From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:12:48 -0500 And one reason "a repository-based infrastructure would be more cost-effective" is that it would forego some quality control that the traditional system ensured, such as copyediting. I see no emphasis anywhere in the literature on repositories that copyediting is a function that needs to be preserved in that infrastructure. Green OA is, in this respect, a less than optimal approach to disseminating knowledge, and it is unfair to claim that a repository-based infrastructure is more cost-effective when it is so only in part because it is content to offer a lower level of service. Sandy Thatcher > From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:11:06 +0100 > > Although Joe and I may not agree on everything, I do agree with his > emphasis on what will be sustainable and fundable, whether through > commercial investment or public funding. And I do understand (this > also relates to the reply from Sheila Dutton of BMJ) that part of the > quality control cost in the current research dissemination process is > borne by publishers. But every time a publisher comments on this kind > of issue it is from the starting-point of the current research > dissemination infrastructure, and an (understandable) wish to maintain > the current research dissemination infrastructure. If there were to be > a large-scale switch to a repository model rather than a journal > publishing model, the full quality control costs would have to be met > as part of repository costs, and it could be that people who are now > publishers would have the expertise to manage the quality control > process for the research community, but it would be within an > infrastructure very different from that operating now. The evidence we > have from the work of economists like John Houghton is that a switch > to a repository-based infrastructure would be more cost-effective than > the current research dissemination infrastructure, but it will not > happen unless there is the political will for it to happen. > > Fred Friend > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 01:28:08 -0700 > > I really can't agree with Fred about most of this. For one, the idea > that the work of peer review is somehow free because many of the > reviewers are unpaid displays not only profound ignorance of how peer > review systems are managed but, worse, a complete lack of curiosity. > But if Fred or any one else wants to place articles in a repository > somewhere, why, go right ahead. I don't know what problem that is > supposed to solve, but no one should get in the way of a man with a > fixed idea. > > But in the end, the fact that so-called Green OA has no meaningful > economic model is irrelevant. That which is not sustainable cannot > and will not be sustained. It will simply go away. If the articles > deposited in repositories cannibalize the publishers' versions (where > such exist), then over time the published versions will go away. If > "pure" repository publishing is what we have left, then it will > attempt to justify its costs, which will surprise many with how large > and unexpected they are. Even OA repositories with enormous community > support such as arXiv run into the problem that from time to time > significant investments have to be made in platforms. Volunteer labor > does many things truly well (think of Wikipedia), but a full > publishing service of the kind contemplated here may be a steep climb. > > The notion that research publishing--alone among all things in the > world--can somehow sit outside the economy is a strange idea, > something that will be studied by anthropologists years from now as a > characteristic myth of our era. > > What will happen, what is happening already, is that investment in > publishing will shift to new areas, especially those that are most > resistant to copying and that continue to provide a return on capital. > It can be no other way: this is the way the world works. > > None of this is happy news for the commercial publishers that have > looked to libraries for huge sums of money; I am not arguing for their > position. They will have to invest heavily in new businesses instead > of harvesting past investments. > > Joe Esposito > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> From: Frederick Friend <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:12:38 +0100 >> >> I cannot let pass without challenge the STM Association's statement >> that "Green Open Access has no business model to support the >> publications on which it crucially depends". Firstly deposit of a >> research report by an author in an institutional or subject repository >> does not depend upon publication in a journal. It is a separate route >> to the dissemination of publicly-funded research and could operate >> world-wide whether or not any STM journals were published at all. >> Secondly green open access does have a business model which is >> entirely within research and higher education budgets. Repositories >> are supported by their institution or funding agency, and a fully >> peer-reviewed version of a research article could be supplied on open >> access using the time of reviewers currently supplied without charge >> to publishers. >> >> A further quality stamp could be provided by the institution or >> organization funding the repository and appropriate metadata attached >> to the version to indicate that it could be regarded as a "version of >> record". Few people are currently advocating a total switch away from >> publishing in journals to a total reliance upon repositories (although >> it would be feasible), but as both the European Commission and >> Research Councils UK acknowledge in their policies the two models can >> live alongside one another. The UK Government, in accepting the >> unbalanced recommendations from the Finch Group, has made a decision >> which is bad for researchers and bad for taxpayers. It may not even be >> good for publishers in the long-term, once the full implications of >> the UK Government's decision are worked through. >> >> Fred Friend >> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL >> http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk