From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 07:57:15 -0400

I don't think there is the symmetry between the two cases David Groenewegen
cites as he seems to imply.  But before explaining why, we should not be
surprised that any commercial venture presents information in a way that
serves its interests.  Surely anyone growing up in a market economy knows
that.  So we discount things that sales people tell us as a matter of
course.

If subscription-based publications were simply adding articles to boost
prices, then we would see that reflected in eroding impact factors.  My
experience is that traditional publishers more often have the opposite
discussion, that is, whether to increase the rejection rate in order to
improve impact factors.  This is because market forces demand quality
publications.  This is the real virtue of the subscription model:  it
demands competition based on editorial quality, as libraries, with limited
budgets, will cancel everything else.

The virtues of Gold OA are many, but this model is indeed subject to
manipulation.  This is precisely what Jeffrey Beall's work addresses.  But
we have seen even non-manipulative alterations of editorial regimes in OA
publishing.  Consider the development of PLoS ONE, which uses a different
editorial strategy from the PLoS flagship journals.  At PLoS the alteration
of the editorial protocol changed the acceptance rate of papers, which has
turned out to be highly profitable.

At this point the conversation breaks down into an argument (irresolvable,
in my opinion) over whether the community-managed post-publication peer
review of PLoS ONE is better than, inferior to, or simply different from
the editorial policies of traditional publications.  I subscribe to the
"different from" school, but there is no end of argument over this.

I think it's a red herring to try to demonstrate equivalency between
traditional and OA forms of publication.  These are different systems; they
have different characteristics.  Different people will make different
determinations, and these determinations will vary depending on context.  I
much prefer the NY Times to Reddit, but I dip into Reddit from time to
time.

Joe Esposito


On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:47 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
>