On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 9:12 AM, leo waaijers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:leowaa@xs4all.nl" target="_blank">leowaa@xs4all.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">Yes, if all publishers (both
subscription based and open access publishers) would operate a
two-stage publication process the whole Green-Gold dichotomy
would disappear. The first stage is organising the peer review.
This is not an easy task and it certainly has a price, the
submission fee. The second stage is the circulation of the peer
reviewed article. Authors may choose to have that done via a
repository as a stand alone article or have it done via a
publisher in a branded package. The choice is a matter of a
balancing price against added value. I see no need to force an
author either way. Leo.<br></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Almost, but not quite: The "brand" (the journal's title and track-record) is accorded when the outcome of the peer review is "accept." Green OA is the <i>accepted</i> final draft. The journal name is merely a tag.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So the author's "choice" (if the two were unbundled) would be whether he wishes only the peer review -- its outcome tag-certified by the journal whose peer review standards the paper has successfully met -- or the rest of the products and services currently co-bundled with it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(I have no view on the latter. I just want the former to be Green OA, at long last.) </div><div><br></div><div>That's what Green OA mandates from institutions and funders are for.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Stevan Harnad</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font size="-1"><font face="Verdana">
<br>
</font></font>
<div>Op 7-10-2012 14:29, Stevan Harnad
schreef:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Sally Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a>></span>
wrote:
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="WORD-WRAP:break-word">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Stevan overlooks the difference between
'publishing' an article in a repository and in a
journal. As long as researchers prefer the latter
(and there are lots of reasons why they seem to, in
addition to peer review) then there will be a demand
for journals in which to publish: selection and
collecting together of articles of particular
relevance to a given audience, and of a certain
range of quality; 'findability'; kudos of the
journal's title (and impact factor); copy-editing;
linking; quality of presentation; etc etc...</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">And peer review is in any case not a
contextless operation. The selection of articles
for publication in journal X is a relative matter;
not just 'is the research soundly conducted and
honestly reported?' but 'is it of sufficient
relevance, interest and value to our readers in
particular?'</font></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I completely agree with Sally about peer review (it is a
decision by qualified specialists about whether a paper
meets a journal's established standards for quality <i>as
well as subject matter, </i>as certified by the journal's
title and track-record), and I explicitly say so in the
longer commentaries of which I only posted an excerpt.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But that, of course, does not change a thing about the
fact that peer review is merely a service, that can be
unbundled from the many other products and services with
which it is currently co-bundled. It certainly does not
imply that in order for referees or editors to make a
decision about journal subject matter, there has to exist a
set of articles co-bundled in a monthly or quarterly
collection, sold together as a product, online or on-paper!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As to the rest of the co-bundled products and services
Sally mentions: If she's right, then journals have nothing
to fear from Green OA mandates, since those only apply to
the author's peer-reviewed, revised, accepted final draft.
That's what's self-archived in the author's institutional
repository. If all those other products and services are so
important, then reaching 100% Green OA globally will not
make subscriptions unsustainable, because the need, and
hence the market, for all those other co-bundled products
and services Sally mentioned will still be there.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The only difference will be that all users -- not just
subscribers -- will have access to all peer-reviewed,
revised, accepted final drafts. (That's Green OA, and once
we are there, I can stop wasting my time and energy trying
to get us there, as I have been doing for nearly 20 years
now!) </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But then can I ask Sally, please, to call off her fellow
publishers who have been relentlessly (and successfully)
lobbying BIS not to mandate Green OA, and have been imposing
embargoes on Green OA, on the (rather incoherent) argument
that (1) Green OA is inadequate for researchers' needs and
has already proved to be a failure and (2) that if Green OA
succeeded it would destroy publishing, peer review, and
research quality?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Otherwise this (incoherent) argument becomes something of
a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we have the Finch/RCUK
fiasco to show for it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stevan Harnad</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="WORD-WRAP:break-word">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial">Sally</font></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Sally Morris</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">South House, The
Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Tel: +44 (0)1903
871286</font></div>
<div align="left"><font face="Arial">Email: <a href="mailto:sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk" target="_blank">sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</a></font></div>
<div> </div>
<br>
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">
<hr>
<font face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Stevan Harnad<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 06 October 2012 23:12<br>
<b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of
AmSci)<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK" target="_blank">JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: Open Access in the UK:
Reinventing the Big Deal<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;MIN-HEIGHT:14px;FONT:12px Helvetica"><span style="FONT-FAMILY:Arial;FONT-SIZE:13px"><b>Publisher
Wheeling and Dealing: Open Access Via National and
Global McNopoly?</b></span></div>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
Excerpted from more extensive comments on the
Poynder/Velterop Interview <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/942-.html" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:#783f0f">here</span></a>
and <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/943-.html" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:#783f0f">here</span></a>.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 40px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:0px">
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>Jan Velterop:</b><i>
“a shift to an author-side payment for the service
of arranging peer review and publication is a
logical one”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
The service of arranging peer review I understand. <br>
<br>
But what’s the rest? What’s “Arranging publication”?
