From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:12:53 +0000
The question obviously rests on "no fee for whom?"
Let us remember that the main actors in the research context are:
1. the researchers,
2. publishers and, more generally, those responsible for the four
publishing functions (registration, certification, dissemination and
preservation),
3. the funding agencies,
4. the general public in all its diverse communities,
5. the research sites (universities, national labs, etc.) and their
libraries
Leo - hello, in passing - puts forth a distinction between a no-fee or a
discounted journal.
Clearly, a SCOAP3-style of financial support for journals is
1. A no-fee solution for researchers
2. A fee-garnering solution for publishers
3. Maybe a fee solution for funding agencies
4. A no-fee solution for the general public
5. Certainly a fee solution for the research sites that decide to
contribute and a no-fee solution for the sites that do not contribute (free
riders)
This said, I do not understand what a "discounted journal" is. What is
discounted? From what base-line?
It is clear that a SCOAP3-style approach to open access, or various forms
of flipping arrangements, all start from the premise that, once researchers
have free access to submitting and free access to reading, all that is
needed is to find a kind of money flow designed to keep publishers happy,
and research sites and their libraries not too unhappy. Of course, open
access was never imagined to solve the financial equilibrium between hapy
publishers and unhappy librarians; it was imagined to make scholarly
communication optimal to improve the research process and the impact of
research results in society. Fitting the latter objectives within a
financial plan may appear "realistic" to some, but it really amounts to
putting the cart before the horse. The right way to go is:
1. See how to make the scholarly communication system optimal
2. Scope where the money comes from (libraries, research sites, funding
agencies)
3. See how to coordinate the sources of money to achieve 1.
In conclusion, the question that should really be broached is whether the
goal of open access must be constrained by the publishers and their
"happiness requirements" (so to speak). Given that the four publishing
functions can be distributed between various actors (for example libraries
alone can register and preserve, and can probably disseminate; research
sites can certainly certify), and given that the money flows from only two
sources - libraries and funding agencies - the only reason why, presently,
the money flows keep on going to legacy publishers is the fact that their
products - journals (not articles, journals) are used to evaluate research
(impact factor and journal rankings). Beside the fact that evaluating
research in this manner is highly problematic (to say the least), the
moneys held by libraries, research sites, and funding agencies might be
better employed if they were pooled to develop new kinds of public
publishing platforms with appropriate tools to carry out evaluations of
research that are sensible.
Redalyc does so in Latin America.
The issue is also alive within the European Commission.
Jean-Claude Guédon
On 2019-06-15 2:27 p.m., LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:37:44 +0200
What is a no-fee journal?
Spontaneously, I would have answered: an OA journal which does not charge
publication fees. Further consideration might be needed, however, as DOAJ
and QOAM come to different conclusions with respect to a number of
journals. For example, the Elsevier journals 1873-2445 and 1873-1562 or the
Springer journals 1029-8479 and 1434-6052 do not charge authors because
libraries have paid the bill as members of the SCOAP3 project. But does
that make these journals ‘no-fee’ as DOAJ seems to conclude, or are they
just ‘discounted journals’ as QOAM claims? The outcome may have relevance
to the wider Plan S debate as well.
I would appreciate if the community could shed some light on this.
Leo Waaijers
|
