[GOAL] Re: "Yawanna know wush wrong with this damn planet...?."

Sun Jan 3 13:27:18 GMT 2016

I have advocated this for a while now (but am not aware of any 
university or library that's taken it up):
Charge authors of your university who insist on publishing in a 
subscription journal either

  * a nominal amount that is based on an estimate of the average
    per-article revenue of subscription journals/publishers (about
    $5000), or
  * the actual subscription amount paid by the university to a
    publisher, divided by the number of articles by authors from the
    university, published in the journals of that publisher.

These charges should be collected from the authors' grants, be put in an 
open access fund, and then be used by the university/library to support 
authors willing to publish in APC-supported open access journals.

(For those who really don't like the 'gold' strategy and favour the 
'green' one above all: you could use the open access fund to defray the 
cost of your open repositories and of all the effort needed to ensure 
that every single paper from your university or institution is properly 
and 'findably' deposited.)

There will no-doubt be practical difficulties with this, but perhaps it 
can be considered as the seed of an approach?

Jan Velterop

On 03/01/2016 12:39, Christian Gutknecht wrote:
> Well, I think Thomas is right. As long libraries do not shift money 
> from the subscription side to the Gold OA side, the transformation 
> will be very very slow.
>
> Take the University of Zurich for example. I’ve just disclosed for the 
> first time ever what they are paying for Elsevier, Springer and Wiley 
> and put that in relation with the institutional publication behavior 
> in this blog post: 
> http://wisspub.net/2016/01/03/zahlungen-der-universitaet-zuerich/
>
> The University of Zurich has a strong mandate since 2008 with probably 
> one of the best staffed OA team (7 persons) in Europe. But regarding 
> publications from 2014, only 23% (242 out of 1062) from all articles 
> published articles within journals from Elsevier, Wiley and Springer 
> Journals are freely accessible via the IR. In 2014 too, the University 
> of Zurich paid 3.4 Mio CHF/USD to Elsevier, Springer and Wiley only 
> for Journal subscriptions.
>
> The situation becomes even more absurd, when you learn that in 2014 
> there were 176 publications authored by the University of Zurich that 
> were published by PLOS (which by the way already is the half of what 
> the University of Zurich publishes with Wiley!). But there is only 
> little institutional funding for APCs explicitly limited to 
> humanities. So all authors who wish publish with PLOS have to throw in 
> additional money by their own research budget, because the library 
> claims to have no additional money for large scale Gold OA funding. 
> Fortunately for the sake of OA, Swiss authors are willing to pay with 
> the own budget that because the financial situation isn’t that bad. 
> But think about the chance and the boost for OA, if the University of 
> Zurich would shift all or at least a part of the money from the 
> journal subscriptions and create a publisher neutral Open Access funds.
>
> So I think we can and should promote more Green OA and care about a 
> better compliance. But if we really want to speed up the transition to 
> Gold OA we really should consider to give the subscription money a new 
> purpose and use it in a coordinated way to force the publishers to 
> change their business model. And as I heard this was Berlin 12 about.
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian Gutknecht
>
>
>
>
>
>> Am 31.12.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk 
>> <mailto:harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>>:
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org 
>>> <mailto:krichel at openlib.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Stevan Harnad writes
>>>
>>>> 1. Actually, no one really knows why it is taking so long to reach the
>>>> optimal and inevitable outcome -- universal OA --
>>>
>>>  oh I know. It's because libraries are spending money on subscriptions.
>>>  And as long as they do, OA remains evitable.
>>
>> That’s about as useful as saying that "I know why there is poverty:
>> because the rich are rich and the poor are poor."
>>
>> Not only is it not possible to treat “libraries” as if they were a 
>> monolith
>> any more than it is possible to treat “authors” as a monolith,
>> but it is completely out of the question for a university library
>> to cancel subscriptions while its users have no other means to
>> access that content.
>>
>> (Please don’t reply that they do cancel what they cannot afford: that is
>> not relevant. Libraries subscribe to as much content that their users 
>> need
>> as they can afford to subscribe to.)
>>
>> The only way to make subscriptions cancellable is to first mandate
>> and provide (universal — not just local) Green OA 
>> <http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/>.
>>
>> SH
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GOAL mailing list
>> GOAL at eprints.org <mailto: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

-- 
/C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW
United Kingdom
+44 1483 579525 (landline)
+44 7525 026991 (mobile)

Noordland 44
2548 WB Den Haag
The Netherlands
+31 707611166/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20160103/3103ac6d/attachment-0001.html 