Once a paper has been peer-reviewed, revised and
accepted, what’s left for publishers to do (for a fee)
that authors can’t do for free (by depositing the
peer-reviewed, revised, accepted paper in their
institutional repository)?<br>
<br>
And how to get <i>there</i>, from <i>here</i> -- and
at a fair price for just peer review alone? Publishers
won’t unbundle, downsize and renounce revenue until
there’s no more market for the extras and their costs –
and Green OA is what will put paid to that market.
Pre-emptive Gold payment, while subscriptions are still
being paid, will not – and especially not hybrid Gold.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 40px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:0px">
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>JV:</b><i>
“‘Hybrid OA’ doesn’t exist. It is just “gold” OA. OA
in a hybrid journal is the same as OA in a fully OA
journal for any given article.”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
Gold OA is indeed Gold OA whether the journal is hybrid
or pure (and whether the Gold is Gratis or CC-BY)<br>
<br>
But “hybrid” does not refer to a kind of OA, it refers
to a kind of journal: the kind that charges both
subscriptions and (optionally) Gold OA fees. <br>
<br>
That kind of journal certainly exists; and they
certainly can and do double-dip. And that’s certainly an
expensive way to get (Gratis) Gold OA. <br>
<br>
And the Finch/RCUK policy will certainly encourage many
if not all journals to go hybrid Gold, and publishers,
to maximize their chances of making an extra 6% revenue
from the UK, will in turn jack up their Green embargoes
past RCUK’s permissible limits.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 40px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:0px">
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>JV:</b><i>
“The “double-dipping” argument is a red herring.
There's… a notion that subscription prices should be
proportional to the number of articles in a journal.
How would that work? There are journals with 100
subscribers… and… with thousands of subscribers
[and] & 25 articles a year & 25 or more
articles a week.”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
Double-dipping is not about the number articles or
subscribers a journal has, but about charging
subscriptions and, in addition, charging, per article,
for Gold OA. That has nothing to do with number of
articles, journals or subscribers: It’s simply
double-charging. <br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 40px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:0px">
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>JV:</b><i>
“The cost, and… revenue, of an individual article
can only usefully… be expressed as an average, and
then probably company-wide. What would otherwise be
the situation for a loss-making hybrid journal that
receives in one year 10% of its articles as gold,
and the next year only 2%? Impossible to work out. A
subscription system is inherently lacking in
transparency”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
Nothing of the sort, and extremely simple, for a
publisher who really does not want to double-dip, but to
give all excess back as a rebate: <br>
<br>
Count the total number of articles, N, and the total
subscription revenue, S. <br>
<br>
From that you get the revenue per article: S/N. <br>
<br>
Hybrid Gold OA income is than added to that total
revenue (say, at a fee of S/N per article). <br>
<br>
That means that for k Gold OA articles, total hybrid
journal revenue is S + kS/N.<br>
<br>
And if the journal really wants to reduce subscriptions
proportionately, at the end of the year, it simply sends
a rebate to each subscribing institution:<br>
<br>
Suppose there are U subscribing institutions. Each one
gets a year-end rebate of kS/UN (regardless of the
yearly value of k, S, U or N).<br>
<br>
(Alternatively, if the journal wants to give back all of
the rebate only to the institutions that actually paid
for the extra Gold, don’t charge subscribing
institutions for Gold OA at all: But that approach shows
most clearly why and how this pre-emptive morphing
scheme for a transition from subscriptions to hybrid
Gold to pure Gold is unscaleable and unsustainable,
hence incoherent. It is an Escher impossible figure,
either way, because collective
subscriptions/“memberships” – including McNopolies --
only make sense for co-bundled incoming content; for
individual pieces of outgoing content the peer-review
service costs must be paid by the individual piece.
