<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
p.xmsonormal, li.xmsonormal, div.xmsonormal
{mso-style-name:x_msonormal;
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.E-MailFormatvorlage19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dear Heather,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">thanks again for your comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">>Our ability to choose which venues to publish in is dependent on both the market and our means, whether we are >discussing cars, houses, or academic publishing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I totally agree with this. For acting rational on a market you also need information about prices (and costs), that was the only point
I wanted to make. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Dirk<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Heather Morrison<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch, 11. September 2019 17:55<br>
<b>An:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Thank you for your comments, Dirk, but I disagree with your main point and implicit valuation of journal venues. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Our ability to choose which venues to publish in is dependent on both the market and our means, whether we are discussing cars, houses, or academic publishing.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">When funding agencies across countries meet to discuss open access policy, it is important to note that some countries (e.g. Germany, and the UK) are in conflict of interest position
because for these countries the high profit publishing industry is a positive balance-of-trade. Germany is the home of SpringerNature/Macmillan while Relyx, the parent company of Reed Elsevier is under the UK Corporate Governance Code (from Relyx Corporate
Governance) <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.relx.com/investors/corporate-governance/corporate-governance-and-structure" id="LPlnk653989">https://www.relx.com/investors/corporate-governance/corporate-governance-and-structure</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">It is in their financial interest of these countries to maintain the high profits while transitioning the industry. These are the countries that benefit from high-paying jobs and
taxes. For most countries, including Canada, the opposite is true: it's a negative balance of trade, a net cost for taxpayers. </span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">If the APC model prevails and prices are high due to successful lobbying by the countries benefiting from the profits, this has a negative impact on other countries and their funders
and individual scholars in the form of high costs and/or loss of publishing opportunities. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">With respect to your list of publications, I suggest that this reveals a bias that does not reflect either publishing quality or the most likely choices most authors would make.
For example, while Nature and Science per se are coveted publication venues, it is not clear that Nature Communications has the same status; this journal likely benefits from the cachet of Nature. Most authors' first choice is likely to be based on academic
discipline. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">OJS is a publishing system that is used by about half the open access journals in DOAJ; as of Jan. 2019, about 5,000 listed OJS as their publishing platform (others use the software
but may have a different platform). Many OJS journals are published by independent researchers, scholarly societies and universities. These are the kind of journals that I would recommend as most likely to prioritize scholarly quality. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">In my field, many of the top journals that I recommend as publication venues or reading for students use OJS: the International Journal of Communication, published by University
of California - Annenberg School; TripleC; and the Democratic Communiqué, published by Florida Online Journals (supported by Florida libraries). To repeat, these journals are not just okay if one cannot get into the good journals; they are the best.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">PLOS and PLOS One have made some important contributions to open access publishing. However, I would not consider PLOS ONE as a publishing venue for my own work based on my experiences
with their peer review system, which I would describe as an interesting but unfortunate experiment with attempting to fully automate peer review coordination that reduces review to a forced checklist (that I consider inappropriate from an academic standpoint)
and treats human reviewers as appendages to PLOS algorithms. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Dr. Heather Morrison<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">sustainingknowledgecommons.org<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">
<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> <<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>> on behalf of Pieper, Dirk <<a href="mailto:dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de">dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:25 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <<a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#FF4233">Attention : courriel externe | external email</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#FF4233"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dear all,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">thank you for bringing this up again. I´m not sure if you could compare the market behaviour of demanders and suppliers on the market for houses or cars with
the market for academic publications. There are some similarities, but there are some differences in the market structures as well. And in the end, the prices, which are paid by the consumers, are a result of demand and supply and the choices and decisions,
the players on a market are making.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">If I would buy a car, a house or if I want to publish an academic article I would check my preferences, my budget and the prices. Comparing prices and services
of publishers is helpful for my decision. If I would have the choice to pay 4,500 EUROs for my article in e.g. Nature Communications or in a journal of a predatory publisher, I would choose the first option like most of us.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">But pretty sure my article would not be accepted by Nature Communications, what would be my next decision? Maybe I would choose a mega journal like PLOS One,
a OA journal in my discipline, or maybe I will choose a for me cost free OJS journal or a repository, my academic institution is providing for me? Or maybe my academic community, which I´m in, is providing me options to publish my article? Or maybe a funder
is taking over the APC for me, if I will publish in his journals?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">It does not really matter what my decisions are, but what I want to say with this is, that academic authors, funders and libraries, which are taking over the
costs for their institutions, have options and can make decisions. And the more they can do so, the better …</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Best,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dirk</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Von:</span></b><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>]
<b>Im Auftrag von </b>Heather Morrison<br>
<b>Gesendet:</b> Dienstag, 10. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">September 2019 16:53<br>
<b>An:</b> Ulrich Herb <<a href="mailto:u.herb@scidecode.com">u.herb@scidecode.com</a>>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <<a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</a>><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="xmsonormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="xmsonormal">Ulrich raises an important point. Those of us who assumed transparency in pricing would inspire lower pricing may have been mistaken.
