To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/005b01d57fad%247c42a5b0%2474c7f110%24%40nationalscience.org.
Yep---agreed. And sorry about omitting Richard---Heather and Jason are in OSI but not Richard (yet anyway), hence my rudeness 😊
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/F88A1DA9-EBF3-4386-A81B-686552C27072%40craigellachie.us.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/ED3950BC-2EF0-44F9-90D3-EEA01D00C603%40craigellachie.us.
APCs do not work for the Global South or for disciplines who do not work on the basis of grants – humanities. This has been clear for some time.
Hence the various schemes for books like Knowledge Unlatched which relies on libraries paying. I did some googling to look to see how terminology is being used/developed and came across this: https://openscience.com/what-is-gold-open-access/. I bet you all know this. It seemed interesting.
Anthony
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CABcSf%2Bj35Mg5oTLC2Ge_-x8BUdFca74Lnar%3DOE0t2ZEvd%3DeV7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
Alas, it’s a nuanced discussion David…I refer you to our group’s Plan S policy paper (Section 4: Should we really go for the gold?) for the details: https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/2450/1525
In short, this solution will work for some regions, fields and researchers (and is working), not others, and certainly not all. And therein lies the rub. When we’re talking about creating solutions that work for everyone everywhere we need to be flexible and inclusive and really do our best to understand the global state of affairs. Subsidy programs are underfunded and inadequate by themselves to remedy current inequities; APC charges of even a few hundred dollars are too high for many authors; there is no downward pressure on APC prices because academic authors shop on the basis of quality, not price; and so on. So, be wary the simple explanations and simple solutions: they’re probably wrong.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/0F4278B1-5FA3-4C7F-8DB4-EB29C046136C%40craigellachie.us.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/004801d58058%247dc8b2c0%24795a1840%24%40nationalscience.org.
Understood (I think). The point here, however, isn’t that the marketplace likes APCs. It’s that this approach is being mandated at scale (not by name, but by default since most OA articles are APC-funded, and most of this funding comes from authors). And that’s why there’s concern. If we’re going to tell the market which solutions to adopt (or else), then we need to be absolutely certain we’re right and also be willing to accept suboptimal outcomes. Or we need to be less specific---for instance, take a cap and trade approach to open wherein we “just” require that x% of country/institution y output needs to be open (on the spectrum, not necessarily CC-BY) by z date. That approach is workable and allows for broad adaptation, endorsement, innovation, competition, speed, and flexibility.
Margaret Winker, MD
Trustee, WAME
***
@WAMedEditors
-Views are my own.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/006d01d5806d%2416380ba0%2442a822e0%24%40nationalscience.org.
But let’s also remember that DOAJ doesn’t count all of the journals that charge APCs for OA publication:
As David Crotty points out in this piece, a more accurate representation of things would be to say:
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/6A28B009-89A3-48EA-A09F-048DC49B0914%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/0D0DFDD7-C8C5-4A3A-9B3A-73F302A2BAB3%40gmail.com.