[Humanist] 26.933 open access

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Wed Apr 3 07:19:52 CEST 2013


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 933.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Marin Dacos <marin.dacos at openedition.org>                (218)
        Subject: Re:  26.930 open access

  [2]   From:    Norman Gray <norman at astro.gla.ac.uk>                      (18)
        Subject: Re:  26.930 open access

  [3]   From:    "Zafrin, Vika" <vzafrin at bu.edu>                          (136)
        Subject: Re:  26.930 open access


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:17:59 +0200
        From: Marin Dacos <marin.dacos at openedition.org>
        Subject: Re:  26.930 open access
        In-Reply-To: <20130402062446.C0FF82CFD at digitalhumanities.org>


Dear Holly Shulman,

There a lot of different business models for open access journals.

You will find more informations in the Open Access Directory created by
Peter Suber, one of the most respected specialist in these matters. There
are pages about different models there :
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page

In few words, I would say that there are three main models :
- "pay to say", i.e. author pays, i.e. "article processing charges", which
are often between 1000$ to 5000$. I am reluctant concerning this mode,
because there are a lot of drawbacks : the publisher was paid to create
scarcity, but with APC, the more he publishes, the more he earns. Moreover
: rich will have more publishing opportunities, without relation with the
quality of the research. There are poor scholars everywhere in the World,
even in Europe, and new ideas often come from the fringes, which are poorer
and less integrated in the scholarly system (do you remember Philippe
Ariès, which was a "sunday scholar", because he was not a professionnal
scholar during more than 20 years?). Please note that Bernard Rentier
proposes to create a Three-Digit Moratorium for APC :
http://recteur.blogs.ulg.ac.be/?p=880

- direct fundings : considering that research is publicly funded by
salaries and facilities, we could consider that the end and the result of
the process could be funded by regional, national or international
infrastructures. Give a look to Redalyc and Scielo, for example. But there
are thousands of journals which are made by scholars in OA. There are also
journals funded by private funds, such as foundations. See for
exampleSAPIENS Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society
 http://sapiens.revues.org/  and Facts reports <
http://factsreports.revues.org/>, Field ACTions Science Reports.

- freemium : in OpenEdition Freemium, the texts are free to read, the
services are paid. This idea is not new, it is the business model of a lot
of online services, such as dropbox or Skype, it is also the business model
of the New York Times, and also of MOOCs, massive open online courses :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course

If you want to have a better idea of the diversity of open access journals,
the DOAJ (Directory of open access journals) is the best place to discover
them : http://www.doaj.org/

There won't be only one model. We hope that new models will emerge and
create an innovative and flexible publishing ecosystem.

Best regards,
Marin Dacos


-- 
Marin Dacos - http://www.openedition.org
Director - Centre for Open Electronic Publishing

** OpenEdition is now a Facility of
Excellence http://www.openedition.org/10221?lang=en
* *(Equipex) **
** New email : marin.dacos at openedition.org **

CNRS - EHESS - Aix-Marseille Université (AMU) - Université d'Avignon
3, place Victor Hugo, Case n°86, 13331 Marseille Cedex 3 - France
Tél : 04 13 55 03 40 Tél. direct : 04 13 55 03 39 Fax : 04 13 55 03 41
Skype : marin.dacos - Gmail video chat : marin.dacos at gmail.com
Twitter : http://twitter.com/#!/marindacos



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:32:08 +0100
        From: Norman Gray <norman at astro.gla.ac.uk>
        Subject: Re:  26.930 open access
        In-Reply-To: <20130402062446.C0FF82CFD at digitalhumanities.org>


Greetings.

>        Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 10:12:57 +0000
>        From: Rice Curt <curt.rice at uit.no>

...wrote

> I read with interest the postings on open access, as it's a topic and think and write about quite a bit myself. There is one sense in which open access is relevant for the discussion of plagiarism, namely with the issue of self-plagiarism. When we publish in toll access journals and sign over the copyright to our articles, we give up ownership to what we've written. In the natural sciences, where multiple publications might emerge from one set of experiments, it's easy to imagine a "methods" section that is relevant for multiple publications and that one would like to re-cycle. 

