[GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?

[barry.mahon at iol.ie]

None of this is new. All the studies, one way or the other, show that commercial publishers are​ making, depending on one's point of view, or the size of your pay check ;), profits.....

The alternative to the particular case of our friends from the Netherlands is setting up an equal or better publishing method, producing the same effect for the writer, i.e. recognition. Our late lamented friend from the world of citations was never happy that his simplified mathematical device was being used as a method of measuring effectiveness, so, in devising a new, alternative, methodology we should be looking for better measurement tools. 

Anyone here like to propose a solution or solutions? Bearing in mind the need for "recognition"? 

On June 28, 2017 4:24:21 PM GMT+01:00, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 2017, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko <odlyzko at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>we could operate an adequate scholarly publishing business, with the
>> current level of peer review, at $300 per article, or 10% what it
>costs
>> Elsevier.  The main obstacle is inertia.
>
>
>"I think that the true figure for peer-review implementation alone
>across all refereed journals probably averages closer to $200 per
>article,
>or even lower. Hence, quality-control costs account for only 10% of the
>collective tolls actually being paid per article.”
>
>*Nature* *410*, 1024-1025 (*26 April 2001*) | doi:10.1038/35074210
>
>https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6832/full/4101024a0.html
>
>
>Inertia indeed, on the part of the publishing industry, predictably,
>but on
>the part of the research community, deplorably…
>
>*Stevan Harnad*
>
>On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Odlyzko <odlyzko at umn.edu>
>wrote:
>
>> Perhaps a Kazhakstani graduate student can provide simple
>distribution
>> of files at a very low cost.  But once you get into providing
>anything
>> resembling serious curation, and even more when you get into peer
>review,
>> costs do mount up.  For example, arXiv costs about $10 per preprint
>> submitted (if we divide the annual cost of the arXiv by the number of
>> new submissions, and so don't worry about the accounting niceties of
>> splitting the costs between handling new and old papers).  For a few
>> million papers per year for all of scholarly publishing, this gets
>> beyond the capability of a Kazhakstani graduate student.
>>
>>
>> This rough estimate of $10 per preprint for arXiv, and others to be
>quoted,
>> are all from the paper "Open Access, library and publisher
>competition, and
>> the evolution of general commerce," Evaluation Review, vol. 39, no.
>1,
>> Feb. 2015, pp. 130-163,
>>
>>     http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13514751
>>
>> and (for those who can't get inside the paywall), a preprint is at
>>
>>     http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf
>>
>> Going beyond preprint distribution (and the very light level of
>screening
>> by volunteer editors, which does exist at arXiv, at no monetary
>cost),
>> Elsevier collects about $5,000 in total on average for each article
>they
>> publish.  About $2,000 is their profit, and the remaining $3,000
>covers
>> what they claim are necessary costs.  As many (including your truly)
>have
>> been arguing for a couple of decades, the necessity of those costs
>(leaving
>> the profit question aside) is extremely questionable, and we now have
>lots
>> of examples of lower cost journals.  It seems clear (some estimates
>and
>> references in the paper cited above) that we could operate an
>adequate
>> scholarly publishing business, with the current level of peer review,
>> at $300 per article, or 10% what it costs Elsevier.  The main
>obstacle
>> is inertia.
>>
>> Andrew
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170629/9671d764/attachment.html