tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post975845280423923954..comments2020-05-22T16:47:00.758+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Open Access: Whom would you back?Open &amp; Shuthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-4672206675206358202009-06-12T08:17:10.936+00:002009-06-12T08:17:10.936+00:00Since Peter Suber actually asked about this in his...Since Peter Suber actually asked about this in his answer to this very good and in-depth analysis by Richard Poynder, let me add a few elements about the Max Planck Society (MPS) deal with Springer. The final agreement, which followed an initial break in the negociation between the two parties, took into account the fact that the MPS considered its own subscription to be by far to expensive to be renewed unchanged. The agreement thus comprised three aspects: a) a slight reduction in budget, b) an extension of the subscription portfolio and c) the full open access scheme for any Max Planck author. To my view such transitional (and experimental for sure) agreements are one of the possible ways to contribute to the evolution of the scientific publishing landscape.Laurent Romarynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-49470934321861245412009-03-21T15:33:00.000+00:002009-03-21T15:33:00.000+00:00WAYS UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES CAN HELP HASTEN THE OPTI...<B>WAYS UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES CAN HELP HASTEN THE OPTIMAL AND INEVITABLE</B><BR><BR><STRONG>(1)</STRONG> On "<A HREF="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/546-guid.html" REL="nofollow">Throwing Money at Gold OA Without Mandating Green OA</A>" <BR><BR><STRONG>(2)</STRONG> On "<A HREF="http://blogsearch.google.ca/blogsearch?hl=en&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&q=Davis+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&btnG=Search+Blogs" REL="nofollow">Phil Davis's... always... useful and insightful... comments</A>"<BR><BR><STRONG>(3)</STRONG> On <A HREF="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/551-guid.html" REL="nofollow">providing OA "in a way that is least disruptive to our scientists and scholars"</A> <BR><BR><STRONG>(4)</STRONG> On <A HREF="http://oalibrarian.blogspot.com/2006/01/hlne-bosc.html" REL="nofollow">one</A> or <A HREF="http://www.caul.edu.au/caul-doc/achievement2008callan.pdf" REL="nofollow">two</A> or <A HREF="http://www.surffoundation.nl/smartsite.dws?ch=eng&id=13747" REL="nofollow"> three</A> or <A HREF="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/548-guid.html" REL="nofollow">four</A> other <A HREF="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/fullinfo.php?inst=Universidade%20do%20Minho" REL="nofollow">useful things librarians could do to help provide OA</A> whilst trying "to find the right balance between openness and sustainability" <BR><BR><B><A HREF="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/" REL="nofollow">Stevan Harnad</A></B> <BR><A HREF="http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html" REL="nofollow">American Scientist Open Access Forum</A>Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-22707683312354759292009-03-21T06:39:00.000+00:002009-03-21T06:39:00.000+00:00Richard, your article is indeed interesting and re...Richard, your article is indeed interesting and reads like a suspense novel. One correction however: it would be a mistake for anyone to think that UC threw money at Springer to secure its OA arrangement. Echoing Phil Davis's comments (who always has something useful and insightful to say), UC's goal is to promote the most open use of content as possible in as sustainable a manner as possible, ideally in a way that is least disruptive to our scientists and scholars. Much experimentation is still needed to find the right balance between openness and sustainability. We hope we can contribute to that exploration in our Springer pilot. <BR/><BR/>- Ivy Anderson, California Digital LibraryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-85795495116099407922009-03-13T16:00:00.000+00:002009-03-13T16:00:00.000+00:00Richard, this is indeed a wonderful analysis. I d...Richard, this is indeed a wonderful analysis. I do feel that you paint all publishers as profit-maximizing entities and do not see the fundamental difference in missions between commercial publishers and non-profit society publishers. The latter have demonstrated that they can responsibly maximize the dissemination of research while minimizing costs to libraries.<BR/><BR/>The ultimate goal then should <I>not</I> be about wrestling control away from publishers and giving it back to the academy (there is little evidence that the academy/library can do it cheaper and more effectively than professional publishers).<BR/><BR/>The real goal should be to wrestle control away from those publishers who cannot maximize dissemination and minimize costs and privilege those publishers who can.<BR/><BR/>Institutional and library policies should be based upon these two factors alone.