[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

I was traveling.

The point is with regard to this article:

<http://optimalscholarship.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-difference-publisher-makes.html>

that beyond copyediting publishers also arrange for the formal system in which journals are published - which is, for DOAJ, for instance:

<http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTempl&templ=faq#definition>

publishers are in a way responsible for arranging these journal publication requirements, but OA facility seems to overlook such publication pre-requisites (in case of IR deposit version). There is no difference between Green OA and licensed content, if you take away the funding constraints for the publications - that is, licensed content can become OA if alternative funding (institutional sponsorship, for instance) is given. Atanu


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:16 AM
Subject: Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Atanu Garai wrote:


See Swan, Alma (2007) What a difference a publisher makes.
OptimalScholarship. Saturday, July 7 2007.
http://optimalscholarship.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-difference-publisher-makes.html



Stevan, Thanks for pointing out to this resource. In my 
opinion, in today's world it is erroneous to draw a straight 
line between publishers to access.



The straight Gold line is being drawn between publishers and 
access, and the straight Green line is being drawn between 
between authors and access (to their published articles) 
through self-archiving in their institutional repositories, 
mandated by their institutions and funders.



And the Green line is straighter, faster, surer, and within 
immediate reach.




You are aware that open access journals are also published by 
publishers like universities, societies, NFPs and even 
commercial publishers and the opposite is also true.



I am aware, and it is irrelevant. OA is between the research 
community and itself. Types of publishers (e.g., commercial vs. 
non) are utterly irrelevant.




The bottom line is that a publishing activity except blogging 
and mailing list posting does not emanate on its own, unless 
it is "motivated" by some external forces. These forces may be 
the employer, supervisor, commercial or non-profit publishing 
agencies, nagging editors, to name a few.



We do not have to reinvent peer-reviewed research publishing 
system from first principles. It is already there. OA is about 
providing free only access to it, at long last. (The Internet 
has been there for 25 years...)




The point I am trying to make is that this is where publishers 
are standing.



Where is "this," and what do publishers have to do with it? OA 
is about authors, their institutions and their funders, 
providing supplementary online access to their research output 
for those would-be users who cannot afford paid access to the 
publisher's version (paper or online). That's all.




It is altogether different matter whether the publishing 
output is open or closed or funded or commercially available.



I can't follow: What is different, from what? The publishing 
system is not at issue. Online access to published articles is.




But the bottom line is that for publishing at least in a 
journal, you shall have an editorial board, peer reviewers who 
will trigger the whole process. And it is the norm that not 
the authors but the publishers have so far commissioned these 
people in making journal publishing worthwhile and scholarly.



To repeat: there is no need either to recapitulate, formalise 
or reinvent the peer-reviewed journal publishing system. It is 
there. What is not there is free online access (OA), and that 
is what researchers need to provide, and what their 
institutions and funders need to mandate that they provide.




Open access (particularly gold/IR version) benefits from 
publishers' commissioning of editorial board and peer review 
panel by simply taking benefit of existing copyright law 
(which is fair enough from legal point of view), but blames 
the publishers for not having enough input to the publishing 
process. Is it right?



I can't follow you. Gold OA is traditional publishing, but not 
charging the user for access. Green OA is traditional 
publishing, but with supplementary author self-archiving. 
Researchers provide (and benefit from) peer review. Journals 
manage the process, and in exchange they get to sell the 
subscription version (if they are conventional journals) or to 
charge for the peer review, if they are Gold OA publishers. 
Peer review per se, and copyright, have nothing to do with OA.




I do not think this is right unless and until we have an 
alternative system of having the whole publishing support 
system without the publishers is ready.



You want to reform or replace the publishing and/or the 
copyright system. OA just needs to provide OA to research 
output. Green OA, through self-archiving and self-archiving 
mandates, is within immediate reach. Let us grasp it, and then 
worry about publishing and/or copyright reform, if we wish...




To add to this, we would be more practical if we avoid 
generalizations of the publishers across the board, and in 
this case the publishers in question are not the open access 
publishers, but the commercial publishers.



The spectrum is not OA vs. commercial publishers. There are 
commercial and non-commercial OA publishers and commercial and 
non-commercial non-OA publishers. The issue is OA to 
peer-reviewed research output, now...



Stevan Harnad