[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: Future of the "subscription model?"
- From: "Nathaniel M. Gustafson-Sundell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:29:47 EDT
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Saw a talk by Bernie Black yesterday for one of our OA week panels, so I have to ask, isn't this exactly the model with SSRN, or at least the direction it is going in? The working papers are OA and, as SSRN ventures deeper into 'publication', the finished papers will be OA after an embargo, but there will be wrappers of content (curated content) available for subscription. They have already pointed the direction with the research series. I like this model because personally, I think plos one has peer review just right, but could offer curation. After all, we've all read the papers about how peer review fails often enough at judgments of rigor and value, and shows distinct nationality bias, so shouldn't we be interested in narrowing the focus of peer review so that it can get at least one thing right? In any case, judgements of value are always ultimately crowdsourced, even if the wrapper (say Nature or Science) causes an initial bump in eyeballs and consequent citations. Bernie said he thought article processing (presumably to include peer review) could be driven down to around $500, but he did not indicate what level of peer review he was talking about. I'm interested to see how many more working papers platforms follow the lead of SSRN eventually, since this is a real game changer, in my mind, especially, as Bernie pointed out, as article level metrics mature enough to challenge journal level metrics. Interestingly though (and as an aside), our panel was pretty well united against author-pays -- SSRN makes its money back (or will, as the saying goes) in a variety of ways , none of which involve author-pays. I don't like author-pays either and I don't like how 'Gold OA' as a bit of jargon which is supposed to mean something includes library published journals without author fees and journals such as First Monday, as well as author fees platforms like plos one and Gilded OA like the recent commercial attempts to game the system. Regards, Nat -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 6:27 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Future of the "subscription model?" You mean that such an entrepreneur might establish an extra filtering system to ferret out the best of the best in each discipline or subfield or topical area and then arrange to license that material from the original publishers and resell it to libraries (somewhat in the way that print anthologies were put together in the good old days)? Sandy Thatcher At 6:40 PM -0400 10/26/11, adam hodgkin wrote: >I wonder if some publisher/entrepreneur will come up with, has already >come up with, an 'unsubscription' model. In a world where most research >and scholarship is open access (I am all for >it) there will be an increasing value in second order services that >provide ways of assessing and measuring relative >importance/scope/potential surprise etc. > >Lots of things other than mere citations to be measured and measurable. > >Since there are good reasons why libraries and their institutions like >subscribing to services which define, mould, specialise and improve >their access to information, such forms of information exposure and >relevance measurement may be good services for them to be subscribing >to. > >So subscription models may have a role in the definition and modulation >of the flow of research and scholarly information even when basic >access is uniformly open. > >Adam Hodgkin