tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post2367643707093623167..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Scholarly Publishing: Where is Plan B?Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-81482992290457351182013-12-30T17:53:55.953+00:002013-12-30T17:53:55.953+00:00What if Elsevier had a strategy for perpetually in...What if Elsevier had a strategy for perpetually increasing its subscription revenues, even if open access became the norm? This is what I speculate on in this blog post: <br />http://researchpracticesandtools.blogspot.fr/2013/12/the-world-according-to-elsevier.htmlSylvain Ribaulthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01458212114354400137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-3291480419409518362012-03-04T21:31:54.379+00:002012-03-04T21:31:54.379+00:00Not so sure about the semantics of idea vs. plan :...Not so sure about the semantics of idea vs. plan :-)<br /><br />But I would agree that the overwhelming majority of researchers is completely unaware of any alternative options and is currently simply frustrated and furious. I doubt that they would be in denial if they had all the currently available information.Bjoern Brembshttp://brembs.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-23577057378287405092012-03-03T04:23:01.276+00:002012-03-03T04:23:01.276+00:00PLAN C for OA: Flea Powder
I've said it befor...<b>PLAN C for OA: Flea Powder</b><br /><br />I've said it before. Maybe the time is now approaching when people will actually listen:<br /><br />1. Research libraries cannot, need not and will not cancel journals until all or almost all their contents are freely accessible to their users by some other means.<br /><br />2. Boycotting authors cannot, need not and will not stop publishing in or reviewing for their best journals: It is neither necessary nor realistic. There are easier and better ways to make those journals' contents freely accessible.<br /><br />3. Researchers cannot, need not and will not stop serving on the editorial boards of their best journals. It is neither necessary nor realistic. There are easier and better ways to make those journals' contents freely accessible.<br /><br />4. Research and researchers cannot, need not and will not abandon peer review. It is neither necessary nor realistic. There are easier and better ways to make those journals' contents freely accessible.<br /><br />5. Journals cannot, need not and will not convert to Gold Open Access publishing today: That would simply make OA as unaffordable as subscription access (at current prices).<br /><br />6. What those who are preoccupied with the journal pricing and economics keep overlooking is that the one and only reason it matters so much that journals are overpriced and unaffordable is that there is no other way to access their contents. <br /><br />7. Hence only one course of action is realistic, feasible and makes sense: It will remedy the accessibility problem completely and it will eventually drive down journal expenses and prices as well as induce a conversion to Gold OA publishing at an affordable rate.<br /><br />8. That course of action is for universities and research funders to mandate Green OA self-archiving.<br /><br />9. Once Green OA self-archiving becomes universal because it is universally mandated, the research accessibility is solved.<br /><br />10. Once the research accessibility problem is solved, journal affordability is no longer a life-or-death matter: libraries can cancel journals because their contents are freely accessible to their users by some other means.<br /><br />11. Once post-Green-OA cancellations make subscriptions unsustainable for meeting publishing costs, publishers will downsize to just the cost of peer review alone, offloading access provision and archiving onto institutional OA repositories, and converting to Gold OA publishing.<br /><br />12. Universities will then have the funds to pay the much lower costs of peer review alone out of their windfall subscription cancelation savings.<br /><br />(It is this optimal and inevitable outcome for research and researchers that the publishers' lobby is doing its best to forestall as long as it possibly can. But it's entirely up to the research community how long they allow them to do it. As long as they do, it amounts to allowing the flea on its tail to wag the research/dog…)<br /><br />Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: Anna Gacs. The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. L'Harmattan. 99-106. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/<br /><br />Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal. In: Cope, B. & Phillips, A (Eds.) The Future of the Academic Journal. Chandos. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/15617/<br /><br />Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8). http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/<br /><br />Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus, 28 (1). pp. 55-59. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18514<br /><br />Harnad, S. (2011) Open Access to Research: Changing Researcher Behavior Through University and Funder Mandates. JEDEM Journal of Democracy and Open Government 3 (1): 33-41. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22401/<br /><br />Harnad, Stevan (2011) Open Access Is a Research Community Matter, Not a Publishing Community Matter. Lifelong Learning in Europe. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22403/Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-7662717468991929632012-03-02T09:34:04.095+00:002012-03-02T09:34:04.095+00:00Dear Björn,
Thanks for the comment. Unless I am m...Dear Björn,<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. Unless I am missing something, what you appear to have is an idea rather than a plan.<br /><br />I agree that some individual researchers like you are exploring a number of options, but I still believe that the research community at large is in denial about the underlying problem.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-5842350916507350232012-03-02T07:34:22.730+00:002012-03-02T07:34:22.730+00:00Actually, there is a plan, but it's not a plan...Actually, there is a plan, but it's not a plan B. I don't know of any reason <a href="http://bjoern.brembs.net/comment-n829.html" rel="nofollow">why we should continue to use publishers as middlemen at all</a>. <a rel="nofollow">Libraries are already doing everything publishers do more cheaply and better</a>, so publishing all our articles in our libraries, even at shrinking budgets, is no problem at all.<br />Thus, I really have to take issue with your claim that the research community is oblivious to the problem you're describing. At least some of us are keenly aware of the problem and the solution is actually quite obvious and logical.Bjoern Brembshttp://brembs.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-210919027407436292012-03-01T18:08:39.935+00:002012-03-01T18:08:39.935+00:00"What clearly annoys the research community i..."What clearly annoys the research community is that it believes Elsevier charges too much, and so earns excessive profits. There seems to be some confusion as to exactly what these profits are. OA advocates tend to cite figures anywhere between 25% and 40%."<br /><br />I don't think there is much confusion. The numbers cited at <a href="http://svpow.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-obscene-profits-of-commercial-scholarly-publishers/" rel="nofollow">http://svpow.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/the-obscene-profits-of-commercial-scholarly-publishers/</a> are taken directly from Elsevier's own annual reports for 2002-2010.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.com