Re: How to sort this out, I’d like to hear from knowledgeable others.

Dan

I just read this article in  Nature ISSN 1476-4687 (online)

https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fd41586-018-07152-z&data=02%7C01%7CCLASSICS-L%40lsv.uky.edu%7Ca8a6477d8d7347a3634b08d6b0a71574%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C0%7C636890629009530590&sdata=JLcuzGIBGBGh7UpZ24wevNU4wGUGI8hQGJRRX%2FFNvBs%3D&reserved=0

[a source not to be perceived as an uninterested party in this matter <g>]

<<<  As readers, many scientists in Europe will welcome the news that most
work will have to be published in open-access journals from 2020 (M.
Schiltz Front. Neurosci. 12, 656 (2018); see also Nature 561, 17–18; 2018).
But as knowledge producers, I fear that many more scientists around the
globe are likely to be disenfranchised by richer nations, institutions and
funding bodies.
*Open-access publication requires authors to pay in the region of
US$1,000–3,000 **(*more than the *c*ost of many research projects in some
disciplines). Although scientists from low-income countries are eligible
for full-fee waivers, compulsory open access will force many others to use
money intended for research, or to publish in low-tier journals that still
retain reader paywalls.>>

My main question is  -* WHY* does this author (and some others) assume that
the only alternative to predatory pricing from commercial publishers is to
turn to a Pay to Play scenario ?

This is NOT a mechanism that will enable good work from underfunded
researchers, scholars and scientists to be published, instead it may ensure
the model where only well funded - but not not necessarily better - papers
might flood the publication outlets.

Since most of the labour costs prior to publication have already been
absorbed by the authors and reviewers of the document prior to submission,
then logically ALL that is really required is a secure and reputable
platform for distribution.

The only problem then would be to establish
a] what does it actually cost to do this
b] which agencies will be charged with the the responsibility for doing this

As to distribution costs - in this age of Google & Amazon - this is pennies
on the dollar compared to a few decades ago. Agencies like Facebook,
NetFlix, Springer Verlag etc are NOT EVER to be considered as actual
creators of real goods & services. Their business models are based mostly
being able to monetize other peoples' productivity (preferably for free)
and are mostly just the vehicle through which such creators content is
distributed. Given the near monopoly they have on distribution they
generate incredible profits, built solely on the creativity and
productivity of workers, employees and contributors whose labour is
undervalued, underpaid (or unpaid!) and unappreciated and whose share of
the economic advantages of modern technology is diminishing as they ramp up
the % of the sales they extract from such creators.

Currently the researchers, scholars and scientists whose work is published
in these expensive "Scholarly Journals" are just their labourers and may,
in reality, be in a similar state of  "Indentured servitude" as the pickers
in an Amazon warehouse, in that they have no say at all in the way that
their work is evaluated, marketed or paid for. Having either to labour for
free, or to have to "Pay to get Published" is closer to being an apprentice
in a Medieval Guild, one who is only allowed to market his work though his
Master, rather than being a free agent able to sell skills and productivity
in a free market.

What is interesting in this "Scholarly Market" is the apparently voluntary
reliance on these "Commercial" distributors in which scholarly societies
have increasingly ceded their previous role to such publishers, and the
diminution of independent self managed agencies who could exert control not
just of content, but also of costs. I am old enough to remember when
Libraries were able to be choose to become direct subscribers to Societies
in order to receive their publications rather than being tied to
subscription agencies like Ebsco.

Maybe some of the Societies "could" organize and vote to get back and
control their own publications. However I suspect it might be expensive to
recover the contracts from the clutches of those publisher's high priced
lawyers. Of course there "might" be a legal option if their members
unanimously formed a new society and a new publication to replace the old
one - but probably this will need a seismic shift in the known universe
<vbg>

Missing also is the potential role that Universities could play in this
market. Some, like Johns Hopkins, already do this. Those with active
University Presses should, in theory, have enough skills and systems in
place to form an alternative publication network.

June S - not holding my breath, though

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 21:23, DANIEL P. Tompkins <[email protected]>
wrote:

>         Emma Chapman (@DrEOChapman)
> 3/22/19, 12:10 PM
> The academic publishing industry has larger global revenues than the
> recorded music industry, and is not far short of the film industry.
>
> “It’s like going to a restaurant where you have to take your own food,
> cook it and pay for the privilege”. ⁦‪@telescoper‬⁩ talks Open Access.
> pic.twitter.com/p5nvqgxRgw
>
> Download the Twitter app
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone



-- 
June Samaras
2020 Old Station Rd
Streetsville,Ontario
Canada L5M 2V1
Tel : 905-542-1877
E-mail : [email protected]