[GOAL] Re: Any examples of journals charging non refundable fee for peer review?

Fri Oct 24 19:51:56 BST 2014

Speaking of ‘Gold’ Open Access:

I have long wondered why libraries should contribute to the publication costs that arise from SCOAP3’s GOLD open access … especially since high energy physicists have a very long history of freely providing access to their work, historically through paper preprints and currently though the online arXiv preprint server.

The subsequent, and seemingly redundant, publication of ‘Gold Open Access’ articles then becomes, what appears to be, an expensive affectation … especially since arXiv is THE working platform for high energy physics research.

The concept of SCOAP3 seems especially ironic in that libraries have paid, over the years, a small fortune to commercial journal publishers … largely because of some HEP authors’ desire to avoid the very reasonable page charges formerly requested by society-published journals.

Some additional thoughts ... from  colleagues that are familiar with the HEP community:

1.  "The arXiv eprint is considered as the primary means of scientific communication. Some senior scientists don't even seem to publish their papers in journals anymore, they just leave them as arXiv eprints."

For example, 14 of the 18 papers, in arXiv authored by Edward Whitten dated 2010 thru 2013, have not appeared as journal articles … according to Inspire:

https://inspirehep.net/?ln=en

2.  “Sometimes publishers replace citations to eprints with citations to the published version of the paper, for completeness, but scientists see them as interchangeable. Often-times

the final version posted to arXiv is the published version (at least as far as content goes)."

3.  "I've seen enough Physics and Astrophysics seminars to know that faculty provide links in their powerpoints to arXiv URLs and not to the peer reviewed journal article."

Dana L. Roth
Caltech Library  1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 6:35 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Any examples of journals charging non refundable fee for peer review?

Before Mandatory Green Open Access becomes universal, all Gold OA fees are overpriced, double-paid, unsustainable Fool's Gold<http://j.mp/foolsgoldOA> fees, whether they are for publication of for refereeing.

After Mandatory Green Open Access becomes universal, everything changes, and No-Fault refereeing fees become Fair-Gold, affordable and sustainable:

Harnad, Stevan (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>. D-Lib Magazine, 16, (7/8)
Abstract Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature. Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for publication) ("Green OA"). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality standards.

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Frantsvåg Jan Erik <jan.e.frantsvag at uit.no<mailto:jan.e.frantsvag at uit.no>> wrote:
I assume what you are referring to, is what is often called submission fees.

This is treated in this report
http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Files/Filer/downloads/Open%20Access/KE_Submission_fees_Short_Report_2010-11-25.pdf

Both OA and TA journals use this, some OA journals are listed in a table in the report.

Best,
Jan Erik

Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Open Access adviser
The University Library
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
phone +47 77 64 49 50<tel:%2B47%2077%2064%2049%2050>
e-mail jan.e.frantsvag at uit.no<mailto:jan.e.frantsvag at uit.no>
http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618&p_dimension_id=88187
Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-8799
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-8799

Fra: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>] På vegne av Danny Kingsley
Sendt: 24. oktober 2014 02:08
Til: goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>
Emne: [GOAL] Any examples of journals charging non refundable fee for peer review?

Hi all,

I am passing on a question from a library in Australia:

"I have recently become aware that some publishers and journals are charging authors a non-refundable fee to have their articles peer reviewed that is separate from the article processing charge.  I hadn’t heard about this until one of our librarians mentioned it in passing.

I was wondering if anyone else had come across this (or whether I’ve just had my head in the sand and not noticed!), and if so, whether it is common.  Any examples would be great ☺“

Dr Danny Kingsley
Visting Fellow
Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (CPAS)
p: +61 413 101 197<tel:%2B61%20413%20101%20197>
w: http://cpas.anu.edu.au/about-us/people/danny-kingsley
t: @openaccess_oz

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto: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/20141024/1323feb4/attachment-0001.html 