<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Graham Triggs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grahamtriggs@gmail.com" target="_blank">grahamtriggs@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca" target="_blank">jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>Regarding an earlier post of your that seemed to complain that OA advocates are using too narrow and too strict a definition of open access, you might consider that the publishing industry, for its part, has done its utmost to confuse issues by throwing all kinds of new terms.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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.</div><div>
<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div> </div><div>There are probably 20 different terms introduced by publishers. They include:<br></div><div>"Author choice"<br></div><div>"Free choice"<br></div>
<div>"Free content"<br></div><div>and variants. All are imprecisely defined and a cynic might say intended to confuse.<br><br></div><div>And there is blatant misrepresentation:<br><br></div><div>"Fully open Access" (to describe CC-NC-ND with a list of restrictions, all-rights-reserved and huge charges from RightsLink including for teaching.)<br>
<br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
</div><div>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.</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Finally, the focus of OA is not to destroy the publishing industry. Saying this amounts to some form of paranoia. Some OA advocates, including myself, are very angry at some members of the publishing industry, but these are individuals, not the OA movement. Some OA supporters try to imagine alternatives to the present publishing system.</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>It's kind of difficult to say that somebody outside of the publishing industry is paranoid in stating that some sections of the OA movement are attempting to destroy the publishing industry. You might say that it is ignorant to believe that some OA supporters are merely speculating on alternatives, without hoping - attempting, even - to engineer a situation that destroys the publishing industry.</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Some os us strongly feel that research communication comes first, and the publishing industry a distant second, so that the publishing industry should not consider scholarly communication as if it were a gold mine ready to be pillaged at will (45% profit, to my mind, is pillaging, and pillaging a lot of public money, to boot). But perhaps I am a little too precise here... <img src="cid:1387052574.3619.51.camel@maison.outlook.umontreal.ca" alt=":-)" align="middle" border="0"></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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:</div><div><br></div>
<div>
1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising...</div><div><br></div><div>2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div class="im">
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Finally, I would like you to think seriously and deeply about what Jacinto Dávila wrote in response to you. Developing nations are hit in a number of nasty ways by a communication system that seems to think that knowledge is not fit for Third World brains, or that Third World brains are good enough only if they focus on problems defined by rich countries. Make no mistake about this: the anger in those parts of the world where 80% of humanity lives is rising and what the consequences of this anger will be, I cannot foretell, but they will likely be dire and profound. If I were in your shoes, I would be scared.<br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No.</div><div><br></div><div>If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>G</div><div><br></div></font></span></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">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><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Peter Murray-Rust<br>Reader in Molecular Informatics<br>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry<br>University of Cambridge<br>CB2 1EW, UK<br>+44-1223-763069
</div></div>