4 ms·

The OA revenue stream is meant to replace the subscription one, not be in addition to it (long term anyway). I can't tell how much of your comment is tongue-in-

The OA revenue stream is meant to replace the subscription one, not be in addition to it (long term anyway). I can't tell how much of your comment is tongue-in-cheek or satire, but do you honestly not believe charging authors for the service they are buying (and then ensuring the results are freely available) is morally better than putting the results of science behind paywalls so the authors can publish for free? That seems like a no-brainer to me. Obviously nobody wants to pay for anything if they can not. But paying a transparent price for a service being performed seems like a huge win compared to the status quo of using copyright and paywalls.

iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago
I don't think you should charge authors, because academics should be encouraged to publish without having to worry about the cost. That's why society funds them with grants from taxpayer money, because we want to see the results of this research we have purchased. And now we can, with SciHub, and everyone is basically content with this situation except the lobbyists for your industry. Besides, the authors are your golden geese. How much of the work of producing a journal article is performed by the authors and other unpaid academic volunteers (who are authors elsewhere), compared to the publishers? Is it 90%, or maybe even higher? Your journals would not exist in any form without the authors, so it behooves you not to piss them off. Currently, the most famous journals enjoy a prestige-driven advantage: everyone wants to publish there, because doing so (sadly) advances their careers more than publishing elsewhere. But this is all just an agreement among academics, and they could turn on you at any moment. So I think you should stick with the subscription model. Authors shouldn't have to pay, and readers currently don't "have to" pay, regardless of whether you think they should. The only people who are really interested in paying you right now are the university libraries, because what sort of prestigious institution doesn't carry all the famous journals?
- dougmccune 9y ago
  Yeah, so what you describe is basically what's happening now. Piracy is convenient enough for individuals to get around paywalls, but not so convenient or widespread (in terms of use) that universities start cancelling subscriptions. If piracy stays that way and doesn't kill subscriptions then it's sort of a win win, readers effectively get access and the work of publishers is compensated. Right now that's true, and piracy is a net positive (in my view anyway). But the obvious concern there is that that homeostasis won't last. There are other business models that are being tried that mimic the current one a bit. For example, instead of a university library paying a subscription fee to gain access to content, they can pay a fee to allow all researchers at their university to be allowed to publish in all of a publisher's journals. Essentially moving the APC charges from individual researchers to universities. I know we've tried floating that idea and have gotten a lot of resistance from libraries, which I don't fully understand because it seems entirely reasonable to me. One other note: Gold OA APC charges are not being paid out of the author's pocket. Nearly all the APC charges are coming from grant money that funds the research (or from central government funding, like China). All the major funders allow a PI to account for publication charges. So publication is treated just like any other research expense, like buying equipment. It all comes from the funders. That works great, and honestly seems like a perfectly reasonable setup, but it only works for funded research. That leaves entire swaths of the academic landscape out (as I've said elsewhere that means most of the humanities and social sciences).
upvotinglurker 9y ago
>charging authors for the service they are buying This description feels weird and vaguely misleading, if only because when I buy, say, auto repair or hair styling service, the service provider doesn't consult a panel of other customers to decide whether my service request is worthy of being fulfilled. "Charging authors for the service they are buying" seems a more apt description of straight-up vanity publishing.

iaabtpbtpnn 9y ago

I don't think you should charge authors, because academics should be encouraged to publish without having to worry about the cost. That's why society funds them with grants from taxpayer money, because we want to see the results of this research we have purchased. And now we can, with SciHub, and everyone is basically content with this situation except the lobbyists for your industry. Besides, the authors are your golden geese. How much of the work of producing a journal article is performed by the authors and other unpaid academic volunteers (who are authors elsewhere), compared to the publishers? Is it 90%, or maybe even higher? Your journals would not exist in any form without the authors, so it behooves you not to piss them off. Currently, the most famous journals enjoy a prestige-driven advantage: everyone wants to publish there, because doing so (sadly) advances their careers more than publishing elsewhere. But this is all just an agreement among academics, and they could turn on you at any moment. So I think you should stick with the subscription model. Authors shouldn't have to pay, and readers currently don't "have to" pay, regardless of whether you think they should. The only people who are really interested in paying you right now are the university libraries, because what sort of prestigious institution doesn't carry all the famous journals?

dougmccune 9y ago
Yeah, so what you describe is basically what's happening now. Piracy is convenient enough for individuals to get around paywalls, but not so convenient or widespread (in terms of use) that universities start cancelling subscriptions. If piracy stays that way and doesn't kill subscriptions then it's sort of a win win, readers effectively get access and the work of publishers is compensated. Right now that's true, and piracy is a net positive (in my view anyway). But the obvious concern there is that that homeostasis won't last. There are other business models that are being tried that mimic the current one a bit. For example, instead of a university library paying a subscription fee to gain access to content, they can pay a fee to allow all researchers at their university to be allowed to publish in all of a publisher's journals. Essentially moving the APC charges from individual researchers to universities. I know we've tried floating that idea and have gotten a lot of resistance from libraries, which I don't fully understand because it seems entirely reasonable to me. One other note: Gold OA APC charges are not being paid out of the author's pocket. Nearly all the APC charges are coming from grant money that funds the research (or from central government funding, like China). All the major funders allow a PI to account for publication charges. So publication is treated just like any other research expense, like buying equipment. It all comes from the funders. That works great, and honestly seems like a perfectly reasonable setup, but it only works for funded research. That leaves entire swaths of the academic landscape out (as I've said elsewhere that means most of the humanities and social sciences).

upvotinglurker 9y ago

>charging authors for the service they are buying This description feels weird and vaguely misleading, if only because when I buy, say, auto repair or hair styling service, the service provider doesn't consult a panel of other customers to decide whether my service request is worthy of being fulfilled. "Charging authors for the service they are buying" seems a more apt description of straight-up vanity publishing.