[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher Embargo?

[Sandy Thatcher]

Stevan is absolutely right on this point, and it 
behooves publishers who operate hybrid journals 
to make their finances transparent. Otherwise, 
there will always remain the suspicion that the 
publishers are double-dipping.

Sandy Thatcher


At 7:40 AM -0400 10/25/13, Stevan Harnad wrote:
><http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/#comment-1094488522>Bob 
>Campbell wrote on the Wiley blog:
>
>"<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1061-.html>Stevan 
>accuses me of much conflation yet he himself 
>conflates APCs and subscriptions when commenting 
>on double-dipping. APCs are not paying for the 
>'same articles' paid for by subscriptions. 
>Publishers have always charged separately for 
>different services/products. For example, a 
>medical journal may charge a pharmaceutical 
>company for reprints, advertising space and 
>subscriptions. These are priced separately and 
>charged separately, and accounted for separately 
>in the publisher's financial management of the 
>title. The pharmaceutical company does not 
>demand that the cost of buying advertising space 
>is offset against any library subscriptions."
>
>Bob Campbell defends double-dipping by citing 
>journal charges for the purchase of reprints, 
>advertising and subscriptions. That's all fine.
>
>But what we are discussing here is the cost of 
>publication, not of extra products or services.
>
>Worldwide institutional subscriptions pay the 
>cost of publication (in full, and fulsomely). It 
>is not at all clear what extra product or 
>service is being paid for when an author pays 
>for hybrid Gold OA (for the paper he has given 
>the publisher, for free, to sell).
>
>Of course it's an extra source of revenue to the 
>hybrid Gold publisher to force the author to pay 
>that extra money (for whatever it is that they 
>are paying for). And let there be no doubt that 
>the payment is indeed forced (if the hybrid Gold 
>publisher embargoes Green). Is the extra 
>"service," then, exemption from the 
>publisher-imposed Green OA embargo?
>
>(Note: If the publisher is among the 
><http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php>60% 
>who endorse immediate Green OA, then none of my 
>objections matter in the least, and I couldn't 
>care less if the publisher earns some extra 
>revenue from those authors who are silly enough 
>to pay for hybrid Gold OA when they could have 
>had the same, cost-free, by just providing Green 
>OA.)
>
>For 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).
>
>Subscriptions pay the cost of publication. Print 
>reprints are an extra product. And adverts are 
>an extra service. But hybrid Gold OA is merely 
>fool's gold, if paid unforced. -- And if forced 
>by a publish embargo, there is a word to 
>describe the practice, but I will not use it, as 
>a publisher has already once threatened to sue 
>me for libel if I doŠ So let's just call it 
>double-dipping, with no extra product or 
>service...
>
>
>Stevan Harnad


-- 
Sanford G. Thatcher
8201 Edgewater Drive
Frisco, TX  75034-5514
e-mail: sgt3 at psu.edu
Phone: (214) 705-1939
Website: http://www.psupress.org/news/SandyThatchersWritings.html
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sanford.thatcher

"If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865)

"The reason why so few good books are written is 
that so few people who can write know 
anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131025/b248bc9f/attachment.html