<br>
<br>
Another example:<br>
<br>
When homes are for sale here, the list price is publicly available, and some brokers advertise their percentages. Housing crises in cities like Toronto and Vancouver (rapid inflation due largely to speculation leading to unaffordable housing) have emerged in
a context of transparent pricing.<br>
<br>
best,<br>
<br>
Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa<br>
Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa<br>
Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project<br>
sustainingknowledgecommons.org<br>
<a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</a><br>
<a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</a><br>
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]<o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="98%" align="center">
</div>
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class="xmsonormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Ulrich Herb <</span><a href="mailto:u.herb@scidecode.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">u.herb@scidecode.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 10, 2019 6:12:27 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Heather Morrison <</span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="xmsonormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Attention : courriel externe | external email<br>
<br>
Dear Heather,<br>
<br>
even though I share your thoughts on APCs, I doubt that transparent<br>
pricing will always lower prices. Conversely, it can also lead to higher<br>
prices, e.g. by better market analysis. If I remember right, Australia's<br>
FuelWatch (an open-access database for fuel prices) did not cause prices<br>
to fall. But maybe someone here knows more.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Ulrich Herb<br>
<br>
Am 2019-09-04 19:41, schrieb Heather Morrison:<br>
> Exactly, Lisa. Scholarly communication does not have to be a market,<br>
> and I argue it is better if it is not.<br>
><br>
> Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of<br>
> Ottawa<br>
> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université<br>
> d'Ottawa<br>
> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC<br>
> Insight Project<br>
> sustainingknowledgecommons.org<br>
> </span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> </span><a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]<br>
><br>
> -------------------------<br>
><br>
> From: </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <</span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>
on behalf of<br>
> Lisa Hinchliffe <</span><a href="mailto:lisalibrarian@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">lisalibrarian@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:28:40 PM<br>
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<br>
><br>
> Attention : courriel externe | external email<br>
><br>
> I agree these are interesting projects/products/goods. However, as<br>
> examples they aren't examples of a market are they?<br>
><br>
> ___<br>
><br>
> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe<br>
> </span><a href="mailto:lisalibrarian@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">lisalibrarian@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:22 PM Heather Morrison<br>
> <</span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Two examples of transparent pricing:<br>
>><br>
>> SSHRC Aid to Scholarly Journals (Canad):<br>
>><br>
> </span><a href="http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> [1]<br>
>><br>
>> This is a peer-reviewed journal subsidy program. The $ value,<br>
>> journal eligibility, application and review process, are all clearly<br>
>> articulated. Canada is not unusual in subsidizing journal<br>
>> publishing. In areas such as the social sciences, humanities and<br>
>> arts, this is necessary because local knowledge is important<br>
>> (everywhere). Law is an important topic in every country, but<br>
>> Canadian law is most relevant in Canada and for scholarship to<br>
>> flourish in this area, scholars need publication venues. This is<br>
>> true of history, culture/arts, local social and environmental<br>
>> issues. Some knowledge is universal; some knowledge is specific to a<br>
>> particular region, group, environment, etc.<br>
>><br>
>> One key benefit of this model is cost. The base - maximum per<br>
>> journal is $30 - $35,000 per year (Cdn). At the mid-point of<br>
>> $32,500, a journal publishing 40 peer-reviewed articles per year<br>
>> would receive about $850 Canadian per article. Per-journal funding<br>
>> eliminates the need to count articles and gives journals flexibility<br>
>> to increase or decrease volume based on need. The funding in<br>
>> Canadian dollars gives journals budgeting stability, as costs such<br>
>> as local journal hosting and staffing costs are in Canadian dollars<br>
>> as well. Currency fluctuations are a problem in budgeting for many<br>
