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

Re: On Parasitism and Double-Dipping

I don't think the position of Ian Russell (Chief Executive, ALPSP) is quite as clear to everyone as Ian himself thinks it is, but I do think we are getting there, and the number of words needed is now quite small:

Dear Ian,

You are looking for an advance guarantee from universities that mandate OA self-archiving that they will pay publishing costs, should subscriptions ever collapse. By way of support, you cite the Wellcome Trust, which makes such a guarantee, now.

Well such a guarantee certainly is not forthcoming from universities, nor should it be. Wellcome, as a research funder, has mandated self-archiving *and* offered to pay Gold OA publishing costs out of some of its research funds, under current conditions, at current asking prices (when subscriptions certainly have not collapsed).

Universities are not research funders, they are research fundees, and research providers. They also subscribe to journals. As such, they are currently paying for publication costs via subscriptions, which have not collapsed.

When universities mandate self-archiving, they are mandating the self-archiving of their *own* (refereed) research output. When they pay subscriptions, they are buying in the refereed research output of *other* universities.

If and when subscriptions ever do collapse, what that means is that universities will no longer be paying subscriptions, and those annual windfall savings will be available to them to pay the publication costs of their own refereed research output. And universities will of course use a portion of those windfall savings to pay the publication costs of their own research output.

(I say "only a portion of those windfall savings,: because "publication" will then [i.e., "post-collapse"] mean only peer review implementation costs, not all of the other products and services that subscriptions are paying for today: producing and distributing the print edition, producing and licensing the only PDF edition, fulfillment, archiving, advertising. The post-collapse costs of publication -- peer review alone -- will be much lower.)

In other words, there is nothing for universities to guarantee to pay today, when subscriptions are still sustainable, and still covering all publishing costs, including peer review. And they certainly don't yet have any loose change from cancellations to pay the current asking price for Gold OA.

So let's wait for subscription collapse -- if and when it comes -- to free up the universities' funds to pay the cost of having their own research output peer-reviewed and certified as such by the journal's title and track record. Until then, those costs are covered by existing subscriptions, and the only thing missing is not fee-guarantees but open access -- which is exactly what university self-archiving mandates (like Ian Russell's alma mater's, Southampton's are intended to ensure (but Harvard's mandate is not one to sneeze at either!)

[To repeat: It is open access to current refereed research that needs to be ensured, not publishers' revenues, on the current cost-recovery model and current asking prices. Publishing is a service to research, not vice versa.]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

Just a few quote comments:

On Fri, 9 May 2008, Ian Russell, Chief Executive, ALPSP, wrote:

If we can agree that wide-spread archiving will mean that
established subscription income will decline, then surely funds have
to be unambiguously made available for the only other show in town:
author-side payment.
Made available now, when they are still tied up in paying subscriptions? If you are not talking about double-dipping, Ian, then you need to explain where this double-funding is meant to come from, and why, before the decline? (For the decline itself will be what releases the requisite funds, if and when it happens.)

We can't have it both ways and say that subscriptions will still pay the bills AND that cancellations (and hence cost savings) are inevitable.
But we *can* say that if and when subscriptions are cancelled, universities will have the windfall savings out of which to pay the bills in the new way. (And the cost-cutting and downsizing are just as likely as the cancellations; indeed, they are the flip side of the very same coin.)

If you don't mind my saying so, Ian, you do seem to be rather more inclined to herald only the bleak side of this prophecy (subscription collapse) than its bright side (windfall savings out of which to pay for peer review). And you seem all too ready to see daily research usage and impact continue to be lost as a consequence, unless universities somehow ante up extra funds today (while you continue to disavow advocating double-dipping)...

As regards "double-dipping", it is important not to conflate the issues for an individual journal or research institution with those of the system as a whole.
Agreed. But am I doing the conflating, Ian, or are you? An individual university's self-archiving mandate (like Southampton's) has nothing to do with either an individual journal (whether subscription or Gold OA) or the system as a whole.

If *all* universities mandate self-archiving (as I hope they all soon will) then that may or may not eventually make subscriptions unsustainable. If it does, it will, eo ipso, release the funds to pay for publication on the Gold OA model -- but not before.

What we will have before, however, is OA (which is already long, long overdue).

I don't believe that the PLoS journals could be accused of double-dipping,
Certainly not, but what does that have to do with university self-archiving mandates?

nor journals that reduce their subscription prices in line with the number of articles published under an author-side payment system.
Ian, I regret that not only would I never recommend buying-in to such a price lock-in system, but I do not for a moment believe that any journal is sincerely putting it into practice. It is just a notion. McDonald's could make the same offer, that if their clients' employers agree to buy into Gold Open Access burgers, free for all, they'll reduce the selling price to their clients proportionately.

No, if there's going to be a conversion from institutional subscriptions to institutional publication fees, let those fees be shaped by cost-cutting pressure from the PostGutenberg Green OA economies of having institutions mandate self-archiving, and provide institutional repositories to take over the load and cost of distribution, access-provision and archiving, rather than continuing to bundle them into the current product and its current asking price.

Why should PLoS lose out because Southampton University (for example) refuses to cover author-side payment fees?
With respect, I cannot see at all how PLoS is losing out because Southampton is mandating self-archiving for its own research output! Those researchers who can afford to publish in PLoS today, and wish to, can and will.

(Moreover, as far as I know, PLoS is a supporter of self-archiving mandates -- and not only those by funders who offer to pay for today's Gold OA publication fees. And after the "Fall," PLoS too will be able to downsize to the reduced cost of just providing the service of peer review and no more.)

I am asking institutions not to mandate deposit of research that has been peer-reviewed by a journal, yes, because it is parasitic on the journals system (irrespective of business model) and I do not see how they can claim the right to do so.
And I say it will only be parasitic if and when subscriptions collapse, should institutions then still refuse to pay for publication. (But then of course the parasite will perish, because it will not be able to publish, unless it is ready to use some of its windfall subscription savings to pay for it.)

Until then, institutions have every right to mandate providing open access to their own peer-reviewed research output, whose peer-review costs are all being fully covered by subscriptions today. Nothing in the least bit parasitic about that.

As I have said repeatedly in this exchange so long as the system is paying for the certification elements of scholarly exchange I have no problem.
Well, the system is indeed still paying for it, Ian, so I have no choice but to conclude that you have no problem!

Best wishes,

Stevan