RE: Certification and Dissemination

["Ian.Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>]

I was not suggesting for one second that researchers are 
parasitic on the scholarly journals system - the whole system 
exists for them.

I think, though, that parasitic describes the nature of unfunded 
mandates requiring deposit into repositories which rely on 
certification from journals rather well.  It was intended to be 
descriptive rather than pejorative and is actually highly 
accurate.

Ian Russell
CEO ALPSP

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
> l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of "FrederickFriend"
> Sent: 03 May 2008 01:02
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: Certification and Dissemination
>
> Whatever the rights or wrongs of the effect of repository deposit
> upon publishers, a pejorative word like "parasite" does not
> assist the dialogue, as well as being inaccurate. The academic
> community makes a substantial contribution to the publishing
> business model in the form of unpaid reviewers' time. Researchers
> are certainly not parasites on the current funding mechanism.
>
> Fred Friend
> JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ian.Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:55 AM
> Subject: RE: Certification and Dissemination
>
>> No, I am not talking about "double dipping" (the only way that
>> could possibly be relevant is in the context of hybrid journals
>> which have not previously been mentioned in this exchange).  I
>> am talking about clearly and unambiguously making a commitment
>> to fund the certification function in the scholarly journal
>> publishing system rather than acting as a parasite on the
>> current funding mechanism.
>>
>> Regarding our previous agreement on self archiving causing
>> subscription cancellations, I refer to the quote attributed to
>> you at:
>> http://www.libraryjournal.com/clear/CA6392242.html?nid=2673#news2
>> "it is possible, indeed probable, that self-archiving will
>> cause some cancellations".
>>
>> As I said, though, to some extent this is a side show.
>>
>> The real issue is unfunded mandates - like the one imposed by
>> Southampton University on its researchers.  Going back to my
>> original post:
>>
>>>Whilst I agree with the argument that the output of publicly
>>>funded research (or from a research institution) - which is the
>>>author's original article - should be freely available to the
>>>public, I do not believe that the 'refereed postprint' (to use
>>>your terminology, I prefer 'accepted manuscript') should
>>>necessarily be freely given away.  That decision should be up
>>>to the organization that added the value by peer reviewing it
>>>and associating it with its brand."
>>
>> and that is why I believe it is unacceptable for Southampton
>> University to announce its mandate without also making a
>> commitment to fund OA fees.
>>
>> Ian Russell
>> ALPSP