[GOAL] Fair Golf vs. Fools Gold

Stevan Harnad amsciforum at gmail.com
Thu May 14 18:49:24 BST 2015


Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should be
because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not
think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally
mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is Fools Gold
<http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa>.


Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not,  at
least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive
fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a
supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA
publishers.


The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA —
both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and
fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:


Peers review for free. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been
mentioned “*for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles
per year”*:


*(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”*: Obsolete after universal Green OA.


The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories
hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by
the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository
version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access
to the unrefereed draft.


*(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per
article”*: This is a genuine function and expense:


The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the
author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be
adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds
right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles
take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will
need to be a no-fault submission fee
<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html> so that accepted
authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher
quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)


*“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide
over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”*: Copy-editing is either
obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing
paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with
form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor
may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per
accepted article.


But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and
pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a
small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green,
whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere
else, over and above subscription expenses.


That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its
costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.


To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary,
whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have
made subscriptions unsustainable.


And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other
than mandating Green…


Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access
<http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>.
*LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 *
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk <Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at>
wrote:

> That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian
> Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see:
> http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462
>
> best falk
> ________________________________________________
> Falk Reckling, PhD
> Strategic Analysis
> Department Head
> Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
> Sensengasse 1
> A-1090 Vienna
> Tel: +43-1-5056740-8861
> Mobile: +43-664-5307368
> Email: falk.reckling at fwf.ac.at
>
> Web: https://www.fwf.ac.at/en
> Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess
> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: goal-bounces at eprints.org [goal-bounces at eprints.org]&quot; im Auftrag
> von &quot;Heather Morrison [Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43
> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Betreff: [GOAL]  $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can
> generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing
>
> Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led
> journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per
> article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small
> open access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20
> peer-reviewed articles per year, this amount could fund top-of-the-line
> journal hosting, free up the time of a senior academic to devote just a
> little less than one full day per article, hire a part-time senior support
> staff at a nice hourly rate to provide over 2 days' support per
> peer-reviewed article, with an annual budget of $2,500 for extra costs.
>
> Calculations here:
>
> http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/
>
> best,
>
> --
> Dr. Heather Morrison
> Assistant Professor
> École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
> University of Ottawa
> http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
> Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/
> Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150514/190c6615/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the GOAL mailing list