Re: Changing the game

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

If subsidization is all "part of the game," then I'd ask 
Jean-Claude to explain to us why the 80 or so U.S. universities 
that have presses expect them, on average, to cover 90% of their 
operating costs from revenues generated in the marketplace--which 
is, of course, the principal reason that books published by these 
presses will not go OA en masse anytime soon. And perhaps he can 
also explain why there are only this small handful of presses 
that are actually paying for the system of publishing scholarly 
monographs whereas all the rest get a "free ride."  Ideals are 
fine to aspire to, but for now we still have a very messy, and 
commercialized, world to deal with.

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State Press


>The whole world of scholarly and scientific publishing is
>subsidized; it is subsidized in and out and in a whole lot of
>ways, some obvious, some tacit, some invisible, etc.. Exactly
>like research. Because let us not forget that all research is
>subsidized. it is not a business. At least not in the
>universities and public research centres.
>
>And publishing is an integral part of the research cycle. And
>that is exactly as it should be.
>
>So, no need to seek "surpluses" or "hidden subsidies" or
>whatever. All these forms of behaviour are part of the game, at
>least in the area of publicly-supported research.
>
>All research subsidized by public money should have its research
>published in Open Access with subsidized journals (which is
>exactly what the SciELO model proposes).
>
>All research supported by foundation money should have its
>results published according to the rules laid out by foundations,
>but if we judge from the Wellcome Trust and other similar
>foundations, it looks like they prefer OA to toll-gated
>publications. Not difficult to understand why!
>
>If private companies support research, let them decide where they
>want the research to be published, or not decide at all, and let
>the authors decide. And if some of those research results
>produced by private money in universities end up locked up behind
>access licensing fees, well, that is just too bad... too bad for
>the authors who lose visibility and too bad for the university
>that does not get the institutional recognition it deserves. It
>may even hurt the very company funding the research because
>toll-gating results slows down science and these companies need
>as much science as possible in the areas they subsidize.
>Leveraging results by subsidizing some researchers is a clever
>investment, but if this strategy is then partially neutralized by
>toll-gated publishing, it is plainly stupid.
>
>If some private publishers, such as Hindawi, want to build a
>business model based on OA, fine! Whether they make a profit or
>not, however, is totally irrelevant to the OA principle. If
>Hindawi should fail (which i do not wish for a minute, of
>course), it would not even begin to hurt OA in general. it would
>simply hurt a particular business approach to OA. But business is
>not the whole of the universe (thank God! says this atheist).
>
>It is all so very simple once we abandon the pretense that
>scientific publishing is commerce. And that is the reality that
>the digital transition is pressing upon all of us.
>
>It is all so very simple!
>
>Jean-Claude Guedon
>
>Le vendredi 25 septembre 2009 a 16:42 -0400, Sandy Thatcher a
>ecrit :
>
>>  Along with Stevan Harnad, I wonder how such initiatives really
>>  will change the economics of the system overall, especially in
>>  the short term.  Universities will still be paying for
>>  subscriptions for many journals and now adding fees in addition,
>>  both for new OA journals and for journals that offer OA
>>  selectively on payment of the fee. For the latter, the bottom
>>  line is more money out the door, unless the publishers really do
>>  reduce subscriptions rates somehow in proportion to the number of
>>  articles for which OA fees are paid (and since the finances of
>>  commercial publishers are not open to the public, how will one
>>  ever really know?).
>>
>>  And, for OA journals like PLoS, do we know what profit margin is
> > being built into its business model (or, as we call it in the
>>  non-profit world, "surplus")?  Does Hindawi tell us what its
>>  profit margin is?  If the immediate future for scholarly
>>  communication just ends up costing more overall (and we should
>>  also take into account all those hidden subsidies provided for
>>  university-based OA journals that do not charge fees), what then?
>>  Has the game really changed or just readjusted the pieces on the
>>  chessboard?
>>
>>  Sandy Thatcher
>>  Penn State University Press