RE: Certification and Dissemination

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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-
> l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 30 April 2008 23:10
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: RE: Certification and Dissemination
>
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian.Russell [Chief Executive, ALPSP] wrote:
>
>> As I said, if both repository dissemination and peer review are
>> being paid for by subscriptions, gold OA or some other method
>> then I personally have no problem.  I don't know how I could
>> have been clearer on this.
>
> A bit of mix-up there. Journals and their expenses (including the
> cost of administering peer review) are being paid for by
> institutional subscriptions today.
>
> Institutional repositories pay their own IR and deposit expenses.
>
> I certainly hope that Ian is not suggesting that the institutions
> and their authors should pay journals *extra* today in order to
> self-archive their own published output in their own IRs while
> all those journals' expenses are being paid by institutional
> subscriptions, for that would sound very much like
> double-dipping.

[SNIP]