<div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">Predictably, I won’t try to calculate how much a fair Gold OA fee should be because (as I have argued and tried to show many times before) I do not think there can be a Fair Gold OA fee until Green OA has been universally mandated and provided: Pre-Green Gold is <a href="http://j.mp/foolsGOLDoa">Fools Gold</a>.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">Before universal Green OA, there is no need for Gold OA at all — not, at least , if the purpose is to provide OA, rather than to spawn a pre-emptive fleet of Gold OA journals (indcluding many “predatory” ones), or a supplementary source of revenue for hybrid (subscription/gold) OA publishers.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">The reason is that today — i.e., prior to universally mandated Green OA — both subscription journals and Gold OA journals continue to perform (and fund) functions that will be obsolate after universal Green OA:</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial"><span style="text-decoration:underline">Peers review for free</span>. Apart from that non-expense, here is what has been mentioned “<span style="color:rgb(35,35,35)"><i>for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles per year”</i>:</span></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial"><i>(a) “top-of-the-line journal hosting”</i>: Obsolete after universal Green OA. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">The worldwide distributed network of Green OA institutional repositories hosts its own paper output, both pre and post peer review and acceptance by the journal. Acceptance is just a tag. Refereeing is done on the repository version. Simple, standard software notifies referees and gives them access to the unrefereed draft.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial"><i>(b) “a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per article”</i>: This is a genuine function and expense: </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">The referees have to be selected, the reports have to be adjudicated, the author has to be informed what to do, and the revised final draft has to be adjudicated — all by a competent editor. The real-time estimate sounds right for ultimately accepted articles — but ultimately rejected articles take time too (and for a 20-accepted-articles-per-year journal there will need to be a <a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html">no-fault submission fee</a> so that accepted authors don’t have to pay for the rejected ones. (Journals with higher quality standards will have higher rejection rates.)</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial"><i>“(c) a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article”</i>: Copy-editing is either obsolete or needs to be made a separate, optional service. For managing paper submissions and referee correspondence, much of this can be done with form-letters using simple, standard software. Someone other than the editor may be needed to manage that, but at nowhere near 2 days of real time per accepted article.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">But perhaps the biggest difference between post-Green Fair Gold and pre-Green Fools Gold is the fact that Gold OA fees will be paid out of a small portion institutional subscription cancellation savings post-Green, whereas pre-Green they have to be paid out of extra funds from somewhere else, over and above subscription expenses.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">That, and the fact that there is no need for pre-Green Gold OA and its costs, since Green OA can provide OA at no extra cost.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">To summarize: pre-Green Fools Gold is (1) overpriced and (2) unnecessary, whereas post-Green Fair Gold will (3) fund itself, because Green will have made subscriptions unsustainable.</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial">And, no, there is no coherent gradual transition from here to there other than mandating Green…</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;min-height:14px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(85,26,139)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Harnad, S (2014) <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/">The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access</a>. <i>LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 </i><a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/">http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/</a></span></p><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Reckling, Falk <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at" target="_blank">Falk.Reckling@fwf.ac.at</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">That data are supported by an initial funding programme of the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) for OA journals in HSS, see: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16462</a><br>
<br>
best falk<br>
________________________________________________<br>
Falk Reckling, PhD<br>
Strategic Analysis<br>
Department Head<br>
Austrian Science Fund (FWF)<br>
Sensengasse 1<br>
A-1090 Vienna<br>
Tel: <a href="tel:%2B43-1-5056740-8861" value="+43150567408861">+43-1-5056740-8861</a><br>
Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B43-664-5307368" value="+436645307368">+43-664-5307368</a><br>
Email: <a href="mailto:falk.reckling@fwf.ac.at">falk.reckling@fwf.ac.at</a><br>
<br>
Web: <a href="https://www.fwf.ac.at/en" target="_blank">https://www.fwf.ac.at/en</a><br>
Twitter: @FWFOpenAccess<br>
ORCID: <a href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766" target="_blank">http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1326-1766</a><br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
Von: <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>]&quot; im Auftrag von &quot;Heather Morrison [<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a>]<br>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Mai 2015 15:43<br>
An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
Betreff: [GOAL] $1, 300 per article or $25, 000 annual subsidy can generously support small scholar-led OA journal publishing<br>
<br>
Drawing from interviews and focus groups with editors of small scholar-led journals, I've developed one generous model that illustrates how $1,300 per article or a $25,000 / year journal subsidy can generously a support small open access journal. In brief, for a small journal publishing only 20 peer-reviewed articles per year, this amount could fund top-of-the-line journal hosting, free up the time of a senior academic to devote just a little less than one full day per article, hire a part-time senior support staff at a nice hourly rate to provide over 2 days' support per peer-reviewed article, with an annual budget of $2,500 for extra costs.<br>
<br>
Calculations here:<br>
<a href="http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/" target="_blank">http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/14/1300-per-article-or-25k-year-in-subsidy-can-generously-support-quality-scholar-led-oa-journal-publishing/</a><br>
<br>
best,<br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
Assistant Professor<br>
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies<br>
University of Ottawa<br>
<a href="http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html" target="_blank">http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html</a><br>
Sustaining the Knowledge Commons <a href="http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/" target="_blank">http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/</a><br>
<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<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>
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>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>