From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:44:49 -0800
Dear Sally, that's not what I said.
Joe
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 2:28 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:46:38 +0000
>
> I disagree with Joe that publishing (of whatever kind) does not
> add value for authors. IMHO, the primary value is to the authors -
> not just the peer review, editing etc, but also the fact of inclusion
> in 'Journal X' with all the prestige (and other signals) that confers.
>
> Thus it makes some sense for those who receive the primary
> value also to pay for it (though of course they don't - it's 'author-side'
> payment, just as subscriptions are 'reader-side'; in neither case does
> it usually come out of the personal pocket of the recipient of the benefit...)
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK BN13 3UU
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
> Sent: 30 November 2011 00:57
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model
>
> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:19:27 -0800
>
> Not present in this discussion is the fact that there are many
> different kinds of OA publishing. The flagship PLOS journals,
> for example, have an editorial policy that resembles that of
> established toll-access journals. But PLOS One has a
> different kind of peer review. The first kind is probably too
> expensive to thrive (as OA), since there is no large customer
> base over which the overhead can be spread. The latter kind,
> which is now being widely imitated, is thriving now, but the
> long-term prospects are uncertain.
>
> The business problem is how to keep the submissions coming
> for the PLOS One model. This may not be a problem for PLOS
> itself or its One service because of the strength of the brand.
> But what about all the other publishers that are working with this
> author-pays "lite" peer review model? Why would an author submit
> material to one such service over another? In the absence of
> old-fashioned peer review, the OA services will be hard to
> distinguish from one another.
>
> The fundamental problem with author-pays OA publishing is that
> it does not add value to the people who pay for it. It adds value
> to the people who do not pay for it. In economics, internal
> contradictions have a way of revealing themselves given enough time.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Armbruster, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 00:48:47 -0800
> >
> > Sandy,
> >
> > it could be that OAP becomes equally dominated by the big deal,
> > and the mechanism by which this would happen is 'subscription'.
> > Particularly research libraries seem to be engaging in big OA deals
> > with publishers, by agreeing a priori to pay the APC for any given year.
> > Smaller publishers, possibly, would then need to coordinate (come
> > together, merge?) to be more attractive to the research libraries, who
> > are likely to prefer signing a few big deals than negotiating hundreds
> > of contracts...
> >
> > OA publishers and OA advocates are likely to disagree with this
> > hypothesis. Indeed, there is a widespread assumption that OAP is
> > about market competition and that the APC is a price mechanism that
> > links price with quality. However, at the moment we only have the
> > assertion that there is (will be) market competition, numerous illustrations
> > of OAP income streams, and a first (good) analysis of the OAP landscape
> > (from the SOAP project). Missing is a first stab at the analysis of
> > competition in OAP: What does competition look like and what would
> > constitute a competitive advantage?
> >
> > At the moment, many publishers are betting that an advantage comes
> > from starting a megajournal. For megajournals the APC might indeed
> > signal a competitive market (unless research libraries undercut this by
> > taking out subscriptions to (some) megajournals).
> >
> > PLoS is a small publisher, but was well funded and is on the way to
> > becoming a big publisher. When starting a megajournal, it helps to have
> > money in the bank. So, if I were a small(er) publisher, I would be looking
> > at OAP and its opportunities urgently (including OAP for books) because
> > the field is still relatively open, but once it has consolidated (more), the
> > barriers to entry will surely rise.
> >
> > In sum, the concerns Sandy has are valid. The SOAP project found that
> > a small number of publishers account for much of the funded OAP. Via a
> > few M&As it is possible that OAP will be dominated by big players, possibly
> > even the same players that dominate SB.
> >
> > However, it need not be that way, and the funders of OAP have much
> > influence on the development. Then again, maybe the funders of OAP
> > prefer dealing with a few large publishers?
> >
> > Chris
|
