[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is OA (Gold) really a desirable goal for scientific journal publishing?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Is OA (Gold) really a desirable goal for scientific journal publishing?
- From: Stevan Harnad <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 18:51:24 EST
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Sandy Thatcher wrote: > Just a real short reply this time! I agree with you about CERN > and don't disagree that some "redirection" will occur. However, > isn't it also quite possible that, having been constrained for > so many years from buying books because of high journal prices, > librarians may actually want to spend more on books again and > go back to the days when they spent 60-70% of their budgets on > books and 30-40% on journals--especially if books do not go > digital in the same OA (green) way that you propose for journal > articles? Yes, they can and will do this with the local trickle-down from the few cancellations they may be able to make owing to CERN-prompted conversions to Gold OA of a few physics journals. But that's exactly why I keep pointing out that Gold OA, via journal by journal trickles is both premature and far too slow and uncertain a way to expect ever to reach 100% OA. What is needed right now is 100% Green OA, immediate OA, and that will come from Green OA self-archiving mandates. The issue of redirections is moot in the Gold trickle era. And once we reach 100% Green OA, the world research community will already have everything it wants and needs. It doesn't want or need conversion of its journals to Gold, particularly. It wants and needs 100% OA. If, as a consequence of mandated 100% Green OA there is (as you hypothesized) a sudden wholesale series of cancellations and conversion to the Gold OA model, then librarians can forget about any lottery-like dreams of redirecting sudden 100% windfall savings all toward books: Some of it will have to be redirected toward paying their own institution's outgoing per-article publication fees. But that is then, after sudden cancellations, sudden windfall savings, and a sudden new institutional expense (OA publication fees). Now is now, when Gold conversions (and hence cancellations) are merely a faint trickle. No comparison. And I repeat, this kind of a-priori speculation is fun but it doesn't get us anywhere and it doesn't generate any OA. Green OA mandates do. So let's stop speculating and let's get more of those mandates rolling (and fingers, depositing)! > Let's hear what the librarians have to say about this > possibility. (Of course, I'll get depressed if they say we'll > never go back to those "good old days"--and I do realize that > there will still be lots of electronic materials to purchase, > as there was not thirty years ago.) Librarians love to speculate, like everyone else. But here you are asking them to speculate, from the trickle era, about something they have never seen before, and that has never happened (and that may never happen), namely, cancellation of all journals, and transition to article publication fees.. So all you will get here is an exercise in free-floating subjectivity. Most speculative of all is what the true costs of OA Gold fees will be if and when all journals (and not just a trickle) go Gold. (If, as I suspect, they have downsized to peer review alone, there will still be windfall savings left over, even after all annual institutional article publishing fees are covered.) Stevan Harnad >>[There is an ongoing discussion on the American Scientist Open >>Access Forum on the question of whether CERN's push for OA >>(Gold) publishing in its area will divert funds from research. >>The initial posting >> >> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5957.html >> >>is not by me, Stevan Harnad, but by my brother, John Harnad, >>a physicist. Although I followed the posting with a critique >> >> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5958.html >> >>on some points of detail, I want to stress that I am in basic >>agreement with the gist of John Harnad's point that a hasty >>CERN-led forced conversion to OA (Gold) Publishing in (part or >>all of) physics at this time is likely to cost more, is likely to >>divert funds from research, and should be deferred in favor of >>expanding the practice of OA (Green) Self-Archiving and parallel >>co-existence. -- SH ]
- Prev by Date: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. renews technology partnership with Atypon Systems, Inc.
- Next by Date: RE: university press rights assignment
- Previous by thread: Re: Is OA (Gold) really a desirable goal for scientific journal publishing?
- Next by thread: Reminder: SPARC-ACRL Forum at ALA to Explore Public Access