<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/4.6.4">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +0000, Graham Triggs a écrit :
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon <<A HREF="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</A>> wrote:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Which terms have been introduced by the publishing industry? The majority of the terms that I see regularly were introduced - or at least claimed to have been - by scholars.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Who introduced "hybrid journals"? "who introduced "delayed open access" - an oxymoron if there ever was one? What about Elsevier's "universal access"? etc. etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
The publishing industry has been fairly quick to make use of the variety of terms though - some in attempting to best engage with and understand the needs and desires of the academic community; others to preserve their business models for as long as possible.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Fairly quick indeed! <IMG SRC="cid:1387225726.3946.18.camel@maison.outlook.umontreal.ca" ALIGN="middle" ALT=":-)" BORDER="0">
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
[snip (because irrelevant]
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Profits alone are not a good measure of whether the public purse is being pillaged or not. They are just the difference between revenue and costs. At which point:
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising...
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Ultimately, the public purse is not necessarily disadvantaged by engaging with for-profit industries; although it could benefit from ensuring there are competitive markets. You can argue that the publishing industry could stand to reduce it's profits by charging less - but there is no guarantee that an alternative would take less money overall from the public purse.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Profits alone begin to indicate where the problem lies, just by comparison between publishers. Enough money comes from the public purse in many countries (Canada, for example, or most European countries) to justify my anger. As for point 2, it is quite laughable. Why does not Elsevier reduce its profit rate then? The answer is that each journal is a small monopoly in itself. And in monopoly situations, what is the incentive to reduce pricing?
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
From free and low cost access programmes, through APC waivers, and charitable partnerships, the publishing industry does a lot more for developing nations than the picture you are painting.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Having looked fairly closely at programmes like HINARI, I beg to differ. The publishing industry is very creative when it comes to growing fig leaves.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
I would rather see funders support publicly supported efforts such as Scielo or Redalyc in Latin America. The publishing industry does not need yet another subsidy to begin expanding its potential markets.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Or you could try and ignore the industry entirely. But simply depositing research in institutional repositories does not necessarily solve developing nation's access problems, and does not necessarily solve their publishing problems.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Your last point is correct, at least until now. Laws such as the one recently passed in Argentina may help further. But you are right: in developing nations, the best way is to avoid the industry entirely and develop evaluation methods that are a little more sophisticated than the impact factor misapplied to individuals.<BR>
<BR>
Jean-Claude Guédon<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<A HREF="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</A>
<A HREF="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</A>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
--
<PRE>
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>