>> journals. As Salhab & I discussed here,<br>
>><br>
> </span><a href="https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> PLOS One's flat pricing in USD over 3 years was in effect a 6 - 77%<br>
>> price increase for authors and funders based on country and local<br>
>> currency.<br>
>><br>
>> To illustrate the potential with a full flip using this kind of<br>
>> approach:<br>
>><br>
>> The Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN) spends approximately<br>
>> $100 million per year on subscriptions / purchase and some OA<br>
>> transitional funding. CRKN is just one of the academic library<br>
>> sources of funding in Canada. There are other regional consortia,<br>
>> such as the Ontario Council of University Libraries. Also, large<br>
>> university libraries such as the University of Ottawa and University<br>
>> of Toronto also spend considerably sums.<br>
>><br>
>> If the CRKN's 100 million per year were transformed to support a<br>
>> subsidy program modeled on that of SSHRC, this amount could<br>
>> subsidize over 3,000 scholarly journals (at the rate in between the<br>
>> base and maximum). This example is meant just as an illustration;<br>
>> we also need to fund book publication and new forms of publication<br>
>> such as research blog archiving and data publication, but it is not<br>
>> clear that Canada would need 3,000 journals and there are there<br>
>> existing sources of funding as mentioned in the paragraph above.<br>
>><br>
>> Another important advantage of this model is ensuring academic<br>
>> leadership and hence prioritizing quality. Journal-level<br>
>> peer-review, by academics, greatly reduces the likelihood of<br>
>> predatory publishing. Journal publishing by academic editors whose<br>
>> promotions depend on the quality of their scholarship is more likely<br>
>> to prioritize quality than commercial outfits seeking APC $ for<br>
>> profit. B<br>
>><br>
>> This model also provides local jobs and leadership opportunities<br>
>> for local academics and their universities. Further detail from<br>
>> publishers of such journals via interviews is available here:<br>
>> </span><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> [2]<br>
>><br>
>> Another example of transparent costing is the Public Knowledge<br>
>> Project's Open Journal Systems. The software per se is open source<br>
>> and free for anyone to download, use, and contribute to the<br>
>> community. PKP also offers a journal hosting service; prices are<br>
>> posted on the website that detail what is provided for each service:<br>
>> </span><a href="https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> [3]<br>
>><br>
>> There are other examples, and I encourage others on the list to<br>
>> point to them. I am providing just a couple of examples that I am<br>
>> familiar with and consider good models. These are not perfect<br>
>> models, there is always room for improvement, but good models that<br>
>> are easily overlooked. This is because academic-led publishing is<br>
>> led by academics who will tend to go to their disciplinary<br>
>> conferences and participate in disciplinary discussions, so you will<br>
>> not meet many of them at conferences like OASPA, ALPSPS, SSP, etc.,<br>
>> or hear from them on the GOAL discussion list.<br>
>><br>
>> In the interests of full disclosure, my funder (SSRHC) is<br>
>> responsible for the Aid to Scholarly Journals program and provided<br>
>> the seed funding for what is now the Public Knowledge Project. As of<br>
>> a few years ago, about half the fully open access journals in the<br>
>> world were using PKP's Open Journal Systems, so I argue that this<br>
>> modest research funding was a very valuable global contribution<br>
>> (thanks to founder John Willinsky, now at Stanford).<br>
>><br>
>> best,<br>
>><br>
>> Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
>><br>
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of<br>
>> Ottawa<br>
>><br>
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,<br>
>> Université d'Ottawa<br>
>><br>
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC<br>
>> Insight Project<br>
>><br>
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]<br>
>><br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> </span><a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]<br>
>><br>
>> -------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> From: </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <</span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>
on behalf<br>
>> of Lisa Hinchliffe <</span><a href="mailto:lisalibrarian@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">lisalibrarian@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:11 PM<br>
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<br>
>><br>
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email<br>
>><br>
>> With this analysis, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a<br>
>> transparent market then. Is there?<br>
>><br>
>> ___<br>
>><br>
>> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe<br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:lisalibrarian@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">lisalibrarian@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Heather Morrison<br>
>> <</span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> hi Lisa,<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for the question.<br>
>><br>
>> If one individual author, institution, or funder looks at the<br>
>> publisher's website and sees a price (list price), but do not know<br>
>> that others do not pay that price, that is a lack of transparency.<br>
>><br>
>> This is similar to going to buy a car and thinking the sticker price<br>
>> is the price, not knowing that negotiation is common or how much to<br>
>> ask for. The savvy buyer (perhaps a rich person who buys lots of<br>
>> cars) may pay less and/or get more options than the non-savvy buyer.<br>
>><br>
>> If publishers are negotiating pricing with institutions and funders,<br>
>> and list price is the starting point for negotiations, this is an<br>
>> incentive to increase the list price for the next negotiation. For<br>
>> example, double the price so you can offer the next group buyer a<br>
>> 50% discount. The early bird institution / funder can argue for<br>
>> historical funding to keep prices down but newer entrants are stuck<br>
>> at a higher historical basis. OpenAPC does help in making what<br>
>> people pay open, assuming that downstream negotiators are aware of<br>
>> this. Publishers have no incentive to educate on this point.<br>
>><br>
>> These kinds of strategies were and probably still are used for<br>
>> subscriptions, and are not unique to publishing.<br>
>><br>
>> This is understandable, but the result is a non-transparent market<br>
>> that seems likely to continue the dysfunctional elements of the<br>
>> subscriptions market into OA.<br>
>><br>
>> List members who feel they do not have the background to understand<br>
>> things like business and nonprofit approaches to pricing strategy<br>
>> probably know more than they realize.<br>
>><br>
>> Some common real-world examples:<br>
>><br>
>> When you sell a house or a car, you will probably seek the highest<br>
>> price you can, what the market will bear. This is the same strategy<br>
>> Elsevier uses when they quote you the highest price they think you<br>
>> will pay, or MDPI charges the highest APC they think authors will<br>
>> pay. In any of these cases, the seller may start with a high quote<br>
>> as it is easy to reduce the price but very difficult to increase it<br>
>> after a low initial offer.<br>
>><br>
>> When a government funds a public university on the basis of the<br>
>> number of FTE students, on the assumption that it cost x amount to<br>
>> provide an education, that is cost-based budgeting. Similarly, if a<br>
>> research institution receives x annual funding (from a government or<br>
>> philanthropic institution), on the assumption that this will<br>
>> accomplish certain research goals, that is cost-based budgeting.<br>
>><br>
>> In scholarly publishing, buyers (libraries, institutions, funders)<br>
>> tend to be under cost-based budgeting while commercial publishers<br>
>> (subscriptions or OA) work under market conditions. This is a<br>
>> fundamental conflict that led to dysfunction in the subscriptions<br>
>> market (serials crisis) and may do the same in OA, assuming<br>
>> commercial market-oriented publishers.<br>
>><br>
>> Potential remedies include non-commercial approaches such as library<br>
>> hosted publishing services and modest cost-based journal subsidies,<br>
>> and institutional open access archives and new services based on<br>
>> them.<br>
>><br>
>> best,<br>
>><br>
>> Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of<br>
>> Ottawa<br>
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,<br>
>> Université d'Ottawa<br>
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC<br>
>> Insight Project<br>
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]<br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> </span><a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]<br>
>><br>
>> -------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> From: </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <</span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>
on behalf<br>
>> of Lisa Hinchliffe <</span><a href="mailto:lisalibrarian@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">lisalibrarian@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:51:10 AM<br>
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<br>
>><br>
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email<br>
>><br>
>> Heather, can you explain a bit your claim that different people<br>
>> paying different prices means the market isn't transparent? Is that<br>
>> inherently non-transparent? Or, are you suggesting the issue is that<br>
>> it isn't publicly known what the different prices are? Lisa<br>