There are at least 20,000 research-active institutions
on the planet and at least 25,000 peer-reviewed
journals, publishing several million individual articles
per year. No basis – or need --for a pre-emptive
cartel/consortium McNopoly.)<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 40px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:0px">
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>JV:</b><i>
“If journals should reduce their subscription price
when they get a percentage of papers paid for as
gold, what should happen if they lose the same
percentage (for completely different reasons) of
subscriptions?”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
Less Gold – the value of the year-end institutional
rebate -- kS/UN – is less that year.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 40px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:0px">
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>JV:</b><i>
“What if a journal which decided to go hybrid has
published a steady amount of 50 articles a year for
ages and all of a sudden attracts an extra 10 gold
OA articles? By how much should it reduce its
subscription price?”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
By exactly10S/50U per subscribing institution U.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 40px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;BORDER-TOP:medium none;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:0px">
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>JV:</b><i>
“If an article is worth £2,000 to have published
with OA in a full-OA journal, why is it not worth
the same £2,000 if published in a hybrid journal?”</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
Simple answer: it’s not worth the price either way. Both
prices are grotesquely inflated. No-fault peer review
should cost about $100-200 per round…</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><br>
</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0px;FONT:13px Arial"><b>Stevan Harnad</b><br>
<br>
<b><i>Excerpted from more extensive comments on the
Poynder/Velterop Interview </i></b><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/942-.html" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:#783f0f"><b><i>here</i></b></span></a><b><i>
and </i></b><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/943-.html" target="_blank"><span style="COLOR:#783f0f"><b><i>here</i></b></span></a><b><i>.</i></b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>On 2012-10-02, at 5:00 AM, Richard Poynder wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div vlink="purple" link="blue" lang="EN-GB">
<div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">Love
it or loathe it, the recently announced Open
Access policy from Research Councils UK has
certainly divided the OA movement. Despite
considerable criticism, however, RCUK has
refused to amend its policy.</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">So
what will be its long-term impact?</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">Critics
fear that RCUK has opened the door to the
reinvention of the Big Deal. Pioneered by
Academic Press in 1996, the Big Deal involves
publishers selling large bundles of electronic
journals on multi-year contracts. Initially
embraced with enthusiasm, the Big Deal is widely
loathed today.</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">However,
currently drowned out by the hubbub of
criticism, there are voices that support the
RCUK policy. Jan Velterop, for instance,
believes it will be good for Open Access.</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">Velterop
also believes that the time is ripe for the
creation of a New Big Deal (NBD). The NBD would
consist of “a national licensing agreement” that
provided researchers with
free-at-the-point-of-use access to all the
papers sitting behind subscription paywalls,
*plus* a “national procurement service” that
provided free-at-the-point-of-use OA publishing
services for researchers, allowing them to
publish in OA journals without having to foot
the bill themselves. </div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">Velterop’s
views are not to be dismissed lightly. Former
employee of Elsevier, Springer and Nature,
Velterop was one of the small group of people
who attended the 2001 Budapest meeting that saw
the birth of the Open Access movement, and he
was instrumental in the early success of OA
publisher BioMed Central.</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">Moreover,
during his time at Academic Press, Velterop was
a co-architect of the original Big Deal.</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt">More
on this, and a Q&A with Velterop, can be
read here:</div>
<div style="MARGIN:0cm 0cm 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:Calibri,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:11pt"><a style="COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline" href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/open-access-in-uk-reinventing-big-deal.html" target="_blank">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/open-access-in-uk-reinventing-big-deal.html</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org" target="_blank">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>