Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Fool's Gold: Publisher Ransom for Freedom from Publisher Embargo?

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 07:40:01 -0400


--001a11c2b01cf8ce7104e98f353b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bob Campbell<http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-=
uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/#comment-1094488522>
wrote
on the Wiley blog:

"*Stevan 
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1061-.html> acc=
uses
me of much conflation yet he himself conflates APCs and subscriptions when
commenting on double-dipping. APCs are not paying for the =91same articles=
=92
paid for by subscriptions. Publishers have always charged separately for
different services/products. For example, a medical journal may charge a
pharmaceutical company for reprints, advertising space and subscriptions.
These are priced separately and charged separately, and accounted for
separately in the publisher=92s financial management of the title. The
pharmaceutical company does not demand that the cost of buying advertising
space is offset against any library subscriptions.*"

Bob Campbell defends double-dipping by citing journal charges for the
purchase of reprints, advertising and subscriptions. That's all fine.

But what we are discussing here is the cost of *publication*, not of extra
products or services.

Worldwide institutional subscriptions pay the cost of publication (in full,
and fulsomely). It is not at all clear what extra product or service is
being paid for when an author pays for hybrid Gold OA (for the paper he has
given the publisher, for free, to sell).

Of course it's an extra source of revenue to the hybrid Gold publisher to
force the author to pay that extra money (for whatever it is that they are
paying for). And let there be no doubt that the payment is indeed
*forced*(if the hybrid Gold publisher embargoes Green). Is the extra
"service,"
then, *exemption from the publisher-imposed Green OA embargo*?

(Note: If the publisher is among the
60%<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php> who
endorse immediate Green OA, then none of my objections matter in the least,
and I couldn't care less if the publisher earns some extra revenue from
those authors who are silly enough to pay for hybrid Gold OA when they
could have had the same, cost-free, by just providing Green OA.)

For the publisher who embargoes Green and then pockets the extra revenue
derived from hybrid Gold, over and above subscriptions, without even
reducing subscription charges proportionately, is indeed charging twice for
publication, i.e., double-dipping (and offering absolutely nothing in
return except *freedom from the publisher's own Green OA embargo*).

Subscriptions pay the cost of publication. Print reprints are an extra
product. And adverts are an extra service. But hybrid Gold OA is merely
fool's gold, if paid unforced. -- And if forced by a publish embargo, there
is a word to describe the practice, but I will not use it, as a publisher
has already once threatened to sue me for libel if I do=85 So let's just ca=
ll
it double-dipping, with no extra product or service...

*Stevan Harnad*

--001a11c2b01cf8ce7104e98f353b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><a 
href=3D"http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open=
-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/#comment-1094488522" 
style=3D"=
color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-siz=
e:13px">Bob Campbell</a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verd=
ana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">=A0wrote on the Wiley 
blog:<=
/span><blockquote 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
&quot;<em><a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1061=
-.html" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">Stevan</a>=A0accuses me of 
much confl=
ation yet he himself conflates APCs and subscriptions when commenting on do=
uble-dipping. APCs are not paying for the =91same articles=92 paid for by s=
ubscriptions. Publishers have always charged separately for different servi=
ces/products. For example, a medical journal may charge a pharmaceutical co=
mpany for reprints, advertising space and subscriptions. These are priced s=
eparately and charged separately, and accounted for separately in the publi=
sher=92s financial management of the title. The pharmaceutical company does=
 not demand that the cost of buying advertising space is offset against any=
 library subscriptions.</em>&quot;</blockquote>
<span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans=
-serif;font-size:13px">Bob Campbell defends double-dipping by citing 
journa=
l charges for the purchase of reprints, advertising and subscriptions. That=
&#39;s all fine.=A0</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verd=
ana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-s=
erif;font-size:13px"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana=
,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">But what we are discussing 
here=
 is the cost of <i>publication</i>, not of extra products or 
services.</spa=
n><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans=
-serif;font-size:13px">
<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-s=
erif;font-size:13px"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana=
,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Worldwide institutional 
subscri=
ptions pay the cost of publication (in full, and fulsomely). It is not at a=
ll clear what extra product or service is being paid for when an author pay=
s for hybrid Gold OA (for the paper he has given the publisher, for free, t=
o sell).</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,h=
elvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-s=
erif;font-size:13px"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana=
,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Of course it&#39;s an 
extra sou=
rce of revenue to the hybrid Gold publisher to force the author to pay that=
 extra money (for whatever it is that they are paying for). And let there b=
e no doubt that the payment is indeed <i>forced</i> (if the hybrid 
Gold pub=
lisher embargoes Green). Is the extra &quot;service,&quot; then, 
<i>exempti=
on from the publisher-imposed Green OA embargo</i>?</span><br 
style=3D"colo=
r:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13=
px">
<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-s=
erif;font-size:13px"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana=
,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(Note: If the publisher is 
amon=
g the=A0</span><a 
href=3D"http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php" sty=
le=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:13px">60%</a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana=
,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">=A0who endorse immediate 
Green =
OA, then none of my objections matter in the least, and I couldn&#39;t 
care=
 less if the publisher earns some extra revenue from those authors who are =
silly enough to pay for hybrid Gold OA when they could have had the same, c=
ost-free, by just providing Green OA.)</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,5=
1);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-s=
erif;font-size:13px"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana=
,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">For the publisher who 
embargoes=
 Green and then pockets the extra revenue derived from hybrid Gold, over an=
d above subscriptions, without even reducing subscription charges proportio=
nately, is indeed charging twice for publication, i.e., double-dipping (and=
 offering absolutely nothing in return except=A0</span><em 
style=3D"color:r=
gb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px"=
>freedom from the publisher&#39;s own Green OA 
embargo</em><span style=3D"c=
olor:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size=
:13px">).</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,=
helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-s=
erif;font-size:13px"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana=
,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Subscriptions pay the cost 
of p=
ublication. Print reprints are an extra product. And adverts are an extra s=
ervice. But hybrid Gold OA is merely fool&#39;s gold, if paid unforced. -- 
=
And if forced by a publish embargo, there is a word to describe the practic=
e, but I will not use it, as a publisher has already once threatened to sue=
 me for libel if I do=85 So let&#39;s just call it double-dipping, with no 
=
extra product or service...</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-fam=
ily:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<div><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica=
,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div 
style><span style=3D"colo=
r:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13=
px"><b>Stevan Harnad</b></span></div>
</div>

--001a11c2b01cf8ce7104e98f353b--

        
--      
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 .