>><br>
>> ___<br>
>><br>
>> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe<br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:lisalibrarian@gmail.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">lisalibrarian@gmail.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:37 AM Heather Morrison<br>
>> <</span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dirk says with respect to OpenAPCs: "the real costs for academic<br>
>> institutions and funders...deviate from list prices for various<br>
>> reasons".<br>
>><br>
>> If correct, as I assume it is, this is not a transparent market. For<br>
>> example, I assume this means authors who are not covered by<br>
>> institutions or funders are expected to pay list price (unless they<br>
>> negotiate an individual waiver), and different institutions and<br>
>> funders pay different prices for the same service, based on their<br>
>> ability to negotiate.<br>
>><br>
>> The information on a publisher's website gives the list price and<br>
>> often has a waiver of 50% for authors from low to middle income<br>
>> countries. Is this half of a price that no one in the richest<br>
>> institutions actually pays? Is it sometimes more than a rich<br>
>> institution actually pays for one of its authors?<br>
>><br>
>> best,<br>
>><br>
>> Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of<br>
>> Ottawa<br>
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,<br>
>> Université d'Ottawa<br>
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC<br>
>> Insight Project<br>
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]<br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> </span><a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]<br>
>><br>
>> -------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> From: </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <</span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>
on behalf<br>
>> of Pieper, Dirk <</span><a href="mailto:dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:30:09 AM<br>
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<br>
>><br>
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Heather,<br>
>><br>
>> thank you, I fully agree. Just some additional remarks:<br>
>><br>
>> The monitoring of publishers list prices is very important, the<br>
>> approach of OpenAPC is to monitor the real costs per article for<br>
>> academic institutions and funders, which deviate from list prices<br>
>> for various reasons. Both ways should be regarded as complementary.<br>
>><br>
>> I also see the biggest challenge at the moment in creating the<br>
>> above mentioned cost transparency for articles within transformative<br>
>> agreements, especially if they are mixed up with costs for reading<br>
>> access and when historical subscription expenditures of consortia<br>
>> and participating institutions are involved. APCs and so called PAR<br>
>> fees are different of course but in the end they both put a price<br>
>> tag on an OA article. Funders and academic institutions then can<br>
>> make their decisions, which way of OA transition or which publishers<br>
>> they can support with public money within their limited budgets.<br>
>><br>
>> Leaving out authors is always a mess. I remember editors in our<br>
>> university, who could not read their own journals, because we as a<br>
>> library were not able to pay the license for reading …<br>
</span><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt">>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Dirk<br>
>><br>
>> Von: </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt"> [</span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span lang="DE" style="font-size:11.0pt">]
Im<br>
>> Auftrag von Heather Morrison<br>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt">September 2019 21:07<br>
>> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Betreff: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<br>
>><br>
>> Every model for transitioning to open access has its advantages and<br>
>> disadvantages.<br>
>><br>
>> One of the potential benefits of the article processing charge<br>
>> method is transparency, which in theory could lead to more price and<br>
>> cost sensibility as Dirk describes. I was more optimistic about this<br>
>> potential in the past than I am today. OA journals and publishers'<br>
>> websites are full of information about APCs being paid for by<br>
>> institutions, funders, not out of authors' pockets. If funders pay<br>
>> for APCs, the cost may be transparent to authors and universities,<br>
>> but who pays attention when someone else is paying? In the<br>
>> transformative (subscriptions + open access) deals, APCs are no more<br>
>> transparent than subscriptions, and based on my prior experience<br>
>> negotiating licensing deals, these combined deals may make both the<br>
>> subscriptions and the APC costs more obscure, because ultimately,<br>
