From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:43:24 +0200

On 6 Aug 2012, at 03:34, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: "Andrew A. Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:08:54 +0900
>
> THere
> are on the order of 10,000 research instutitions and more than ten times as
> many journals. Persudaing 10,000 institutions to adopt OA deposit mandates
> seems to me a quicker and more certain route to obtain OA than persuading
> 100,000 journals to go Gold (and finding more money to bribe them into it, it
> would appear - money which is going to continue to be demanded by them in
> perpetuity, not accepted as a transitional fee - there's nothing so permanent
> as a temporary measure).

10,000 research institutes means, in terms of 'green', 10,000
repositories; 100,000 journals (if there were so many; I've only ever
heard numbers in the order of 20-25,000) does not mean 100,000
publishers. Besides, there is no existential reason for institutions
to have a repository and 'green' mandate. The fact that others have
repositories and it doesn't have one itself does not harm a research
institution in the same way that not having being 'gold' (or at least
having a 'gold' option) does existentially harm journals in an
environment of more and more 'gold' journals.

As for costs, there are two things that seem to escape the attention
of exclusively 'green' advocates:

1) 'Green' fully depends on the prolongation of the subscription
model. Without subscription revenues no journals, hence no
peer-reviewed articles, hence nothing to self-archive but manuscripts,
arXiv-style. (That would be fine by me, actually, with
post-publication peer review mechanisms overlaying arXiv-oids). The
cost of maintaining subscriptions is completely ignored by exclusively
'green' advocates, who always talk about 'green' costing next to
nothing. They are talking about the *marginal* cost of 'green', and
compare it to the *integral* cost of 'gold'.

2) Exclusively 'green' advocates do not seem to understand that for
'gold' journals, publishers are not in any position to "demand money".
They can only offer their services in exchange for a fee if those who
would pay the fee are willing to pay it. That's known as
'competition', or as a 'functioning market'. By its very nature, it
drives down prices. This in contrast to the monopoloid subscription
market, where the price drivers face upwards. Sure, some APC's
increased since the early beginnings of 'gold' OA publishing, when
'gold' publishers found out they couldn't do it for amounts below
their costs. But generally, the average APCs per 'gold' article are
lower — much lower — than the average publisher revenues per
subscription article. And this average per-article subscription price
will have to be coughed up in order to keep 'green' afloat.

If and when the denizens of the ivory tower were to reduce their
culturalism and anglo-linguism that currently prevails, we could
rapidly see science publishing emerge in places like China, India, and
other countries keen on establishing their place in a global market,
competing on price. APCs could tumble. Some call this 'predatory gold
OA publishing'. Few realise that the 'prey' is subscription journals.

> Green OA mandates are only the first step, but without us taking that first
> step first, as a body, focussing on getting everyone (by everyone I mean all
> researchers, research instutitions, funders and governments) to take that
> first step, we will continue to fall flat on our faces.

If so, they are the first steps out of a very tall building. A kind of
self-fenestration. Taking measures to break the fall are highly
advisable. 'Gold' is such a measure.

> Finch is a diversion from taking that first step, driven by idealists who
> have failed to learn the lessons of the decade since the BOAI and by the
> those with their own rent-seeking profits in mind.

The Finch group has come to its conclusions precisely because they
*have* learnt the lessons of the last decade. There is nothing —
repeat: *nothing* — that prevents academics to eschew the services of
"rent-seeking" publishers. They could easily self-organise (though I
realise that both the words 'could' and 'easily' are probably
misplaced). To expect publishers (for-profit and not-for-profit ones
alike) to refuse providing services that academics are seeking from
them is silly.