From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 00:51:23 -0700

This is too long an answer to my simple question. As a result, the
answer is tricky.

First, by definition, the Green OA is "a deposit of PRE-peer-reviewed
article on author's website".

The only way publishers can agree on this is for a back payment - this
appears to be made by institutions and not by the authors (a version
of the Gold OA).

Am I right? Then who in the institution will decide for which
submission to pay and for which not?

Ari Belenkiy
SFU
Canada


On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:09 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 11:42:59 -0400
>
> >On 2013-08-11, Ari Belenkiy, SFU <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >Why will publishers agree to this scheme?
>
> Peer-review is the most important service they provide ... for nothing?
>
> (1) Publishers today are paid for (managing) peer review -- paid in
> full, many times over -- by institutional subscriptions.
>
> (2) The majority of journals today already agree to immediate,
> unembargoed Green OA self-archiving of the author's peer-reviewed
> final draft.
>
> (3) For the minority of journals that embargo OA, there is the
> immediate-deposit (ID/OA) mandate - mandatory deposit in the author's
> institutional repository immediately upon acceptance whether or not
> access to the deposit is immediately set as OA -- plus the
> repository's eprint-request Button to tide over user access needs with
> one click from the requestor and one click from the author
> ("Almost-OA") for those deposits to which access has been set as
> Closed Access, to comply with a publisher OA embargo.
>
> Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Gold OA
> Publishing are premature.
>
> Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top
> journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds
> to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high
> ("Fools-Gold"); and there is concern that paying to publish may
> inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards.
>
> What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate
> immediate-deposit (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately
> upon acceptance for publication). (U of C should add such an
> immediate-deposit clause -- with no opt-out -- to its new Green OA
> mandate.)
>
> This will provide immediate Green OA for all unembargoed deposits +
> immediate Almost-OA for all embargoed deposits.
>
> Then, if and when universal Green OA should go on to make
> subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the
> Green OA versions)
> that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online
> edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just managing the
> service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery
> model.
>
> Meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds
> to pay these residual service costs (for affordable, sustainable
> post-Green Fair-Gold OA).
>
> The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be
> on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder paying
> for each
> round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance,
> revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while
> protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in
> peer-review quality standards.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:24:50 +0000
>
> Experience suggests that the value added to a peer-reviewed manuscript
> by a copy-editor varies considerably. If the peer-reviewers have done
> their job, any false facts or illogicality in the research arguments
> should have been picked up. Precision of language and grammar are
> important but an author may have as good a grasp of language and
> grammar as a copy-editor. I am not suggesting that copy-editors do not
> play any role in the quality of the published article, but quality
> lies to a greater extent in the quality of the research reported in
> the article than it does in copy-editing. The question we have to face
> is whether the variable value added by a publisher through
> copy-editing or any other service is worth the substantial sum a
> publisher charges for such services. How much is using the services of
> a publisher worth?
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL