[GOAL] Hybrid OA - Confused authors
Dirk Pieper
dirk.pieper at uni-bielefeld.de
Tue Nov 28 12:19:08 GMT 2017
Dear
all,https://twitter.com/oa_intact/status/857208992220819456https://twitter.com/oa_intact/status/857208992220819456
I also think, the main point for a successful and broad OA
transformation is, that libraries switch their acquisition budgets step
by step to gold OA. This year, Ted Bergstrom suggested at the Science
Europe Conference, that libraries should reduce their funding of
subscriptions by a fixed percentage per year and move these funds to OA:
https://twitter.com/oa_intact/status/857208992220819456
https://twitter.com/oa_intact/status/857208992220819456
As OA2020 points out (https://oa2020.org/take-action/), libraries can
invest their acquisition budgets not only into APC models, but also into
cooperative publishing models, membership models, they can support
discipline archives or institutional and regional OA publishing
initiatives.
When it comes to hybrid OA, the offsetting dataset of OpenAPC clearly
shows for Springer Compact, that there is only one journal, that can
collect at least more than 1% out of about 12,000 articles:
https://treemaps.intact-project.org/apcdata/offsetting/#journal/period=&is_hybrid=TRUE
Aside from confusing authors, it seems, that hybrid OA is inefficient
(for publishers and for libraries) and too expensive. On the other hand,
memberhsip publishing models produce too little articles per year to
have a huge effect on OA growth rates yet.
My suggestion is, that if publishers don´t transform their journals into
pure OA now, the best strategy for libraries to give incentives for a
large scale OA transition is, to move their acquisition budgets step by
step to finance their researchers publications in pure OA journals (via
APCs) and to support the other models OA2020 is suggesting as well.
Especially a cooperative model like SCOAP3 has a big effect on OA growth
rates and should be considered to be established in other disciplines as
well.
Best,
Dirk
Am 27.11.2017 um 22:44 schrieb Christian Gutknecht:
> Hi Heather
>
> I think it’s a fair point to discuss the issue of good will regarding
> mistakes during the APC-payment. However I think this is especially a
> problem of hybrid.
>
> And I agree, it’s better to own the issue. And therefore I suggest to
> eventually move forward with the large scale transition. In fact, the
> longer we wait hybrid will become a real problem. For a long time most
> funders and institutions have successfully denied funding for hybrid
> OA because of the double dip issue. The hybrid share was laughable
> low. Then there was the push for hybrid in UK and many publishers
> promoted their hybrid program more offensively on their website and in
> their workflows. Now this promotion reaches academics with little
> knowledge about OA. These academic sense that OA is important, but
> they don’t understand the details and especially not the problem of
> hybrid.
>
> In a survey at the ETH Zurich 23% of the researchers have replied that
> they have published in hybrid journals in the last 12 months
> (http://www.library.ethz.ch/en/Media/Files/Open-Access-Survey-at-ETH-Zurich-Summary-Report2 ,
> p.13), despite the library and the national funder have a clear
> No-Hybrid-Policy since years. An investigation of a librarian
> (https://doi.org/10.5282/o-bib/2017H3S67-87) it showed, that it’s
> extremely difficult to identify these articles and who had paid for
> them. Neither the university nor the publishers had good data to
> provide this information. However it was estimated that that in 2015
> about 300’000 USD were spent just for hybrid OA by ETHZ. And this
> number is clearly on the raise.
>
> So the longer we postpone the transition to Gold OA, the more money we
> will loose on the way, and the more no so well informed authors are
> confused with hybrid options or complex self-archiving policies. Those
> who pay subscriptions today have the power to make that change in
> their hand.
>
> Best regards
>
> Christian
>
>
>> Am 27.11.2017 um 13:58 schrieb Heather Morrison
>> <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca <mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>>:
>>
>> Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Frédéric.
>>
>> Assuming your information is correct, this is the kind of behaviour
>> that has resulted in publishers being labelled predatory. Perhaps
>> someone from Springer would like to clarify their business practice here.
