Recent Bookmarks and Annotations
-
Using Screencasting to Engage and Build Community with Online Learners on 2009-09-23
-
The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies on 2009-09-18
-
Peter Suber, What you can do to promote open access on 2009-09-18
-
Peter Suber, Newsletter Archive on 2009-09-18
-
Peter Suber, Open Access News on 2009-09-18
-
Peter Suber, Open Access Overview (definition, introduction) on 2009-09-18
-
pen-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
-
free availability and unrestricted use"
-
-
In addition to removing access barriers, OA should be immediate, rather than delayed, and should apply to full-text, not just to abstracts or summaries.
-
OA is compatible with
copyright,
peer review,
revenue (even profit), print, preservation, prestige, career-advancement, indexing, and other features and supportive services associated with conventional scholarly literature.
-
The legal basis of OA is either the consent of the copyright holder or the public domain, usually the former.
-
Usually they consent in advance to the unrestricted reading, downloading, copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching, linking, and crawling of the full-text of the work. Most authors choose to retain the right to block the distribution of mangled or misattributed copies. Some choose to block commercial re-use of the work. Essentially, these conditions block plagiarism, misrepresentation, and sometimes commercial re-use, and authorize all the uses required by legitimate scholarship, including those required by the technologies that facilitate online scholarly research.
-
The campaign for OA focuses on literature that authors give to the world without expectation of payment.
-
-
the body of peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly research articles and their preprints.
-
Scholars write journal articles because advancing knowledge in their fields advances their careers.
-
They write for
impact, not for money.
-
Controversies about providing OA to music, movies, and other royalty-producing content, therefore, do not carry over to this unique body of content.
-
1) that the benefits of OA exceed the value of their royalties, or (2) that OA will trigger a net increase in sales. However, there is growing evidence that both conditions are met for most research monographs.
-
Many OA initiatives focus on taxpayer-funded research.
-
public access to publicly funded research
-
exceptions for (1) classified, military research, (2) research resulting in patentable discoveries, and (3) research that authors publish in some royalty-producing form, such as books.
-
research that is both royalty-free and taxpayer-funded
-
OA literature is not free to produce or publish.
-
OA is compatible with peer review
-
Authors need no permission for preprint archiving. When they have finished writing the preprint, they still hold copyright.
-
If a journal refuses to consider articles that have circulated as preprints, that is an optional journal-submission policy, not a requirement of copyright law.
-
-
This means that authors may publish in virtually any journal that will accept their work (OA or non-OA) and still provide OA to the published version of the text through an OA archive.
-
SHERPA/RoMEO - Publisher copyright policies & self-archiving on 2009-09-18
-
Compact for OA Publishing Equity - Overview on 2009-09-18
-
PLoS Biology: Equity for Open-Access Journal Publishing on 2009-09-18
-
But open-access journal publishing is currently at a systematic disadvantage relative to the traditional model.
-
Economists use the term “moral hazard” for the phenomenon of overconsumption of a good by a consumer who is insulated from the good's cost.
-
-
Such elimination of access is bad for the scholarly enterprise, and the threat of unsustainability of journals is especially worrisome given the invaluable services that they provide to scholars: logistical management of the peer review process, production services such as copyediting and typesetting, distribution and preservation, and filtering and imprimatur based on a journal's “brand.”
-
access to scholarly articles has been reduced to essentially zero marginal cost, thanks to digital network technology (think hyperlink). In a world where the first-copy cost of publishing an article is essentially the entire cost, a business model for publishing that charges per article for article-processing services (the very services listed above) makes a lot of sense.
-
lthough by definition they do not charge an access fee paid by or on behalf of a reader, they can still acquire revenue by charging an article processing fee paid by or on behalf of the author.
-
Currently, fewer than 25% of the open-access journals in the Directory of Open Access Journals are listed as charging a publication fee, the remainder relying on other sources of direct or in-kind support. (Perhaps surprisingly, more than half of the subscription-based journals charge processing fees of one sort or another
[2].)
