[Humanist] 26.744 open-access publishing

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sat Feb 2 10:17:48 CET 2013


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 26, No. 744.
            Department of Digital Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org



        Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 09:58:45 +0000
        From: John Levin <john at anterotesis.com>
        Subject: Re:  26.738 open-access publishing: APC
        In-Reply-To: <20130201051823.C9583DC5 at digitalhumanities.org>


Dear Daniel,

The Open Library of the Humanities is still in the early planning 
stages; I believe that no decision has been made as to APCs.

The ideal route for the OLH is institutional subsidy, so that APCs don't 
factor at all. This is something the OLH are actively investigating

In a personal capacity:

I quite understand your concern with APCs, and I share them. They put 
power into the hands of an already corrupting bureaucratic strata in the 
universities; they may be detrimental to any form of meritocracy in 
academe; they can be exploited by unscrupulous publishers; and so on.

But for my part I have no hesitation in getting involved in the OLH even 
without this matter being settled. For quite simply the old way is not 
working for the creators or the public, and the publishers - including 
'learned societies' and journals - are actively working against both. 
The OLH is currently the best prospect for resolving this situation.

Yours

John

>
>          Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:18:16 +0000
>          From: Daniel Allington <daniel.allington at open.ac.uk>
>          Subject: Re:  26.735 open-access publishing
>          In-Reply-To: <20130131072640.2113F2CF0 at digitalhumanities.org>
>
>
> Dear John
>
> Thanks very much for the invitation. I'm sure you will get many signatures far more valuable than mine, but I wanted to say that what holds me back from signing up is the APC issue. I understand that it will be waived for signatories, but, like many researchers, I'm deeply uncomfortable with APCs per se, whether or not they directly affect me as an individual. The mission statement declares that 'APCs are waiverable', but it doesn't explain under what circumstances, the 'OLH Model' page states that 'PLOS waive[s]... charges', but also that your initiative is unaffiliated with PLOS, and you write 'should that model be adopted', which suggests that APCs may not be used at all (which I would welcome, obviously). Could we have some clarity on this so that potential signatories know exactly what they will have endorsed?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Daniel
>
> Dr Daniel Allington
> Centre for Language and Communication
> The Open University


-- 
John Levin
http://www.anterotesis.com
http://twitter.com/anterotesis





More information about the Humanist mailing list