An interesting question.  The problem is framed in a rather different way in the physical sciences.

The (near) duplication of a methods section would be dealt with in a couple of different ways.  If the section would be extensive and cover multiple papers, it might be published separately in a 'methods paper' which is self-cited by the papers which depend on it.  If the section was cut-and-pasted from previous papers, or nearly so, then a referee might simply regard that as article structure, rather than being part of the creative contribution of the paper.  They might, I suppose, suggest that it be replaced by a reference to an earlier paper, but that would be on grounds of concision rather than self-plagiarism.

The manifestation of self-plagiarism in the physical sciences -- in the sense of being the analogous academic vice -- is 'salami-slicing': taking a piece of work and writing it up in as many papers as possible, each of which has just enough content to have a referee deem it novel (it's not unusual for folk to report intermediate results in papers, so there's a continuum here).  I remember talking to someone at a conference who was extolling (unfortunately not _completely_ facetiously) the idea of the 'least publishable unit', and while that's extreme, there is a sense in which 'one idea per paper' is some sort of a norm.

> But when the researcher no longer owns the material, that kind of recycling also becomes plagiarism. If the publications were in OA journals, this particular kind of plagiarism would be technically not plagiarism, i.e. it would disappear.

I think that's optimistic.

If Google can index everything then yes, blatant self-plagiarism would be easiER to detect (the publishers have some support for this with CrossCheck  http://www.crossref.org/crosscheck/index.html , but Google might be better at it), but still hard.  I recently rejected a paper which, amongst other vices, looked to be self-plagiarised, but which, searching specifically for a match, did not show up in CrossCheck.  That absence was because it wasn't self-plagiarised as such, but instead egregiously 'groupwise salami-sliced' (!? in the sense that I suspect it was the product of a close group eking out some work ('salami-buffet'?)).

As Jean-Claude Guédon stressed, OA is not at all incompatible with peer review, and similarly it isn't incompatible with self-plagiarism or other academic vices.

For what it's worth, the preprints which appear in arXiv.org are, in the main, the post-refereeing manuscripts placed there _on acceptance_, that is, in their final form, _before_ they appear in the journal.  Any journal in these areas which didn't do this would fold.  Some journals allow submission from arXiv, in the sense that an author publishes the article on arXiv, and sends the journal the public ID.  I doubt this is a stable situation long-term, but it's been working like this for a couple of decades.

Best wishes,

Norman

-- 
Norman Gray  :  http://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK



--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:55:46 +0000
        From: "Zafrin, Vika" <vzafrin at bu.edu>
        Subject: Re:  26.930 open access
        In-Reply-To: <20130402062446.C0FF82CFD at digitalhumanities.org>

Holly,

On the subject of the economics of open access, I can recommend Peter
Suber's book _Open Access_ (which has a chapter on economics) as well as
these resources:

- SPARC page on OA income models:
http://www.arl.org/sparc/publisher/incomemodels/
- JISC report "Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing
models: Exploring the costs and benefits":
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2009/economicpublishingmodelsfin
alreport.aspx

Regards,

Vika Zafrin
Institutional Repository Librarian
Boston University
+1 617.358.6370 | http://open.bu.edu/

>--[2]---------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>        Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 09:37:26 -0400
>        From: "Holly C. Shulman" <hcs8n at virginia.edu>
>        Subject: Re:  26.929 open access
>        In-Reply-To: <20130401082332.4EFA52CD0 at digitalhumanities.org>
>
>
>With thanks for such wonderful and detailed explanations.  My next
>question
>is the financial structure of OA.  Were a history journal to shift to OA,
>for example, from where would the money to pay staff etc, readers, and on
>and on come from?  What models are already out there for financial
>recuperation?  In addition, if there is, for example, contemporary
>institutional or foundation support, should we consider this a potentially
>permanent arrangement, or not, as institutional funding waxes and wanes
>and
>priorities change both in universities and among foundations.
>
>Holly Shulman





More information about the Humanist mailing list