[Open-access] Fwd: Fee-free scholarly publishing

Wed Aug 15 14:36:32 UTC 2012

Hi all,

I'm forwarding a very interesting recent thread about fee-free
scholarly publishing started by Peter Murray-Rust with Rosemary
Laurent from INRIA [1], Richard Poynder, Peter Suber, Jenny Molloy,
Tom Olijhoek, Ross Mounce and several other OKFN folks.

Peter Murray-Rust's original email to Rosemary is at the bottom, as
well as some of the subsequent correspondence with Rosemary Laurent,
Richard Poynder and Peter Suber.

Basically the discussion is about how we can better document and
support 'fee-free' open access journals - which might include case
studies, a possible 'fee-free' OA handbook, publicity and community
building activities, and building a better 'best practises network'
with people and organisations who have done it.

We all agreed that - rather than continuing discussion in private - it
would make more sense to open this discussion up to others on this
list!

All the best,

Jonathan

[1] http://www.inria.fr/en/institute/inria-in-brief

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Peter Suber <peter.suber at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd be glad to stay in the loop for this discussion.
>
> In May 2009, Stuart Shieber did a systematic survey of the journals in the
> DOAJ, and found that 70% were no-fee. As far as I know, that's the most
> recent systematic survey.
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/05/29/what-percentage-of-open-access-journals-charge-publication-fees/
>
> The DOAJ doesn't maintain a separate list of the no-fee journals. But if you
> browse the journals by field, the journal record will tell you whether or
> not the journal charges a publication fee. Here are the journals in botany
> just to show some examples. Look at the first two listed. The first charges
> a fee and second doesn't.
> http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=72&uiLanguage=en
>
> I've written about OA journals several times over the years, most recently
> (not very recently!) in November 2006, when most people didn't even realize
> they existed, let alone that they constituted the majority of OA journals.
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-06.htm#nofee
>
> I haven't seen a "handbook" of no-fee OA journal publishing. If you compile
> one, it would be very useful. Meantime, see the list of OA journal business
> models at the Open Access Directory.
> http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models
>
> This list has no entry for "no-fee" OA journals because "no-fee" isn't a
> business model. Instead, look at the business models other than "publication
> fees" and "submission fees".
>
>      Best,
>      Peter S.
>
> Peter Suber
> gplus.to/petersuber
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 5:11 AM, <ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Happy to do something on Open & Shut. First, however, I need to finish up
>> a couple of projects.
>>
>> I envisage a Q&A interview with someone running a free-fee journal, but I
>> would like it to be with someone who has given some thoughts to the issues I
>> raised in my recent email to Jonathan and Peter M-R. (Happy to share it with
>> anyone who is interested).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Laurent Romary <laurent.romary at inria.fr>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the contact, Peter. Indeed, let us switch to the OKF mailing
>>> list. Do you have a link to the list so that I can register?
>>
>>
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>>
>>>
>>> Sharing experience is important. We are currently exploring building up
>>> things as an overlay platform on top of HAL (the French publication
>>> repository). We have some developer means and already experience in putting
>>> together a conference management environment.
>>
>>
>> Excellent
>>
>>>
>>> I know some Mathematicians from Grenoble also want to go in the same
>>> direction (cf. NumDa, if you know the digitisation group there).
>>
>>
>> What sort of digitization? FWIW I am developing techniques to make
>> scientific PDFs semantic and would be interested in anyone in the same area.
>>
>>>
>>> In any case let us move ahead.
>>> Best,
>>> Laurent
>>>
>>> PS: and yes, CC-BY should be undisputed....
>>>
>>>
>> OK - Richard - suggest you interview some of the ringleaders, blog it on
>> OpenAndShut and then we'll link from/to open-access and continue the
>> discussion there.
>>
>> P.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Murray-Rust
>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>> University of Cambridge
>> CB2 1EW, UK
>> +44-1223-763069
>
>

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM,  <ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am copying Peter Suber into this correspondence as I believe he has done some research in this area and may have a list of fee-free publishers that he can share.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Richard

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Laurent Romary
<laurent.romary at inria.fr> wrote:
> Thanks for the contact, Peter. Indeed, let us switch to the OKF mailing list. Do you have a link to the list so that I can register?
> Sharing experience is important. We are currently exploring building up things as an overlay platform on top of HAL (the French publication repository). We have some developer means and already experience in putting together a conference management environment. I know some Mathematicians from Grenoble also want to go in the same direction (cf. NumDa, if you know the digitisation group there).
> In any case let us move ahead.
> Best,
> Laurent
>
> PS: and yes, CC-BY should be undisputed....
>

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Laurent,
> Greetings
> There have been a number of emails since I suggested fee-free scholarly
> publishing, cf J. Machine Leaning Res. which runs a high-quality journal on
> marginal support from institution(s) and targeted community support (mainly
> in the domain). I've copie in a number of people involved in the general
> discussion.
>
> I am delighted to see that INRIA is interested in this area. (I have visited
> INRIA in the past) and I am a strong believer that national facilities are
> one of the most important growth points of the information future
> (Universities can't/won't and the "free market" is very flawed). Our current
> discussions are tending towards:
> * there is a great opportunity for fee-free publishing and great benefits
> from it
> * it is less expensive than the horror stories of commercial publishing -
> not cost-free, but affordable
> * it's an area where the OKF would be happy to host discussion about
> practical ways forward.
>
> My current feeling is that we should:
> * gather as much current experience as possible
> * create some form of handbook (the OKF is good at this) outlining what
> fee-free publishing currently involves. This can be made available to people
> like Katie who runs ecancer on a fee-free basis and is planning for the next
> phase.
>
> The immediate suggesstion is that we continue this discussion on the OKF
> open-access list (where BOAI/CC-BY are undisputed requirements and
> discussion is constructive rather than religious. That we take the last two
> bullet points as goals. However if you have ideas from INRIA maybe that's
> another way
>
> Tom already runs a very successful weekly skype/etherpad session. We may or
> may not need to create another slot.
>
> Best
>
> P.
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069

-- 
Jonathan Gray

Head of Community
The Open Knowledge Foundation
http://www.okfn.org

http://twitter.com/jwyg