-
processing fees are the only revenue source that inherently scales directly with the publishing services provided by a journal
-
of the open-access journals of sufficient standing to have an Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) impact factor, the proportion charging processing fees rises above 50%.
-
Imagine you are a publisher of a subscription-fee journal, a forward-thinking publisher who sees the benefit to scholarship or at least the inevitability of the open-access processing-fee model. You would like to convert one of your journals to an open-access model. However, you realize that, were you to take this bold step, yours would be the first journal in its field to charge processing fees. Prospective authors would suddenly be faced with the prospect of paying, say, US$1,500 to publish their articles in your journal, as compared to paying nothing for your competitors' journals.
-
By changing the business model for the journal, you risk abandonment of your journal by authors, undercutting its quality and its nascent revenue source. It might even be considered a derogation of your fiduciary duty to your shareholders to make the change in the face of such a high risk.
-
the US$1,500 article revenue to the journal that is provided by the processing fee under the processing-fee model is hidden in subscription charges in the subscription-fee model, and these are typically paid not by the authors, even in their role as readers of the journals, but on their behalf by subscribing research institutions, typically university research libraries.
-
To mitigate this problem—to place open-access processing-fee journals on a more equal competitive footing with subscription-fee journals—requires those underwriting the publisher's services for subscription-fee journals to commit to a simple “compact” guaranteeing their willingness to underwrite them for processing-fee journals as well.
-
Since both universities and funding agencies are (directly or indirectly) underwriting journal subscriptions, both should be involved in underwriting article-processing fees for open-access journals as well.
-
he crucial property of the proposed compact is that the funds disbursed must be nonfungible, that is, applicable only to open-access processing fees. The ability of authors to trade off the funds against other uses for the money (purchasing lab supplies or equipment, funding research assistants, and so forth) would provide a disincentive
-
Funding agencies would ideally implement the compact by providing incremental funding for reasonable processing fees for articles in open-access journals, describing the results of research funded by their grants.
-
But not all research is grant-funded. Universities would commit on behalf of their authors to underwrite reasonable processing fees
-
To be eligible for reimbursement, the venue of publication would have to be a “pure” open-access journal, that is, a journal that does not charge readers or their institutions for access to any of the peer-reviewed articles that it publishes.
-
It is only those portions of the journal that, in the language of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, “scholars give to the world without expectation of payment” that would be required to be available open access.
-
Journals with a hybrid open-access model or a delayed open-access model would not be eligible.
-
Hybrid and delayed open-access journals already receive revenue through subscription charges, even for the articles that they make freely available.
-
Consequently, the hybrid approach is subject to a “tragedy of the commons”; if all institutions participated fully, all would see subscription fees disappear, but no single institution sees any observable direct benefit by participation.
-
In addition, eligible journals would be required to have a policy to substantially waive fees in case of economic hardship
-
n even better alternative is to place the cap on the funding made available to an author overall. Authors would have to trade off whether using a certain amount of their limited allocation of funds for a given journal was appropriate in relation to the services and imprimatur that the journal provides, thereby reintroducing exactly the economic tradeoff that is missing from the current system.
-
In the longer term, as publishers switch journals to an open-access processing-fee model, costs will increase, but these increases will be offset by the compensatory elimination of subscription fees and improvements in efficiency from repairing the market dysfunction that has plagued the subscription-based model, and will be accompanied by a broadening of access to scholarship that is central to the universities' and funding agencies' mission.
-
t is important to keep in mind that the goal of the compact is not to increase access to the individual articles it underwrites. That goal is already reasonably satisfied by the possibility of open-access self-archiving that any author can unilaterally perform and that various open-access policies such as that of the National Institutes of Health promote. Rather, the goal of open-access funds as envisioned in the present proposal is to reduce the disincentives to authors and thus the risk to publishers of the processing-fee business model.
-
If all schools and funders committed to the compact, a publisher could more safely move a journal to an open-access processing-fee business model without fear that authors would desert the journal for pecuniary reasons.
-
The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition on 2009-09-18
Groups
Marla coffey havn't joined any group yet.
Home
