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

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Graham Triggs <grahamtriggs at gmail.com>wrote:


> *GT:* [Major] Publishers are not in the habit of incurring costs
> unnecessarily. If there was no desire for type-setting, print edition,
> online edition, PDFs - then they would cut the costs of providing them, and
> make even larger profits.
>

On what?


> *GT: *And so if (and it would be a very big if) publishers were not
> providing the full range of services, then the global network of
> repositories would *have* to do a lot more than they currently do. That's
> going to work out a lot more expensive than you are bargaining for -
> especially when you fail to cost or even acknowledge it at all.
>

(1) Institutional Repository (IR) costs are small and already invested,
worldwide, and for a variety of IR uses (besides OA).

(2) There's plenty of empty, unused space in those IR's for their
institution's refereed research output (once institutions and funders get
round to implementing effective Green OA mandates instead of worrying about
publisher Green OA embargoes).

(3) Instead of conjecturing about how it would all be "a lot more
expensive," why don't you ask the managers of the (few) institutions with
effective Green OA mandates about how much it really costs, per paper
deposited. (Start with Paul Thirion at Liège, which is already capturing
over 80% of its annual refereed research output.)

(4) Ask the IR manager's especially about their costs for "type-setting,
print edition, online edition, PDFs"...

And -- before you reply that publishers are providing all of those
essential extras today, please re-read from the top of this message and
remember that the challenge is this: *Let publishers stop trying to embargo
Green, and once Green OA reaches 100% globally, let the market decide
whether subscribing institutions want to keep paying subscriptions
for "type-setting, print edition, online edition, PDFs" -- or their users
turn out to be happy with just the Green OA IR edition...*

*GT:* The subscription revenue would only be a second charge for the
> publication of the OA article, if the article was not actually made
> available OA. If the article is OA, then you still have access to it,
> regardless of whether you subscribe or not.
>

You seem to be very confused about the meaning of Hybrid Gold OA and
double-dipping. I won't try to explain again.


> *GT:* [Springer, Elsevier and] "incoherent double-talk in what you call
> your repository [and] your own volition..."


Well, we agree there's incoherent double-talk [j.mp/DublTalk] -- but not on
who's doing it...

*Stevan Harnad*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131009/f884368d/attachment-0001.html