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

Fri Oct 24 21:03:21 BST 2014

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Dana Roth <dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
wrote:

>  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.
>

You're right about that, I think:  http://j.mp/noscoap

  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.
>

This might have some truth in HEP but it is by no means the explanation of
the serials crisis in general (nor in physics nor even in HEP).

>  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."
>
So many HEP people have been saying that for years now, but no data on how
true it is. My guess is that it's still very rare (for good reason):

Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review
<http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html>.
*Nature* [online]
(5 Nov. 1998), *Exploit Interactive*
<http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/> 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B.
(2004) (ed.) *Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry*. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp.
235-242. http://cogprints.org/1646/

For example, 14 of the 18 papers, in arXiv authored by Edward Witten dated
> 2010 thru 2013, have not appeared as journal articles … according to
> *Inspire*: https://inspirehep.net/?ln=en
>
Ed Witten is definitely not a representative case. A peerless genius, and
known to be such: if the field were all Ed Wittens it might be true that
peer review was unnecessary...

>  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)."
>
The accepted, peer-reviewed postprint is posted in Arxiv (unless there has
been no change in the unrefereed preprint). There is indeed no need for the
publisher's version of record, except for the canonical citation. But that
does not mean the peer review was not needed.

> 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."
>

The URL is for the access version. The citation is for the record.

[Once the final peer-reviewed, accepted version is being self-archived in
every author's institutional repository (because it has been mandated by
their institutions and funders) there will no longer be any need for the
publisher's version: the self-archived version will become the version of
record. However, the tag indicating which journal's peer-review standards
were met, when, will continue to be the journal reference.]

Stevan Harnad

>  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
> 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> 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
>
> e-mail 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*
> <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-8799>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Fra:* 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
> *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 J“
>
>
>
> Dr Danny Kingsley
>
> Visting Fellow
>
> Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (CPAS)
>
> p: +61 413 101 197
>
> w: http://cpas.anu.edu.au/about-us/people/danny-kingsley
>
> t: @openaccess_oz
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141024/8d8dcb65/attachment-0001.html 