From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:12:53 +0000

The question obviously rests on "no fee for whom?"

Let us remember that the main actors in the research context are:
  1. the researchers,
  2. publishers and, more generally, those responsible for the four publishing functions (registration, certification, dissemination and preservation),
  3. the funding agencies,
  4. the general public in all its diverse communities,
  5. the research sites (universities, national labs, etc.) and their libraries

Leo - hello, in passing - puts forth a distinction between a no-fee or a discounted journal.

Clearly, a SCOAP3-style of financial support for journals is
  1. A no-fee solution for researchers
  2. A fee-garnering solution for publishers
  3. Maybe a fee solution for funding agencies
  4. A no-fee solution for the general public
  5. Certainly a fee solution for the research sites that decide to contribute and a no-fee solution for the sites that do not contribute (free riders)
This said, I do not understand what a "discounted journal" is. What is discounted? From what base-line?

It is clear that a SCOAP3-style approach to open access, or various forms of flipping arrangements, all start from the premise that, once researchers have free access to submitting and free access to reading, all that is needed is to find a kind of money flow designed to keep publishers happy, and research sites and their libraries not too unhappy. Of course, open access was never imagined to solve the financial equilibrium between hapy publishers and unhappy librarians; it was imagined to make scholarly communication optimal to improve the research process and the impact of research results in society. Fitting the latter objectives within a financial plan may appear "realistic" to some, but it really amounts to putting the cart before the horse. The right way to go is:
  1. See how to make the scholarly communication system optimal
  2. Scope where the money comes from (libraries, research sites, funding agencies)
  3. See how to coordinate the sources of money to achieve 1.

In conclusion, the question that should really be broached is whether the goal of open access must be constrained by the publishers and their "happiness requirements" (so to speak). Given that the four publishing functions can be distributed between various actors (for example libraries alone can register and preserve, and can probably disseminate; research sites can certainly certify), and given that the money flows from only two sources - libraries and funding agencies - the only reason why, presently, the money flows keep on going to legacy publishers is the fact that their products - journals (not articles, journals) are used to evaluate research (impact factor and journal rankings). Beside the fact that evaluating research in this manner is highly problematic (to say the least), the moneys held by libraries, research sites, and funding agencies might be better employed if they were pooled to develop new kinds of public publishing platforms with appropriate tools to carry out evaluations of research that are sensible.

Redalyc does so in Latin America.
The issue is also alive within the European Commission.

Jean-Claude Guédon


On 2019-06-15 2:27 p.m., LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 13:37:44 +0200

What is a no-fee journal?

 

Spontaneously, I would have answered: an OA journal which does not charge publication fees. Further consideration might be needed, however, as DOAJ and QOAM come to different conclusions with respect to a number of journals. For example, the Elsevier journals 1873-2445 and 1873-1562 or the Springer journals 1029-8479 and 1434-6052 do not charge authors because libraries have paid the bill as members of the SCOAP3 project. But does that make these journals ‘no-fee’ as DOAJ seems to conclude, or are they just ‘discounted journals’ as QOAM claims? The outcome may have relevance to the wider Plan S debate as well.

 

I would appreciate if the community could shed some light on this.

 

Leo Waaijers