<BR/><BR/>--Phil DavisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-35568595108397240372009-03-13T09:19:00.000+00:002009-03-13T09:19:00.000+00:00Just for historical accuracy - hybrid OA was not c...Just for historical accuracy - hybrid OA was not created by Springer in 2004. When I wrote about it as a transitional model in 2003 (http://eprints.rclis.org/1179/1/From_here_to_there.htm) variations of the model were already being used by some society publishers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-32743645811863862552009-03-11T22:57:00.000+00:002009-03-11T22:57:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nathan Georgettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02461785766534648625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-2966123799263360392009-03-11T18:48:00.000+00:002009-03-11T18:48:00.000+00:001. Green mandates are a by-product of Toll Gate jo...1. Green mandates are a by-product of Toll Gate journals. So, how can Green mandates solve the affordability problem? <BR/>2. The agreement between the Max Planck Society and Springer was not the first one of this kind. Actually, it was the deal with the Dutch consortium UKB which stood model for the others. Some interesting business information about this deal may be found in a hidden corner of the web: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/nieuws?nieuws/@isn=712&amp;wq_sfx=full <BR/>3. Derek Haank has always stated that the publication fee of $3000 per article was based the need to maintain their current revenue in case all articles would be published in Open Access. However, I know on good authority that two years ago Springer&#39;s journal revenue was $300 million for about 150.000 articles. This would lead to an article price of $2000. (This does not take into account that the distribution costs in an Open Access world will be much lower than in the Toll Gate world. These distribution costs account for 20% to 30% of the total process costs. So in an Open Access world Springer&#39;s price per article can be lowered to $1500, still generating a comfortable profit for them.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-32317206015022699262009-03-11T18:19:00.000+00:002009-03-11T18:19:00.000+00:00I would much prefer the Green OA to win the race, ...I would much prefer the Green OA to win the race, but I fear that it will be Gold, for the reason that, at least in the UK all the major medical funders have mandated deposit in UK PubMed Central within 6 months. My reading of the publishers policies summarised in Sherpa Romeo is that all but four of the major publishers do not allow archiving in UK PMC within 6 months (although most do allow self archiving in an institutional repository). Thus, these funders are driving gold OA as the only way that researchers can comply with their mandate. <BR/>In non-health fields the major UK funders do not impose the requirment of deposit in a subject based repository and therefore are driving the green agenda, but I fear that the preponderance of health publishing will drive the agenda the other way. I would love to be contradicted with alterantive evidence.Andria McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09181332840937445646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-89035272740705427382009-03-11T16:34:00.000+00:002009-03-11T16:34:00.000+00:00My only issue with the article is the use of the t...My only issue with the article is the use of the term "open access" to refer to "free to view" content. This has implications for the future. Free to view material is still protected by conventional copyright restrictions. Open access follows the Creative Commons model in some form, at its best allowing derivitive works with attribution and public display. Objects with these licenses can be more efficiently used, especially the multi-media objects, and will be the primary building blocks of open educational projects.Chris Sugnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951820812136642536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-3524639457444685512009-03-11T10:33:00.000+00:002009-03-11T10:33:00.000+00:00I don't know how he does it. His article is full o...I don't know how he does it. His article is full of points with which I profoundly disagree. But he has written it so fairly and so insightfully and so stimulatingly that all one can do is admire it and him, yet again.<BR/><BR/>I may be writing a critical commentary shortly, but in the meantime, all I can do is highly recommend it to everyone with any interest in the exciting current developments in Open Access (OA). It will bring you up to speed with the OA movement and also give you a shrewd and penetrating peek at OA's possible future. <BR/><BR/>Agree or disagree, you cannot fail to be informed, and impressed. The OA movement is fortunate indeed to have Richard Poynder as its chronicler, conscience, and gadfly laureate.Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-59367385792432915462009-03-11T04:05:00.000+00:002009-03-11T04:05:00.000+00:00Excellent article, I could not agree more. Why don...Excellent article, I could not agree more. Why don't scholarly community ask where the heck this 2000-3000$ the Gold OA journals goes, mean you need to have valid expenses, when every one is doing voluntarily then who is eating the money. Gold OA is spending to much money of advertisements, distributing free T-Shirts, hiring online discussion experts and bla bla. I wish Green OA win in this rat race.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com
https://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/975845280423923954/comments/default
poynder.blogspot.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-24
27025
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:OTRHMTQDNM2G5N6JMALLVB7IND56CCXP
<urn:uuid:b410cbeb-d0d7-419c-949b-9f10c8974342>
2020-05-25T05:25:10Z
172.217.2.97
application/atom+xml
sha1:VW5SWJUADVWWLY7OFRQFXRX6NMPAXRFF
<urn:uuid:3c306ba7-fbbb-4541-a488-88c4d39f1cb3>
https://poynder.blogspot.com/feeds/975845280423923954/comments/default
response
<urn:uuid:5da2967c-86c2-47fd-aa83-ee26d7e070e4>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-24
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May/June 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-52.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/