[Open-access] more open access particle physics

Tue Sep 25 14:51:29 UTC 2012

Hi All,

I also agree that this is an excellent discussion, and well worth having.
For me the physics community is the example of how to do open science.
Their use of Archive.org as repository has not led to decreases in
publications in regular journals. It did show that "filtering after" worked
for physics.
SCOAP3 seemed to me to show a way on how to get OA publishing as the
default method of publishing. I am astonished that the physics community
has negotiated different prices in the way she did.
The argument that high impact journals can ask for and get more money is
indeed a question of perception, and like Ross says this is no function of
value or real cost of publishing. And the enormous profits of many of the
publishers is something we should no longer accept.
We can only advance if we scientists take it on ourselves to determine
where we want to publish and what we are willing to pay for services. But I
am almost  sure that this will not happen without the reshaping of the
whole old school publishing system.
Nevertheless the fact that PLoS, BiomedCentral and other journals are more
and more valued among scientists and citizens, and the fact that the
assured quality of high impact journals is more and more shown to be an
illusion gives me hope,\ The perception of scientists of OA journals is
changing for sure, which could signal the beginning of the end for high
profit old school publishers. Scientists have it in their own hands.
the idea of organizing scientist communities that have firm control over
 publications in their area of expertise still appeals to me as a promising
strategy.
Also the idea of libraries taking on a role of managing information is
something that I find attractive.

TOM

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Excellent discussion. At least we can have one on this list - which is
> what it's for. (It's impossible to do this on the GOAL list - anyone not in
> the Green oligarchy gets blown out of the water.)
>
> IMO there are three things (please criticize) :
> * cost
> * price
> * value
>
> The COST is - in principle - measurable. Any publisher which simply
> provided a defined service could publish their costs and indicate whether
> they make a profit. But most publishers hide their costs both by secrecy
> and bundling products so the cost is rarely known. There are some
> indications that for a  journal that generally reviews a paper once and
> accepts most submissions the cost is around 250 USD. However for journals
> trhat have a high rejection rate the costs are higher. Nature has said that
> for an open access journal they would have to charge 6500 GBP == 10000 USD.
> I find it difficult to believe this is the cost, even with multiple
> rejections and reviews.
>
> The PRICE is what you pay the publisher. In most markets it is either set
> by market forces (competition, perceived value, etc) or by regulators or by
> some of both. However prices for subscriptions are often secret and
> librarians are forced to sign non-disclosure clauses.
>
> The VALUE is what the purchasers (whether authors - gold -or subscribers)
> feel the product is worth. A paper in Nature is valued more that one in
> J.Cheminformatics (on whose board I am). This is highly subjective and
> self-fulfilling.
>
> Normal market forces don't apply for a number of reasons:
> * leading brands can often charge whatever they like and people will pay
> it. Examples are mineral water, beauty products, fashions, foods, etc.
> Prices are are sometimes related to scarcity but seldom to cost.
> * people in universities are not normally paying with real money. Most
> libraries get subscription income from taxpayers or students. They don't
> have to go out on the streets and raise actual money . Academics are even
> more insulated - they aren't expected to pay for journal subscriptions out
> of their grants (the universities top-slice it).
> * publication supports a number of conflicting purposes. Communication,
> archival, peer-approval, etc. and also the label of glory in the field. The
> latter is what drives the apparent value.
> * it's not a zero-sum game. We are in a dysfunctional pseduo-equilibrium
> and any unilateral move costs extra for no return. Managed change can only
> come from the top. That's what RCUK is trying to do.
>
> My simplistic solution (it won't happen) would be to separate the glory
> awarding from the publication. Then communication, etc. could become
> commodities under normal market forces . It would also get the publication
> completely into the Open arena. And we could have an OSCAR-like process for
> deciding the superstars. It oculdn't be worse that what we do at present
> with Impact factors for journals decided by non-representative commercial
> companies.
>
> But at least we can discuss it freely here.
>
> P.
>
>
> --
> Peter Murray-Rust
> Reader in Molecular Informatics
> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> University of Cambridge
> CB2 1EW, UK
> +44-1223-763069
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-access mailing list
> open-access at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-access/attachments/20120925/8d3ac09d/attachment.html>