<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2012-10-12, at 11:48 AM, Ross Mounce wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><p dir="ltr">The high price of these hybrid gold OA options is only a problem if researcher obsession with journal impact factor (JIF) is immutable.</p><p dir="ltr">I believe this behaviour can be changed (and is already changing, moving the prestige to gold OA) and authors can be taught to submit to appropriate low-cost gold OA journals rather than expensive high JIF hybrid outlets. The final product is largely similar after all...</p></blockquote><div>I don't detect having mentioned journal impact factors below. </div><div>I spoke only of peer review quality standards.</div><div><br></div><div>(The correlation between the two is probably not zero, though,</div><div>but a journal needs a track-record to demonstrate it. And authors</div><div>need to know.)</div><div><br></div><div>Universal Green OA, followed by Gold OA for no-fault peer-review alone,</div><div>moots all of this.</div><div><br></div><div>And (to reply to Jan) subscription journals certainly would not dare</div><div>to charge a no-fault submission fee today; nor would today's Gold</div><div>OA journals.</div><div><br></div><div>But the post-Green ecology will be very different. Once journal</div><div>publication is just peer-review service provision, it will be quite</div><div>obvious and natural for it to be no-fault, rather than to continue</div><div>bundling the cost of rejected papers into the price of accepted</div><div>ones.</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 12, 2012 4:25 PM, "Stevan Harnad" <<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div>On 2012-10-12, at 10:32 AM, Sally Morris wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>high IF journals tend to reject a higher %<br>of articles than low or no IF journals. Accepted articles have to bear a<br>
share of the costs of processing these articles up to the point of<br>rejection. <br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>This is exactly why post-Green Gold will be just a <a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/" target="_blank">no-fault</a> peer-review</div>
<div>service: <i>Accepted papers will no longer be paying for rejected ones.</i></div><div><br></div><div>Gold OA costs will be <i>per round of refereeing, regardless of outcome</i>.</div><div>If/when a paper meets a journal's acceptance standards with no further</div>
<div>need for revision, "publication" will be cerified by the journal's imprimatur.</div><div><br></div><div>All the access-provision and archiving will be done by the distributed</div><div>global network of Green OA institutional repositories.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And journals will only be motivated to create and maintain a track-record</div><div>for high quality, to attract submissions seeking certification of having met</div><div>those standards. But papers that meet the standards will no longer be</div>
<div>subsidizing the costs of refereeing papers that do not.</div><div><br></div><div>And of course there will continue to be a hierarchy of journals, and </div><div>their corresponding peer-review quality standards, since human</div>
<div>endeavor is inevitably Gaussian, and selectivity percentiles are </div><div>selectivity percentiles.</div><div><br></div><div>Authors will not pick journals by their price (which will be the same, per round)</div><div>
but by their quality standards. And even if their paper fails to meet the standards</div><div>of a journal whose quality is higher than a given author can reach, authors will</div><div>still benefit from the recommendations made by the referees of that higher-standard</div>
<div>journal in revising their paper for a journal more appropriate for its quality level.</div><div><br></div><div>(And to minimize their costs, authors will make more effort to choose</div><div>journals commensurate with the quality of their articles, instead of all</div>
<div>trying for the top journals, and thereby increasing the cost of the accepted</div><div>articles, as now, in the acceptance-based subscription and Gold OA</div><div>system.)</div><div><br></div><div>But for all these good things, we first have to mandate Green globally…</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div></div><br>___</blockquote></div></blockquote></div></body></html>