>> buyers and sellers of big deals are agreeing on a bundled price<br>
>> rather than a cost structure, never mind a transparent cost<br>
>> structure. Such deals have a strong potential to alter the APC<br>
>> market, because low APCs might seem to publishers as a weakness in<br>
>> negotiating. Also, for traditional scholarly publishers who have<br>
>> extensive back lists of works for which they own copyright (a major<br>
>> financial asset), the best case scenario is complete failure of the<br>
>> open access movement. New publishers who rely on APCs (e.g. PLOS,<br>
>> Hindawi, MDPI) have incentive to transform the entire system, but<br>
>> not traditional highly profitable publishers like SpringerNature and<br>
>> Elsevier.<br>
>><br>
>> One of the strong drawbacks of APC is leaving out authors who<br>
>> cannot afford the fees. This is not just authors in low income<br>
>> countries. As Peter Murray-Rust helpfully pointed out recently,<br>
>> active retiree scholars like PMR do not have funding for APCs,<br>
>> either. This is also likely to be true of emerging scholars in the<br>
>> developed world who are in the process of trying to establish a<br>
>> career. Even if every university and research institution covered<br>
>> APCs for regular full-time researchers, it is unlikely that future<br>
>> such researchers would be covered.<br>
>><br>
>> Another reason to be cautious about the potential of APC to achieve<br>
>> cost and pricing stability is that whether this will happen or<br>
>> whether we will see a continuation of the decades-old inelastic<br>
>> market for scholarly publishing in an open access market remains to<br>
>> be seen. Will authors see the cost and seek cost-effective<br>
>> publishing solutions? Or, will the underlying dynamic behind the<br>
>> inelastic market - "must purchase / subscribe" simply shift to<br>
>> "must-publish-in"?<br>
>><br>
>> To date, based on our longitudinal APC study, while there is not<br>
>> enough data to draw firm conclusions, there is enough evidence of<br>
>> transitioning the inelastic market into APCs to warrant concern. As<br>
>> we have reported in the past few years, price increases that are far<br>
>> beyond inflationary levels, applied to already substantial prices,<br>
>> have been observed among both traditional-transitioning and new<br>
>> OA-only publishers.<br>
>><br>
>> Select examples:<br>
>><br>
>> SpringerOpen 2018/2019: 8% increase in average APC; 36% of<br>
>> journals, the ones with the highest volumes, increased in price at<br>
>> rates from double the inflation rate to double the price.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> </span><a href="https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/08/13/springeropen-pricing-trends-2018-2019/"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/08/13/springeropen-pricing-trends-2018-2019/</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Frontiers 2018/2019: while the average APC increase is only 3%, 40%<br>
>> of Frontiers journals increased in price from 2018/2019 by 18% - 31%<br>
>> (the EU inflation rate is below 2% for this time frame).<br>
>><br>
>><br>
> </span><a href="https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/04/30/frontiers-in-2019-3-increase-in-average-apc/"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/04/30/frontiers-in-2019-3-increase-in-average-apc/</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> MDPI 2018/2019: "In brief: MDPI has increased prices, in many cases<br>
>> quite substantially (some prices have more than tripled). Even more<br>
>> price increases are anticipated in July 2019, which will have the<br>
>> effect of doubling the average APC and tripling the most common APC.<br>
>> Unlike other publishers’ practices, there are no price decreases".<br>
>><br>
> </span><a href="https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> [5]<br>
>><br>
>> Kudos to Dr. Franck Vasquez, MDPI's CEO, for open discussion about<br>
>> similar price increases in 2018. The key takeaway I was hoping for<br>
>> in the case of new APC based publishers like MDPI is an<br>
>> understanding that this kind of price increases (market-based<br>
>> pricing) is not compatible with budgets of payers (libraries,<br>
>> universities and funding agencies' budgets are based on costs and<br>
>> resource availability). This fundamental conflict seems very likely<br>
>> to drive an inelastic, unsustainable APC market. However, after this<br>
>> open, transparent conversation, here we are again in 2019 with new<br>
>> OA publishers pursuing exactly the same pricing strategy.<br>
>><br>
>> To conclude, while my team spends a lot of time studying APC<br>
>> trends, this does not imply endorsement of the method. In the past,<br>
>> I advocated for APCs as a way to introduce transparency and<br>
>> competition into the market. Today, I urge caution and strongly<br>
>> encourage consideration of other models. For example, direct subsidy<br>
>> models such as providing infrastructure for publishing and archives<br>
