On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at" target="_blank">Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Other mathematicians calculate differently, see the discussion initiated by Tim Gowers: <a href="http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/a-new-open-access-venture-from-cambridge-university-press/#more-4356" target="_blank">http://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/a-new-open-access-venture-from-cambridge-university-press/#more-4356</a></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>There seem to be two distinct issues underlying this thread. </div><div><br></div><div><b>I.</b> ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS MODELS FOR FUNDING PEER-REVIEWED PUBLISHING</div><div>One sub-thread is about whether there is a scalable, sustainable way to fund peer-reviewed publication other than either user-institution subscription/license fees or author-institution Gold OA publication fees. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Neither pro-bono services nor subsidies are a funding model; rather they themselves have funding models -- for other products/services, such as university infrastructure and personnel or government research funding -- behind them. These much broader economic issues seem to me too diverse and complex to be invoked today as a realistic practical "business model" for peer-reviewed publishing. </div>
<div><br></div><div>We have enough on our plate already, trying to get at least free online access to peer-reviewed publications, after 20 long years!</div><div><br></div><div>For prior discussion on this "business model alternatives" sub-thread thread see:</div>
<div><br></div><div>"There is no "Platinum" Road to OA" </div><div><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6442.html">http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6442.html</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>II. ALTERNATIVES TO PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHING</div><div>The other sub-thread is about alternatives to standard peer review, such as 2-tiered publishing and open peer commentary. </div><div><br></div><div>
These too have been often proposed many times in the past decade and a half in the pages of GOAL's predecessor, the American Scientist Open Access Forum [AmSci] (including, notably, by a very distinguished mathematician, who is also an early and eloquent OA advocate, Andrew Odlyzko, and who also happens to be an expert on the economics of differential pricing!) </div>
<div><br></div><div>Here too, the empirical question is whether there is an alternative to standard peer review that can deliver at least the same quality and reliability, and that is scalable and sustainable. So far there is no evidence of this, but while local experiments, proposals and speculations continue, we still don't have free online access to most peer-reviewed research such as it is, today, after 20 long years. </div>
<div><br></div><div>And it is good to remind ourselves that the primary objective of the OA is to free peer-reviewed research from access-tolls, not to free it from peer review. </div><div><br></div><div><div>For prior discussions on this "peer review alternatives" sub-thread thread see:</div>
<div><br></div><div>"Self-Selected Vetting vs. Peer Review: Supplement of Substitute" </div><div><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2341.html">http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2341.html</a></div>
</div><div><br></div><div>and </div><div><br></div><div>"Peer Review Reform Hypothesis Testing"</div><div><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg480">http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg480</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>and</div><div><br></div><div>"A Note of Caution About 'Reforming the System'"</div><div><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg1170">http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg1170</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div></div>