[Open-access] more open access particle physics

Tue Sep 25 15:25:16 UTC 2012

See comment interleaved.

Jan Velterop

On 25 Sep 2012, at 14:14, Peter Murray-Rust 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.

Isn't this just what's happening? The communication taking place via arXiv, and the 'glory' awarded via the journals in which the material is subsequently published?

> 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