>> at the university or research organization and supporting editorial<br>
>> work (e.g. modest subsidy to pay for support staff) is much more<br>
>> efficient than APC, which is in effect an indirect subsidy model. If<br>
>> transparency is sought, universities and funding agencies, at least<br>
>> in my part of the world, have a solid reputation for seeking<br>
>> accountability for every cost incurred.<br>
>><br>
>> best,<br>
>><br>
>> Dr. Heather Morrison<br>
>><br>
>> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of<br>
>> Ottawa<br>
>><br>
>> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information,<br>
>> Université d'Ottawa<br>
>><br>
>> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC<br>
>> Insight Project<br>
>><br>
>> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4]<br>
>><br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Heather.Morrison@uottawa.ca</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> </span><a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> [6]<br>
>><br>
>> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]<br>
>><br>
>> -------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> From: </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> <</span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">>
on behalf<br>
>> of Pieper, Dirk <</span><a href="mailto:dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">dirk.pieper@uni-bielefeld.de</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 4:00 AM<br>
>> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<br>
>><br>
>> Attention : courriel externe | external email<br>
>><br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>><br>
>> (a) even in “richer” countries it is necessary to reduce APC<br>
>> prices because of limited budgets of academic institutions and<br>
>> funder policies. In many cases authors and libraries are successful<br>
>> to get reduced APCs from publishers<br>
>><br>
>> (b) I agree that APCs are in most cases not related to the costs<br>
>> of producing an article, but they indicate the costs for<br>
>> institutions or authors to publish OA in journals with certain<br>
>> publishers. That is a progress compared to the subscription system,<br>
>> because this is slowly leading to more price and cost sensibility.<br>
>> That is why I like APCs J) …<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Dirk<br>
>><br>
>> Von: </span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> [</span><a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">]
Im<br>
>> Auftrag von Peter Murray-Rust<br>
>> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. August 2019 17:18<br>
>> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <</span><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">goal@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Cc: </span><a href="mailto:WAME-L@list.nih.gov"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">WAME-L@list.nih.gov</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">;
</span><a href="mailto:RADICALOPENACCESS@jiscmail.ac.uk"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">RADICALOPENACCESS@jiscmail.ac.uk</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">; scholcomm<br>
>> <</span><a href="mailto:scholcomm@lists.ala.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">scholcomm@lists.ala.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">><br>
>> Betreff: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you Chris,<br>
>><br>
>> I feel exactly as you do, maybe more. This is wrong on several<br>
>> counts.<br>
>><br>
>> (a) as you say it requires the underprivileged (the "scholarly<br>
>> poor") to beg. Some journals give lower prices for World Bank LMIC<br>
>> countries - but often Brasil and India are classified as<br>
>> high-income. Even reducing the price to half is impossible for many<br>
>> countries.<br>
>><br>
>> (b) the APC is NOT cost-related (see another post form me about<br>
>> DEAL). DEAL pays Springer the price of an article (2750 E) whereas<br>
>> the cost of processing is ca 400 E (Grossman and Brembs, 2019)<br>
>><br>
>> Costs are almost never transparent, therefore cause prices to be<br>
>> whatever the publisher can get away with. This adds another layer of<br>
>> injustice.<br>
>><br>
>> I am affected by the APCs. I am on the board of two journals and<br>
>> being retired have to pay and APC myself. I feel diminished if I<br>
>> have to ask to get a waiver, and in any case it looks very unethical<br>
>> to gve waivers to the board. I therefore cannot publish in the<br>
>> journals that I give my time freely to.<br>
>><br>
>> The system is now completely out of date. Many places and<br>
>> organizations CAN run platinum journals (no fee open to all). It's<br>
>> more ethical equitable and makes knowledge fully available.<br>
>><br>
>> 70% of climate papers are behind paywalls. Making a no-fee publish<br>
>> system is the only way to get the knowledge flowing. My software can<br>
