Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Further Finch Folly - Swets: "Let Us Manage the RCUK Gold For You!"

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:07:29 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Further Finch Folly - Swets: "Let Us Manage the RCUK Gold For You!" from amsciforum AT gmail.com
      • This Message

--047d7b621c689f9f3c04e1b4c65f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Robert Jacobs <rjacobs AT uk.swets.com> 
wrote=
:

> I find your message here a little confusing, as you seem to be railing
> against a number of different parties. The simple fact is that the RCUK,
> and increasingly other funding bodies, are channelling funds specifically
> to pay for the APCs under Gold Open Access via the institution, and most
> Universities in the UK who have this funding are channelling it via the
> library, not the individual authors. Each library is currently developing
> their own processes and systems to support the efficient management of
> these APC payments, as there is significant cost involved in managing any
> process developed on an individual organisation scale.
>
> The benefit of a shared service and the economies of scale which
> intermediaries can offer are significant, and in the real world we all ha=
ve
> to live by the value we deliver. If we don=92t deliver value, then we don=
=92t
> have a role to play in this.
>
> You seem to have missed the fact that there is now, in the UK, funding in
> place to encourage the processing of many thousands of APCs, and this is
> hugely inefficient if done at an individual institution level, let alone =
at
> individual author level as you seem to suggest is the case.
>
> As Gold is the current model of choice for RCUK there is a real need to
> help streamline processes, to save money and to improve service. If
> companies like Swets can support this then that is not parasitic, it=92s =
what
> drives best practice and scales efficiency. Our service has been develope=
d
> independently of any philosophical arguments for or against gold/green op=
en
> access publishing, and after much dialogue with UK university libraries.
>

No confusion:

A. Yes, I am "railing" against (i) Finch/RCUK, for its foolish policy 
of
wasting scarce research money on Gold OA instead of effectively mandating
cost-free Green OA, (ii) against institutions who unthinkingly treat Gold
OA fees as if they were a library matter (!), and (iii) against third party
businesses, eager to cash in on Finch/RCUK's folly and institutional
confusion.

B. The RCUK Gold policy is an ill-thought-out, incoherent,
counterproductive policy, for reasons that have by now been described many
times by many authors.

C. Consigning the process of (double) paying publishers for Gold OA -- over
and above already paying for subscriptions -- to a 3rd party 
"service"
would simply be a way of sweeping the defects of the Finch/RCUK policy
under the rug.

To repeat: It's authors who publish, and authors who pay to publish (if
they wish, or must). Author payment is not a subscription matter, not a
library matter, and not a library aggregator matter.

Stevan Harnad

--047d7b621c689f9f3c04e1b4c65f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Robert Jacobs <span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:rjacobs AT uk.swets.com" 
target=3D"_blank">rjacobs AT uk.swets.com</a=
>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 
solid;padding-left=
:1ex">
I find your message here a little confusing, as you seem to be railing agai=
nst a number of different parties. The simple fact is that the RCUK, and in=
creasingly other funding bodies, are channelling funds specifically to pay =
for the APCs under Gold Open Access via the institution, and most Universit=
ies in the UK who have this funding are channelling it via the library, not=
 the individual authors. Each library is currently developing their own pro=
cesses and systems to support the efficient management of these APC payment=
s, as there is significant cost involved in managing any process developed =
on an individual organisation scale.<br>

<br>
The benefit of a shared service and the economies of scale which intermedia=
ries can offer are significant, and in the real world we all have to live b=
y the value we deliver. If we don=92t deliver value, then we don=92t have a=
 role to play in this.<br>

<br>
You seem to have missed the fact that there is now, in the UK, funding in p=
lace to encourage the processing of many thousands of APCs, and this is hug=
ely inefficient if done at an individual institution level, let alone at in=
dividual author level as you seem to suggest is the case.<br>

<br>
As Gold is the current model of choice for RCUK there is a real need to hel=
p streamline processes, to save money and to improve service. If companies =
like Swets can support this then that is not parasitic, it=92s what drives =
best practice and scales efficiency. Our service has been developed indepen=
dently of any philosophical arguments for or against gold/green open access=
 publishing, and after much dialogue with UK university libraries.<br>

</blockquote></div><br><div><div 
style=3D"font-family:Helvetica;font-size:m=
edium">No confusion:=A0<div><br></div><div>A. 
Yes, I am &quot;railing&quot;=
 against (i) Finch/RCUK, for its foolish policy of wasting scarce research =
money on Gold OA instead of effectively mandating cost-free Green OA, (ii) =
against institutions who unthinkingly treat Gold OA fees as if they were a =
library matter (!), and (iii) against third party businesses, eager to cash=
 in on Finch/RCUK&#39;s folly and institutional confusion.</div>
<div><br></div><div><div>B. The RCUK Gold policy 
is an ill-thought-out, inc=
oherent, counterproductive policy, for reasons that have by now been descri=
bed many times by many 
authors.</div><div><br></div><div>C. Consigning 
the =
process of (double) paying publishers for Gold OA -- over and above already=
 paying for subscriptions -- to a 3rd party &quot;service&quot; would 
simpl=
y be a way of sweeping the defects of the Finch/RCUK policy under the rug.<=
/div>
</div><div><br></div><div>To repeat: It&#39;s 
authors who publish, and auth=
ors who pay to publish (if they wish, or must). Author payment is not a sub=
scription matter, not a library matter, and not a library aggregator matter=
.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan 
Harnad</div><div><br></div></div></div>

--047d7b621c689f9f3c04e1b4c65f--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .