[GOAL] Re: A creature of its own making?

Tue Dec 29 09:56:13 GMT 2015

I used the term "journal flipping" in a much more generic sense: any journal from any kind of publsiher using a subscription model and flipping to some OA business model.

I will add that, to me, the only worthwhile flipping is one that makes journals free to users and gratis to contributors. As I believe that research publishing is an integral part of the research cycle, and as I know that a) the cost of publishing is very, very, small compared to the cost of research and b) most of fundamental research of the kind published in journals is subsidized by public money, it logically follows that this small extra-cost should also be supported by public money. The only remaining issue is editorial autonomy - an issue best dealt with by networking on an international basis. In this fashion, if some government goes rogue, journals simply "move" elsewhere in the network.

I agree with Richard Poynder that negotiating flipping with commercial, oligarchic, publishers will simply ensure the rise of an unacceptable flavour of Open Access, one that will ensure the rise of the revenue streams of the oligarchs and one that will ensure their control over the research process, e.g. through the control and manipulation of a competitive regime that is not to the benefit of optimal knowledge creation.

On animus:

>From what Richard Poynder writes, I deduce that my animus is not misdirected; it is only incomplete. I could indeed inveigh easily against researchers that collaborate all too easily (with money gratifications in many cases) as editors of journals whose titles they do not control. I could inveigh against administrators so caught up in the "quest for excellence" and rankings that they blindly submit to impact factors and their misuse; etc. etc.

As for young researchers that do not have job security of any kind and who submit papers where the symbolic rewards appear greatest, I would refrain from inveighing against them: they are vulnerable and publishers know this perfectly. They are victims.

I hope my position is clear now.

"Kind regards"

jcg

________________________________________
De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] de la part de Richard Poynder [ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk]
Envoyé : lundi 28 décembre 2015 11:07
À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Objet : [GOAL]  A creature of its own making?

On journal “flipping”:

Jean-Claude Guédon’s comments on journal “flipping” that I referred to were
made in the context of the Max Planck Society’s proposal to flip commercial
subscription journals to OA business models. I can only repeat that in the
long run this will benefit legacy publishers like Elsevier far more than it
will ever benefit the research community.

The same dangers are inherent in the various OA Big Deals that the Dutch
Universities (through VSNU) have been agreeing with publishers like Wiley,
Springer and Elsevier. Since important details of how these deals will work
(and what they will cost) appear to be subject to NDAs it is hard to say
with confidence, but the end game would seem to be much the same: journal
flipping.

On animus:

What Jean-Claude’s criticism of large publishers like Elsevier and Wiley
omits is the role that the research community has played in their rise to
power, a role that it continues to play. In fact, not only has the research
community been complicit in the rise and rise of the publishing oligarchy
that Jean-Claude so deprecates, but one could argue that it created it —
i.e. this oligarchy is a creature of its own making.

After all, it is the research community that funds these publishers, it is
the research community that submits papers to these publishers (and signs
over copyright in the process), and it is the research community that
continues to venerate the brands (essentially a product of the impact
factor) that allow these publishers to earn the high profits that
Jean-Claude decries.

And by now seeking to flip this oligarchy’s journals to OA the research
community appears to be intent on perpetuating its power (and doubtless
profits).

One might therefore want to suggest that Jean-Claude’s animus is
misdirected.

Richard Poynder

-----Original Message-----
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Guédon Jean-Claude
Sent: 27 December 2015 17:43
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: "Let them pay or let them wait"

It all depends on how the flipping is done. Flipping a journal, especially
if the title is not owned by the publisher, can be done in such a way as to
avoid benefiting the (big) publishers. The general rule claimed by Richard
Poynder is inaccurate.  Incidentally, for me, an OA journal should be free
to users, and gratis to authors. Full stop.

As for any animus against Elsevier and the other big, commercial,
international members of the publishing oligarchy, I will readily admit to
it: when I see the extreme budgetary problems of our libraries, the tactics
used to undermine important public  projects such as Scielo, the 30-40%
rates of profit of the oligarchs, the abuse and manipulations of impact
factors, etc., I do not see how one cannot exert some degree of animus...I
have witnessed at close range how Wiley behaved with the library of my
university when the latter resolved to unravel the big deal with that
particular oligarch. This event alone would be good enough a  reason to
express animus toward the oligarchs.

Alicia Wise, indeed, closely adheres to the forms of politeness. Alas form
has never been a good way to guarantee substance. It is not enough to sign
"kind regards" to ensure true kindness.

Kind regards,

Jean-Claude Guédon

________________________________________
De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] de la part de
Richard Poynder [ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk] Envoyé : jeudi 24 décembre 2015
14:45 À : 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)'
Objet : [GOAL] Re: "Let them pay or let them wait"

God forbid that I should find myself defending a for-profit publisher, and
God forbid that I should charge anyone with speaking with a forked tongue,
but I cannot help but think that OA advocates sometimes allow their animus
towards Elsevier (and its employees) to get the better of their good wisdom.

I also cannot help but point out that on a separate mailing Jean-Claude
Guédon has been arguing that "flipping" subscription journals to OA models
is as valid a way of achieving open access as self-archiving. Yet, flipping
subscription journals will in the long run benefit legacy publishers like
Elsevier far more than it will ever benefit the research community.

That aside, I am not aware that Alicia Wise has ever been anything other
than polite to members of this list. It does not show open access in a good
light that every time she posts to the list her comments generate the kind
of response we see below.

Richard Poynder

-----Original Message-----
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Guédon Jean-Claude
Sent: 24 December 2015 17:32
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: "Let them pay or let them wait"

Hear! Hear!

Alicia Wise always speaks with a forked tongue! I wonder how much she is
paid to practise this dubious art.

Self-archiving as described by Stevan is the right way to go.

Happy holidays to all those exploited by Elsevier!

Jean-Claude Guédon

________________________________
De : goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org] de la part de
Stevan Harnad [amsciforum at gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 23 décembre 2015
08:18 À : Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Objet : [GOAL] "Let
them pay or let them wait"

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)
<A.Wise at elsevier.com<mailto:A.Wise at elsevier.com>> wrote:
Hi Thomas -

All our authors, no matter where in the world they are, have both gold and
green Open Access publishing options.

With best wishes for a peaceful and relaxing holiday season,

Alicia
Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane,
Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084,
Registered in England and Wales.

Translation of Alicia’s Xmas message:

"Let them pay (gold fees) or let them wait (green embargoes)."

I add only that they can (if they have any sense at all) completely ignore
all of Elsevier’s absurd, incoherent, and ever-changing
double-talk<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?serendipity%5Baction%5D=
search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=systematic&serendipity%5BsearchButton%5D=
%3E> about green and make their refereed, revised final drafts green OA
immediately upon acceptance for  publication -- by self-archiving them.

With best wishes for a peaceful and relaxing holiday season,

Stevan

On 22 Dec 2015, at 17:39, Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou
<thomasmboa at gmail.com<mailto:thomasmboa at gmail.com>> wrote:
On this post,

http://www.scidev.net/global/publishing/news/elsevier-african-open-access-jo
urnal.html,

Elsevier plans an African Open Journals, using the Gold voice. But for me,
it is not the right way for us (Africa).

I want all GOAL members to join me in an open letter adressed to Elsevier,
with the objective to claim the full green voice for Africa.

Since I am an African searcher, your support will be helpful

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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