<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 11.00.9600.16476"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=698230722-16122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Actually, as far as I can recall, the idea of 'hybrid
journals' was first proposed by David Prosser of SPARC Europe in 2003, as a way
for publishers to move towards 100% conversion to OA</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=698230722-16122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=698230722-16122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>David will no doubt say if this is not so</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=698230722-16122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=698230722-16122013><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Sally</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Sally Morris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>South House, The Street, Clapham,
Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Tel: +44 (0)1903
871286</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Email:
sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<DIV lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> goal-bounces@eprints.org
[mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Jean-Claude
Guédon<BR><B>Sent:</B> 16 December 2013 20:29<BR><B>To:</B>
goal@eprints.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly
Compromises Credibility of Beall's List<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>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 border=0 alt=:-)
src="cid:698230722@16122013-1F4E" align=middle>
<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%">
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD>-- <PRE>Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal
</PRE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></BODY></HTML>