Re: peer review costs

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Thu, 6 May 2010, Dr. Oliver Obst wrote:

> Dear Stevan,
>
>> because users are satisfied with the Green OA version, ...
>
> is there any evidence for that? I recently filled out a 
> questionnaire from the Medical Library Association asking 
> exactly this. We provide NEJM via Ovid as publishers' HTML and 
> they're not even satisfied by that, so I answered: "No, they 
> will only be satisfied by the journals formatted postprint 
> PDF."

No evidence whatsoever -- and all existing evidence is to the 
contrary, namely, that in the few fields (like high energy 
physics) where there is already virtually 100% Green OA, there 
are no journal cancellations!

That is why every single time I have reluctantly speculated about 
the contingencies I have carefully said IF AND WHEN users are 
satisfied with the Green OA version only...

But the point that is being systematically missed by so many 
people -- OA advocates and opponents alike -- is that OA is not 
about -- or for -- journal publication costs or journal 
publication reform: It is about research access, usage and 
impact.

And universal Green OA will solve that problem whether or not it 
reduces publishing to peer review alone.

Stevan Harnad