<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [GOAL] Origin of hybrid journals</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>I hope people wil not start to fight over “Who did what first”...<BR>
<BR>
During that time —precious and lost — editors work daily to retard or block open acess and create confusion by multiplying notions (like “universal access”, the best Orwellian expression) in order to <U>erase </U>the simple original idea of “open acess” . The old strategy of diversion and confusion still works...<BR>
<BR>
Yves Gingras<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Le 17/12/13 09:57, « Walker,Thomas J » <tjw@ufl.edu> a écrit :<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>To take the discussion of “hybrid journals” further back in time, I proposed the idea in a 1996 opinion piece in BioScience (</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><a href="http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/bioscivp.htm).">http://www.fcla.edu/FlaEnt/bioscivp.htm).</a> I later managed to have the Entomological Society of America adopt the idea and to base the price of OA on the price of 100 paper reprints (which most of its authors bought in the 1990’s). The history and the success of this plan for the Society from 2000 to 2008 is online at (<a href="http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/esaepub.htm).">http://entnemdept.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/esaepub.htm).</a><BR>
<BR>
Tom<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>====================================<BR>
Thomas J. Walker<BR>
Department of Entomology & Nematology<BR>
PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive)<BR>
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620<BR>
E-mail: tjw@ufl.edu FAX: (352)392-0190<BR>
Web: <a href="http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/">http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/walker/</a><BR>
====================================<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> goal-bounces@eprints.org [<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]</a> <B>On Behalf Of </B>David Prosser<BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:16 AM<BR>
<B>To:</B> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> [GOAL] Re: Jeffrey Beall Needlessly Compromises Credibility of Beall's List<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
As I say, I think I did, accidentally, coin the phrase 'hybrid journals'. As Sally notes, I saw it as a low-risk way for publishers to move subscription journals to open access. It is amazing (and perhaps slight depressing) to think that the article I published describing the model is now ten years old:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2003/00000016/00000003/art00001(freely">http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alpsp/lp/2003/00000016/00000003/art00001(freely</a> available)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
But while the phrase may have been mine, the model wasn't - it was developed from that used by the Journals of the Entomological Society of America. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
What my paper missed and what may have been obvious at the time, but which I only saw with hindsight, were the biggest problems with the model:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
1. There is little incentive for the publisher to set a competitive APC. It is clear that in most cases APCs for hybrids are higher than APCs for born-OA journals. But as the hybrid is gaining the majority of its revenue from subscriptions why set a lower APC - if any author wants to pay it then it is just a bonus. Of course, this helps explains the low take-up rate for OA in most hybrid journals - why pay a hight fee when you can get published in that journal for free? And if you really want OA then best go to a born-OA journal which is cheaper and may well be of comparable quality.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
2. There is little pressure on the publisher to reduce subscription prices. Of course, everybody says 'we don't double dip', but this is almost impossible to verify and from a subscriber's point of view very difficult to police. I don't know of any institution, for example, in a multi-year big deal who has received a rebate based on OA hybrid content.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
So, the hybrid model has been a disappointment to me and I have some sympathy for those funders that refuse to pay APCs for hybrid journals. A position Stuart Shieber has argued eloquently and compellingly for (see, for example, the relevant section in <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/07/10/ecumenical-open-access-and-the-finch-report-principles/).">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2013/07/10/ecumenical-open-access-and-the-finch-report-principles/).</a> I was very struck by the recommendation in the recent UK House of Commons BIS report that hybrid APCs should not be funded. Unless we see real movement from publishers to address in a transparent and local manner the double-dipping issue then that is a position that, despite my previous advocacy for the hybrid model, I think I'll increasingly support.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
David<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="5"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:17.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
On 16 Dec 2013, at 22:14, Sally Morris wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>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<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>David will no doubt say if this is not so<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Sally<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Sally Morris<BR>
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU<BR>
Tel: +44 (0)1903 871286<BR>
Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="2" WIDTH="100%"></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
</SPAN><FONT SIZE="4"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> goal-bounces@eprints.org [<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]</a> <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>
</SPAN></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Le lundi 16 décembre 2013 à 14:34 +0000, Graham Triggs a écrit : <BR>
On 14 December 2013 20:53, Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon@umontreal.ca> wrote: <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>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>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><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. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>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>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
Fairly quick indeed! <face-smile.png> <BR>
<BR>
[snip (because irrelevant] <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>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: <BR>
<BR>
1) Publisher revenue does not just come from the public purse - sales to privately funded institutions, personal subscriptions, reprints, advertising... <BR>
<BR>
2) For everything that they do (which may or may not be appropriate), the publishing industry is very, very good at reducing costs. <BR>
<BR>
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>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><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>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>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>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><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. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>Is it perfect? No. Could more be done? Probably. Can the industry do it alone? No.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
It would be a lot cheaper if the industry got out of the way. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>If you want to see the situation improve, then it's going to take funders and researchers to work with the publishing industry.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><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. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>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. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'>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>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
GOAL mailing list<BR>
GOAL@eprints.org<BR>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:12.0px'><BR>
<BR>
Yves Gingras<BR>
<BR>
Professeur <BR>
Département d'histoire<BR>
Centre interuniversitaire de recherche<BR>
sur la science et la technologie (CIRST) <BR>
Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire<BR>
et sociologie des sciences<BR>
Observatoire des sciences et des technologies (OST) <BR>
UQAM<BR>
C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville<BR>
Montréal, Québec<BR>
Canada, H3C 3P8<BR>
<BR>
Tel: (514)-987-3000-7053<BR>
Fax: (514)-987-7726<BR>
<BR>
<a href="http://www.chss.uqam.ca">http://www.chss.uqam.ca</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.cirst.uqam.ca">http://www.cirst.uqam.ca</a><BR>
<a href="http://www.ost.uqam.ca">http://www.ost.uqam.ca</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>