From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:27:14 -0700
Finch Folly is a great phase. I know it's intended as derision, but I
like it. It's also sound economics. Professor is correct if he is
implying that Gold OA is unnecessarily expensive, but it's likely to
prevail--which makes it necessary, by one definition-- alongside
toll-access publications with more traditional peer review policies
(the Lancet differs from PLoS ONE in this regard, to cite one
example). Everything about OA will increase costs. This is because
OA opens the gate to many more publications. I don't know why some
people see it as an ideal. It seems to me simply to be a good
business opportunity, like selling eggs to the California miners in
1849.
Joe Esposito
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> No, this is a discussion about institutions and funders requiring authors to take responsibility for making their peer-reviewed research publications accessible to all users, not just those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in which it was published.
>
> To accomplish, paying extra to publish in Gold OA journals is not necessary. Most journals (and almost all the top journals) are subscription journals. All that's necessary is to make the author's peer-reviewed final draft free for all onlline by depositing it in the author's institutional repository (Green OA).
>
> If and when universally mandated Green OA makes subscriptions unsustainable, journals will downsize to the peer review service alone and convert to Gold OA, paid for by institutions out of their subscription savings -- and the Green OA version will become the version of record.
>
> Paying for Gold OA pre-emptively now, with scarce research funds, while subscriptions are paying in full for publication, is folly: Finch Folly.
>
> Advice: Institutions and funders should Ignore completely the ill-conceived, publisher-biassed recommendations of the Finch Report and do instead what is best for research, researchers, the R&D industry and the tax-paying public that funds the research: Mandate cost-free Green OA and then let nature take its course.
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:50:07 +0000
>>
>> Isn't this becoming a debate about whether research institutions
>> should take responsibility for publishing the research done by their
>> staff? This is a big shift since, historically, institutions have
>> largely left responsibility for publishing to their research staff.
>>
>> If we accept that institutions need to take over this responsibility
>> from individual staff, then we need to ask the question: will
>> institutions be any good at discharging this responsibility?
>>
>> Another question is whether scholars will trust institutions to
>> perform the kind of branding for their own output that is currently
>> performed by third-party journals. Under the current system, if I
>> publish an article in a prestigious journal, those who see the
>> citation have pretty good reason to expect that my article is of high
>> quality, because the journal publisher has no vested interest in
>> advancing my career. But what if those who see the citation know that
>> the publisher is also my employer?
>>
>> I'm not saying this is an insuperable problem, only that it's one more
>> thing that would have to be considered if we want to get serious about
>> moving in this direction. What it would amount to, really, is
>> institutional self-publishing. Every journal would be seen as,
>> essentially, a vanity press of its institution unless some kind of
>> structurally rigorous discrimination were built into the system. (And
>> what would be the institution's incentive for building such rigor in?)
>>
>> --
>> Rick Anderson
>> Acting Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library
>> University of Utah
>> [log in to unmask]
|
