) moot publisher Green OA embargoes.

Or, as stated here:
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html
>
> "You would offer to “allow” your authors to pay you for hybrid Gold OA
> ... you would ratchet up the Green OA embargo length ... to make sure your
> authors pay you for hybrid Gold rather than picking the cost-free option"
>

There's no medicine for suckers who fall for Fool's Gold -- but there
aren't many suckers falling for Fool's Gold (unless foolishly subsidized
for it by the Wellcome Trust, or, unconsulted, the UK tax-payer, via David
Willetts) -- so let's just let Green OA and Green OA mandates proceed
apace, with the help of the immediate-deposit clause that moots publisher
embargoes...

or even
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html
>
> "publishers like Emerald are also trying to hedge their bets and clinch
> the deal by adopting or extending Green OA embargoes to try to force
> authors to pick and pay for the hybrid Gold option instead of picking
> cost-free Green"
>

Yup. But only the suckers will fall for it...


> *GT:* Well, let's examine the RCUK policy. The decision tree is here:
>
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/9907.htm#a7
>
> Let's assume we're dealing with publicly funded research, and the
> publishers in question (Springer, Emerald) already offered a Gold option on
> their journals - so that's the first two questions taken care of.
>
> That leaves us with the last one: "Are APC funds available from research
> funder?", with two options - either pay for Gold, or archive for free with
> [up to] 12-24 month embargo.
>
> If, as contended, publishers were introducing / lengthening embargoes to
> force authors to pick Gold, then the embargoes would have to make a
> material difference to the choice made at this point.
>
> Both Springer and Emerald embargoes are in line with the RCUK allowable
> limits for publicly funded research [published in hybrid journals]. So
> their adoption has no material effect on the choice made to go Green or
> Gold.
>

That's because Springer (which, like Elsevier, has endorsed immediate,
unembargoed Green for a decade) still endorses immediate unembargoed Green
(as does Elsevier). The rest is just some new options plus some incoherent
double-talk: Springer and Elsevier authors can still provide immediate,
unembargoed Green, with Springer's and Elsevier's blessing.

If Springer or Elsevier had indeed adopted an embargo as a consequence of
Finch Folly, then that would have been an example of the perverse effects I
described.

Emerald did, and hence it is an example of the perverse effects I described.

An OA embargo is an OA embargo. And where there is one where there formerly
wasn't, as a result of Finch/RCUK, that's the perverse effect (camouflaged
under the publisher's magnanimously "complying with the Finch/RCUK policy").

Have I missed your point? Or wasn't there one?

*GT:* Clearly, they can't have been introduced to force authors into
> choosing Gold.
>

They can't? Why not?


> *GT*: So if not that, what? The obvious reason is not to force authors
> into choosing Gold, but in anticipation of a large number of articles now
> being made publicly available via Green.
>

The embargo is to forestall Green. The hybrid Gold offer is to cash in on
the UK's fatuous subsidy for Fool's Gold. The RCUK "flow chart" said:
prefer Gold over Green. What more evidence or incentives do you want?

*GT:* (Conversely, if a publisher really wanted authors to go Gold, then
> they have much easier and more effective means than embargoing Green.
> Namely, default routing via author-pays [aka Wellcome workflow], or simply
> converting to just being a Gold only journal).
>

I didn't say publishers want to offer (pure) Gold: Most are still leery
about that. They want authors to go for hybrid Gold instead of Green. They
thereby not only double-dip but hedge their bets.

*GT:* It's no surprise that a commercial publisher will seek to ensure that
> they have revenue to pay for their costs. Embargoes / deposit restrictions
> will likely be used to limit the risk of Green mandates, and if the
> mandates are considered too risky, they are under no obligation to provide
> a compatible deposit policy.
>

Yes. But all of that is mooted by the immediate-deposit mandate
(irrespective of embargoes).


> *GT:* So the likelihood of getting to a point of cancellation before
> journals have converted to being entirely Gold is very low indeed. And even
> if it did - if we got to a point where there was a sudden mass-cancellation
> of journal subscriptions, would publishers [be forced to] downsize?
>

Let's just let Green OA and Green OA (immediate-deposit) mandates proceed
apace, and when we get to 100% Green OA, we'll find out whether and when
institutions cancel and publishers downsize...


> *GT: *No. They'll just convert their existing publications to APCs, with
> the all (/most) of the services retained. Because authors will continue to
> use them.
>

Cancellation of subscriptions is not done by authors, but by institutions.

And hybrid Gold APC's are paid only by authors (except when foolishly
subsidized by the Wellcome Trust, or the UK tax-payer).

But meanwhile let's just let Green OA and Green OA mandates proceed apace,
worldwide, and when we get to 100% Green OA, we'll see what happens next...

*GT:* The only incentive for publishers to downsize the services they
> provide is if they can increase their profits by doing so.
>

Or their subscriptions have become unsustainable because of global Green
OA...

And the titles of journals not willing to downsize to Fair Gold at that
point will simply migrate to Fair Gold publishers that are...

*SH:* I can keep on repeating this as often it takes, until people begin to
>> understand
>> why it is premature and profligate to pay pre-emptively for pre-Green
>> Gold. --
>> I've done it with other things before (such as the need for Green
>> OA, Green OA
>> mandates, Immediate Deposit, the Button, and the link to research
>> evaluation)...
>>
>
> *GT:* You can repeat it as often as you like, but it won't change the
> fact that
>
> a) you can only mandate authors, not publishers
>

Green OA mandates only mandate authors


> b) authors can't afford to not publish
>

They don't need to afford anything: publication costs (and a lot more
that's unnecessary) are paid by institutional subscriptions. Authors can
publish wherever they like.


> c) businesses need to make a profit
>

Yes, and your point is...?


> *GT:* With that in mind, the best that you can hope for by mandating
> Green is a swift transition to Gold when it occurs. At the worst, Green
> mandates without guarantees from publishers could either be unfulfilled, or
> end up very costly for institutions, researchers and/or research.
>

I have no idea what you are saying or imagining here.

Green OA mandates generate Green OA.

100% Green OA may or may not make subscriptions unsustainable. (I believe
they well, but this is not about my beliefs or yours, it's about letting
Green OA and Green OA mandates proceed apace...)

If universal Green makes subscriptions unsustainable, publishers will have
to cut costs, downsize and convert to Fair Gold, or go out of business --
and then their titles will simply migrate to Fair-Gold publishers.

Institutions will be out of the subscriptions loop, and (a fraction of)
their annual windfall post-Green subscription cancellation savings on
incoming journals will be used to pay the affordable, sustainable Fair-Gold
APCs of no-fault peer-review for their institution's own outgoing articles.

>
> *GT:* Either way, as embargoes are more likely to be introduced /
> extended with more Green mandates, you are only delaying the one thing that
> you claim is more important to you than anything else - immediate,
> unembargoed open access.
>

I have difficulty seeing how on earth you ever came to that conclusion from
anything that I (or you) have said here, but beliefs are beliefs. I prefer
to go by evidence, logic, and above all, pragmatics.

Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131007/5db78d17/attachment-0001.html