From: David Groenewegen <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:19:36 +1000

I'm especially struck by this bit:

"> Elsevier's Michael Mabe sees this as inherently flawed. "Under the
> existing subscription-based model articles are only published if they
> reach a certain threshold criteria of quality, determined by peer
> review," he says. "With the author pays model, run by Open Access
> publishers, the temptation to include a few extra articles to get the
> extra money is very strong - especially at times of financial
> pressure. [To us] there is a significant risk that the quality of the
> literature would slowly decline under that type of pressure."
> (http://www.dclab.com/archive/article_stm_business_model.ASP)"

The publishers often tell us the reason that prices go up by more than
inflation every year is because we get more articles per journal every
year. Does that mean for non-OA publishers "the temptation to include
a few extra articles to get the extra money is very strong"? I wonder
if "the quality of the literature would slowly decline under that type
of pressure"?

--
David Groenewegen
Director, Research Infrastructure
Monash University Library
Box 4, Monash University,
Victoria, 3800
AUSTRALIA
[log in to unmask]


On 19/07/2013 6:50 AM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 08:42:05 +0100
>
> This thread is getting rather long - but at heart there is a simple
> fact.  Anthony's thesis is that there has been no 'anti-OA' lobbying
> other than than that related to mandates.  I showed that this isn't
> true.
>
> I do find it amusing that Anthony would have us discount the oral
> evidence from the House of Commons.  Apparently highly paid and
> competent captains of industry, leaders of multi-million pound
> international companies, were so bamboozled by such forensic questions
> as:
>
> who do you think should pay and who should have free or nearly free
> access? Do you have any form of means-testing?
>
> that they were tricked into suggesting that it would be dangerous for
> patients to have access to research literature.
>
> But even if we discount that evidence, what else were publishers
> saying about open access back then?  Well, here's Michael Mabe, now of
> STM, then of Elsevier, being asked about author-pays business models
> (in 2005, I think):
>
> Elsevier's Michael Mabe sees this as inherently flawed. "Under the
> existing subscription-based model articles are only published if they
> reach a certain threshold criteria of quality, determined by peer
> review," he says. "With the author pays model, run by Open Access
> publishers, the temptation to include a few extra articles to get the
> extra money is very strong - especially at times of financial
> pressure. [To us] there is a significant risk that the quality of the
> literature would slowly decline under that type of pressure."
> (http://www.dclab.com/archive/article_stm_business_model.ASP)
>
> Once again, fears of the perversion of peer-review being raised.  Once
> again, noting to do with mandates.
>
> [Anthony appears interested in the financing of SPARC Europe.  I can
> only speak for my time there 2002-2010, but we were a member
> organisation, with funding coming from annual subscriptions.  We were
> never a rich organisation - enough to pay for my salary, (economy!)
> travel, and a tiny amount - a few thousand pounds a year - to support
> projects.  Towards the end of my period we got to the heady heights of
> 1.5 staff members.  Not sure if that made us a Goliath.]
>
> David
>
>
>
>
> On 17 Jul 2013, at 22:21, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:47:19 +0100
>
> I have looked up the Publishers Association evidence to the Inquiry
> David mentioned.
>
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we22.htm
>
> I can find no evidence for an attack on the open access model unless
> you count the following para 45:
>
> "We harbour unease about the potential for bias in an open access
> publishing model based on grants, sponsorship and patronage.  Those
> who can pay will get published, but what security is there for those
> who cannot? Such a system is likely to favour the developed world over
> the developing world, and the better endowed US-based researchers over
> their European colleagues. The concept is essentially payment for
> publishing services, and it seems to us inevitable that submission
> fees will follow. Will reviewers then demand payment, and what will be
> the consequences for the integrity of peer review?"
>
> The two assumptions in the last two sentences have not yet been
> realised and the second one seems to me an odd one. If it is an attack
> it is an attack on a total open access environment ensured by mandate
> but not backed up sufficient funding.
>
> Other mentions of OA publishing were concerned with sustainability - a
> reasonable concern for a publisher I would suggest. It is still a
> concern for learned society publishers in particular.
>
> As he knows very well, because like me he was there, the instances he
> gives of verbal responses do not at least represent considered
> evidence. They were off the cuff. One of those who spoke certainly
> regrets the way he phrased a perfectly reasonable point. It was an
> intimidating scene marshalled by chair who had already made up his
> mind before the inquiry.
>
> Does David P class himself as the underfunded underdog? I think he
> worked for SPARC Europe in those days, and I looked at the site in
> vain to discover the sources of funding. However the parent body does
> tell us who pays for their activities: "SPARC finances its efforts
> through coalition member fees that support operating expenses and help
> build a capital fund to provide start-up money for its programs. SPARC
> also seeks grants to augment the capital fund. The key to SPARC's
> success, however, is the commitment of its approximately 200 coalition
> members to support SPARC initiatives. The members elect a small group
> of their own to assist SPARC in creating and governing its programs
> through the SPARC Steering Committee according to the SPARC governance
> policies". I do not think the future King David had 200 slingers
> behind him.
>
> Anthony