>> read 10000 papers in a morning, but the broken societal system<br>
>> prevents that.<br>
>><br>
>> P.<br>
>><br>
>> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 2:17 PM Chris Zielinski<br>
>> <</span><a href="mailto:chris@chriszielinski.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">chris@chriszielinski.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt">> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> (Apologies for cross-posting)<br>
>><br>
>> This is to raise a question about how editors of Open Access<br>
>> journals that demand an article processing charge (APC) should deal<br>
>> with discounts for non-institutional authors or those from poorer<br>
>> countries.<br>
>><br>
>> The offering of substantial APC waivers to authors from specific<br>
>> countries or to researchers with financial constraints in specific<br>
>> cases is familiar. My question relates to the way in which such<br>
>> discounts are offered.<br>
>><br>
>> Usually, a researcher needs to assert or demonstrate his/her<br>
>> inability to pay the APC before getting relief. The problem is that<br>
>> obliging researcher to request a lower or zero APC feels a bit like<br>
>> inviting them to beg – and the result often seems to depend on the<br>
>> benevolence and good humour of the editor, responding on an<br>
>> individual, case-by-case basis, rather than by applying some<br>
>> pre-established rule.<br>
>><br>
>> This is surely not good enough. It can’t be correct and ethical<br>
>> scientific practice to require unsupported authors to face the<br>
>> embarrassment of having to turn out their pockets and demonstrate<br>
>> the holes in their socks before they get a discount.<br>
>><br>
>> Any views on this? Should there be a norm among OA journals that<br>
>> each should adopt a standardized system to determine APC charges<br>
>> (ranging from 0 to the full APC, depending on an explicit list of<br>
>> circumstances), avoiding the need for any negotiation?<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>> Chris Zielinski<br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:chris@chriszielinski.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">chris@chriszielinski.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> Blogs: </span><a href="http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> and<br>
>> </span><a href="http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> Research publications: </span><a href="http://www.researchgate.net"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://www.researchgate.net</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GOAL@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> </span><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>><br>
>> "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any<br>
>> contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You<br>
>> should do the same".<br>
>><br>
>> Peter Murray-Rust<br>
>> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics<br>
>> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry<br>
>> University of Cambridge<br>
>> CB2 1EW, UK<br>
>> +44-1223-763069 _______________________________________________<br>
>> GOAL mailing list<br>
>> </span><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GOAL@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
>> </span><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> GOAL mailing list<br>
> </span><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GOAL@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> </span><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> GOAL mailing list<br>
> </span><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GOAL@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> </span><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
><br>
><br>
> Links:<br>
> ------<br>
> [1]<br>
> </span><a href="http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> [2] </span><a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> [3] </span><a href="https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> [4] </span><a href="http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> [5]<br>
> </span><a href="https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> [6] </span><a href="https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> GOAL mailing list<br>
> </span><a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">GOAL@eprints.org</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
> </span><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr. Ulrich Herb<br>
./scidecode<br>
Postfach 11 54<br>
D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf<br>
</span><a href="https://scidecode.com/en"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">https://scidecode.com/en</span></a><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
+49-(0)157 30306851<br>
twitter.com/scidecode<br>
twitter.com/scinoptica</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>