>>
>> This illustrates one of the drawbacks of the APC model (all models
>> have drawbacks). Authors must submit work to journals (hybrid or full
>> OA), and journals must accept articles for peer review, when neither
>> party knows if the article will be accepted, and in many cases it
>> will not be clear who would pay an APC and how.
>>
>> In this circumstance it is difficult to see how standard business
>> practices such as up-front credit card or e-transfer payment for
>> products or services to be delivered later, with acceptance of terms,
>> could work. I believe that some publishers have experience with
>> old-fashioned print-based page charges that is relevant here.
>>
>> The situation Frédéric describes is problematic for authors and could
>> result in the same kind of backlash we saw with the "predatory
>> publisher" phenomenon. My advice to fellow OA advocates is to take
>> this seriously, to acknowledge and address the issue. Let's own the
>> issue, not leave an opening for leadership to someone with an anti-OA
>> perspective.
>>
>> Green OA policy - just require deposit for OA in the IR - would avoid
>> this particular problem.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Frédéric Hélein <frederic.helein at imj-prg.fr
>> <mailto:frederic.helein at imj-prg.fr>>
>> Date: 2017-11-27 3:09 AM (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Frédéric Hélein <helein at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
>> <mailto:helein at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr>>, Cost of Knowledge
>> <costofknowledge at ima.umn.edu <mailto:costofknowledge at ima.umn.edu>>,
>> goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at eprints.org>
>> Cc: Bureau RNBM <bureau-rnbm at listes.rnbm.org
>> <mailto:bureau-rnbm at listes.rnbm.org>>, "Barber, Nick, Springer FR"
>> <Nick.Barber at springer.com <mailto:Nick.Barber at springer.com>>, "Peyle,
>> Philippe, Springer FR" <Philippe.Peyle at springer.com
>> <mailto:Philippe.Peyle at springer.com>>, "Byrne, Catriona, Springer DE"
>> <Catriona.Byrne at springer.com <mailto:Catriona.Byrne at springer.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] English
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> For the third time in less than a year, I was reported the case of a
>> researcher publishing an article in
>> a Springer journal and who is summoned to pay fees for on line Open
>> Access (2640 euros) because he had chosen this option
>> without understanding the consequences and because it is impossible
>> for him to go back!
>>
>> In this case the last message received contains the very nice sentence:
>> "Please note that we will give our claim to the *legal department and
>> debt collection agency* if we should not receive your payment in
>> time. You should be aware that there are further costs involved, such
>> as interest fees and administrative fees for the legal action. In
>> order to avoid this you should remit the outstanding amount immediately.
>> We want to provide you one more opportunity in order to clear your
>> debt. "
>>
>> The basic problems are always the same: once the Open Choice option,
>> vaunted by the site, was checked, it
>> can not be undone because the article is published online in a freely
>> accessible form before
>> the payment is made and the publisher refuses to cancel the Open
>> Access option.
>>
>> This mechanism is not very far from a forced sale, a practice
>> prohibited by the article L122-3
>> <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069565&idArticle=LEGIARTI000024039758>
>> of the French consumer code
>> and makes impossible any use of the right of withdrawal, as provided
>> e.g. by the article 121-20-12
>> <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006069565&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006292075&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid>of
>> the French consumer code.
>>
>> The case in question concerns a researcher who did not imagine that a
>> publisher to whom he ceded his rights (without compensation)
>> for the dissemination of his paper would ask him to pay for this
>> article to be posted on Open Access, while the journal or
>> Proceedings containing this article continue to be sold to institutions.
>>
>> Furthermore the threecases reported to me concern only the community
>> of mathematicians working in France.
>> So there are probably other colleagues in other countries and for
>> other disciplines.
>>
>> Sincerely Yours
>>
>> Frédéric Hélein
>> Professor, University Paris Diderot
>> Scientific Chair of the RNBM <http://www.rnbm.org/> (French National
>> Network of Mathematics Libraries)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
-----------------------------
Dirk Pieper
Deputy Director Bielefeld UL
www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de
www.base-search-net
------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20171128/db98ef74/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list