<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>ONE SIZE FITS ALL</b></div><div><br></div><div>On 2013-08-11, Ari Belenkiy, SFU <<a href="mailto:ari.belenkiy@gmail.com">ari.belenkiy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Why will publishers agree to this scheme?<br><br>Peer-review is the most important service they provide ... for nothing?<br></blockquote><div><br></div>(1) Publishers today are paid for (managing) peer review -- paid in full, </div><div>many times over -- <i>by institutional subscriptions</i>.</div><div><br></div><div>(2) The majority of journals today already agree to immediate, unembargoed </div><div><i>Green OA self-archiving</i> of the author's peer-reviewed final draft.</div><div><br></div><div>(3) For the minority of journals that embargo OA, there is the immediate-deposit </div><div>(ID/OA) mandate - mandatory deposit in the author's institutional repository </div><div>immediately upon acceptance <i>whether or not access to the deposit is immediately </i></div><div><i>set as OA</i> -- plus the repository's eprint-request Button to tide over user access </div><div>needs with one click from the requestor and one click from the author ("Almost-OA") </div><div>for those deposits to which access has been set as Closed Access, to comply </div><div>with a publisher OA embargo.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of <i>Gold OA </i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><i>Publishing</i> are premature. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top journals) </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">the asking price for Gold OA is still high ("Fools-Gold"); and there is concern </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">immediate-deposit (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">acceptance for publication). (</span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1032-How-to-Make-the-University-of-California-OA-Mandate-Work.html">U of C</a><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> should add such an immediate-deposit</span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">clause -- with no opt-out -- to its new Green OA mandate.)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">This will provide immediate Green OA for all unembargoed </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">deposits + immediate </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; ">Almost-OA for all embargoed deposits.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Then, if and when universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition, </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">access-provision, archiving), downsize to <i>just managing the service of </i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><i>peer review</i>, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">to pay these residual service costs (for affordable, sustainable post-Green </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Fair-Gold OA). </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">"</span><a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html">no-fault</a><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> basis," with the author's institution or funder paying for each </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated </span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">acceptance rates and decline in peer-review quality standards.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Stevan Harnad</span></div><div><span style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br></span></div><div><blockquote type="cite">On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <<a href="mailto:liblicense@gmail.com">liblicense@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">From: "Friend, Fred" <<a href="mailto:f.friend@ucl.ac.uk">f.friend@ucl.ac.uk</a>><br>Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:24:50 +0000<br><br>Experience suggests that the value added to a peer-reviewed manuscript<br>by a copy-editor varies considerably. If the peer-reviewers have done<br>their job, any false facts or illogicality in the research arguments<br>should have been picked up. Precision of language and grammar are<br>important but an author may have as good a grasp of language and<br>grammar as a copy-editor. I am not suggesting that copy-editors do not<br>play any role in the quality of the published article, but quality<br>lies to a greater extent in the quality of the research reported in<br>the article than it does in copy-editing. The question we have to face<br>is whether the variable value added by a publisher through<br>copy-editing or any other service is worth the substantial sum a<br>publisher charges for such services. How much is using the services of<br>a publisher worth?<br><br>Fred Friend<br>Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL<br><br>________________________________________<br><br>From: Mark Goodwin <<a href="mailto:MGoodwin@The-APS.org">MGoodwin@The-APS.org</a>><br>Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 11:16:21 -0400<br><br>Ah, so *not* the "final" version, but the penultimate version (post<br>peer review, at acceptance, pre-copyedit).<br><br>That is, the rough manuscript version that has not yet passed a<br>rigorous copyedit for facts, logical structure, and precision of<br>language, not to mention grammar, etc., irrespective of whatever<br>typesetting or formatting may be applied for public consumption.<br><br>(apologies for the intentional smug tone...)<br><br>Ever and always, a Copy Editor at heart... -Mark<br><br>M. L. Goodwin, ELS (<a href="mailto:mgoodwin@The-APS.org">mgoodwin@The-APS.org</a>)<br>Editorial Manager, Publications<br>The American Physiological Society<br>Bethesda, MD 20814<br><a href="http://www.The-APS.org">http://www.The-APS.org</a><br><br>Integrating the Life Sciences from Molecule to Organism<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br><br>From: Iris Brest <ibrest@stanford.edu><br>Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:11:31 -0700<br><br>Sandy -- They will be the version of accepted articles post peer review.<br><br>9. What version of their article should Faculty submit to the repository?<br><br>The policy requires that the author submit the "final version", which<br>safely means the manuscript copy post-peer review but before a<br>publisher typesets and finalizes it.<br><br>Iris Brest/Stanford University<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br><br>From: Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu><br>Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:59:52 -0500<br><br><blockquote type="cite">All research publications<br>covered by the policy will continue to be subjected to rigorous peer<br>review; they will still appear in the most prestigious journals across<br>all fields; and they will continue to meet UC's standards of high<br>quality.<br></blockquote><br>Just wondering if the "standards of high quality" include high quality<br>in copyediting? Will UC be paying to have the accepted articles<br>copyedited before they are posted in eScholarship? If not, how can<br>this promise of "high quality" be made? Does UC think copyediting not<br>important? Do all UC faculty write pristine prose that is free of<br>errors?<br><br>Sandy Thatcher<br></blockquote></blockquote></div><br></body></html>