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