Taxacom: open access journals

Tue Aug 1 04:41:50 CDT 2023

 Lyubo,
Realistically, no matter how noble an original vision, the implementation is what matters. I'm not entirely convinced that OA was in any shape or form a noble original vision, but let's put that aside and focus on the implementation:
Before OA, articles were published for free, but readers had to pay to read them. One of the problems was that institutions ended up paying publishers big money for subscriptions. That money did not however come out of research funding. Nevertheless, publishers like Elsevier were making vast profits. Few institutions bought subscriptions to obscure journals, so most readers had to rely on contacts to get hold of those, but it worked because relatively rew readers wanted to read articles from obscure journals. The community just handed around photocopies.
Today, institutions still have to pay big subscriptions AND authors have to pay the publisher big money (for high impact journals) to get the articles published. This money does come out of research funding. The only difference is that now anyone can read the articles freely online. But for low interest articles, the OA fees are set too high. Given that most scientific articles (particularly in taxonomy) are low interest, the combined OA fees for all of them represents a significant chunk of research funding. Sure, some journals aren't very high impact and so charge lower OA fees, but they also tend to publish very prolifically, so the combined OA fees are still significant.
It is just very hard to see exactly who benefits from this and how. Poorer countries, whose libraries cannot afford subscriptions, benefit from free reads of OA articles, but they also want to publish articles and also have less research funding to play with, so they won't want to publish OA. Maybe they can benefit from richer countries publishing OA, gaining free access to articles published in those richer countries. However, at least in taxonomy, it is unclear to what extent taxonomists in poorer countries need or benefit from free access to articles published in richer countries? Besides, this must be balanced by the reduction in research funding in the richer countries, due to them having to pay high OA fees. The cost benefit analysis is complex and, I think, largely unknown. The only thing that is clear is that publishers benefit from OA, particularly publishers of high impact journals and particularly while it is still necessary to buy subscriptions because not everything is OA and one also has the added complication of pre-OA literature which is still hidden behind paywalls.
Institutions using external funding also benefit from strategic spending on OA fees. This can add to their corporate profits, but only at the cost of eating up funding that could otherwise have been used on doing research.
In summary, it is clear that publishers and corporate research institutions benefit financially from OA, but very unclear who else benefits and how.
Cheers, Stephen
    On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 08:57:24 pm NZST, Lyubomir Penev <lyubo.penev at gmail.com> wrote:  

 Hi Stephen,
No offense at all, but I really try to separate the meaning and mission of the open access model from its various (mis)interpretations and (mis)uses. The increasing number of articles is not due to the appearance of open access as a model. It is not the publishers - you say they like to publish more and earn more (electric companies also like to do that by expanding their networks and volumes) - who are the reason for the ever growing number of articles. It is the scholarly evaluation system that forces researchers to publish more and more in "high" impact journals. Publishers use that to "sell" the "high" impact to researchers through their journals, independently of that are these open access, subscription-based or of various mixed models currently in place.
You can't blame publishers for doing business just as you can't blame your local shop for doing business through delivering goods to you. The greediness in business, however, should be blamed, I agree. 
As said, the best solution is the gold open access model supported by institutions, societies or sponsors. The model is normally limited in volume per year, because the institutions cannot budget unpredictably and exponentially growing numbers of articles. As an example, more than half of the some 30 biodiversity journals in our own portfolio are free to read and free to publish. What bad in that the authors to have the choice where to publish? 
Best,Lyubo

-----Lyubomir Penev
ORCID: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-2186-5033&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EzTST47FQJR7EuqquSqj27nOOAUOI5%2Fk1eg45Ih3V64%3D&reserved=0

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:15 AM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz> wrote:

 Hi Lyubo,Open Access is a big can of worms. You can claim that it makes scientific outputs more accessible to readers and indeed it does, but that just hides the "dark side". The main problem is that the vast majority of published scientific articles are of little or no relevance to most readers, but, collectively, there are a vast number of such low interest articles, so much that the combined OA fees subtract significantly from available research funding. Therefore, in actual fact, the general reader just gets free access to a vast number of articles that hardly anybody has any reason to read and the cost is less funding for actual research. The few readers who do have reason to read the average low interest paper can, most of the time, read them anyway via institutional subscriptions, subscriptions which have not been abandoned in the OA era (partly because OA is patchy rather than universal). So, many millions of dollars of research funding is being diverted to making low interest articles freely readable to a mere handful of potential readers! Sound like a good idea to you? Probably does, because you, as a publisher, get guaranteed revenue from each article published, even if nobody at all wants to read it! Hence, I have to doubt whether your views on the subject of OA can plausibly be taken as being unbiased! No offence intended, I'm just saying it as it is!Cheers, Stephen
    On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 07:57:10 pm NZST, Lyubomir Penev <lyubo.penev at gmail.com> wrote:  

 Calling open access "Scam" sounds to me like blaming a religious system, sincerely preaching equality and love between people, for the actions of its followers, for example in politics (e.g. religious wars) or business (e.g. services around pilgrimage). The story of Journal of Biogeography isn't a rant against open access as a model but against excessive article processing charges and monopolization (or oligopolization) of the model.
It is about inequality and double standards in human societies, not about the publishing model itself. 
So far I am aware about cases of boycotting high APC-based open access journals, however I've never heard about boycotting (=not reading, not citing) open access papers, even those published in most expensive journals. It is fully understandable that authors do not like to be charged for publishing, but I think they also do not like to be charged for, say, EURO 38.95 to access a paper published some 20 years ago. 
Open access was intended to provide equal access to scientific information to all and it did that. The price of it was to create the opposite source of inequality between people who can pay the APC and those who can't.
The solution is probably to be found somewhere in-between as it often happens: a co-existence of various publishing models for the authors and communities to choose from and support to free-to-read-free-to-publish open access (meaning paid by institutions, societies or third parties) or low cost open access based on affordable and fair APCs.
Best regards,Lyubomir
-----Lyubomir Penev
ORCID: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-2186-5033&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EzTST47FQJR7EuqquSqj27nOOAUOI5%2Fk1eg45Ih3V64%3D&reserved=0

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 8:54 AM John Grehan via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

"  can't believe it has taken you guys so long to react to the Open Access
Scam" Stephen - who are 'you guys'? I am not aware of anyone having their
head in the sand over this issue.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 6:35 PM Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:

>
> I can't believe it has taken you guys so long to react to the Open Access
> Scam, which I have posted about here on Taxacom for years! There are two
> main factors involved. You have touched on the one to do with impact
> factor. Trying to include taxonomy into the broad area of impact factor
> metrics is entirely inappropriate. It leads to all sorts of problems, such
> as naming species after celebrities so as to generate publicity. The
> reality is that very few readers will be immediately interested in any one
> taxonomic article, but it is nevertheless a very valuable part of a much
> larger whole. You can build a very interesting house out of bricks, despite
> the fact that each individual brick is of low interest to anyone!
>
> The other factor with Open Access is to do with the strategic spending of
> external funding, by corporate research entities. Remember that they are
> spending other people's money, if it is external funding and the economics
> of spending other people's money is very different to the economics of
> spending one's own money. I can elaborate if anyone is interested.
>
> Stephen
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 09:19:34 am NZST, John Grehan via Taxacom <
> taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I will back up Lynn's comments, especially with respect to ZooNova
> (excellent outlet). I have also seen how 'newsletters' of some
> organizations (NZ Ent Soc, Lepidopterist Society) generate 'publications'
> that are just as good as any commercial product, and yet cost author's
> nothing. Sadly, I have at least one colleague with whom I collaborate ask
> that we publish co-authored papers in journals with 'high' indices because
> that is required of the 'employer' to help keep their job. It's a racket
> for sure.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 4:52 PM Lynn Raw via Taxacom <taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> >
> wrote:
>
> > In the article they say that quality publishing is expensive. That is
> only
> > the case with paper publishing. Open Access is by its very nature an
> online
> > only digital format far less expensive to provide than the older print
> > journals and with no extra costs for colour. It seems the whole process
> of
> > using citation and other indices rather than the actual quality of the
> > content is a commercial profit driven hoax promoted by the publishers for
> > the benefit of their executives and shareholders. It also gives
> university
> > administrators numbers that they can understand whether or not they have
> > any idea of the content. Even the highly esteemed Nature sometimes
> > publishes suspect papers. Open access is the ideal low cost publishing
> > system for societies as the only cost lies in the website maintenance and
> > development, web server operation and maintenance of the domain
> > registration.
> > At the moment I am running a small scale OA journal at NO COST to the
> > authors so the model can operate with the right support and volunteers
> > whatever argument is given against it. Obviously it is not a commercial
> for
> > profit model but it is something that can meet a need for both authors
> and
> > users of scientific articles.
> >
> > Lynn Raw
> > Independent Researcher & Editor
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 31 Jul 2023, at 21.15, Michael Heads via Taxacom <
> > taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've criticised the new 'Open Access' publishing model for journals as
> a
> > > scam, and here's a new article in J. Biogeogr. against it (note that it
> > > doesn't mention publishing scientists who are amateur or retired):
> > >
> > > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fjbi.14697&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O8VdKw2GV4aZMtbosl1IiMdQWV3CZSiY5VTgm3cQsbc%3D&reserved=0
> > > 'Shifts to open access with high article processing charges hinder
> > research
> > > equity and careers'
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dunedin, New Zealand.
> > >
> > > My books:
> > >
> > > *Biogeography and evolution in New Zealand. *Taylor and Francis/CRC,
> Boca
> > > Raton FL. 2017.
> > >
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.routledge.com%2FBiogeography-and-Evolution-in-New-Zealand%2FHeads%2Fp%2Fbook%2F9781498751872&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rl825TWzcHe2XW2s8dwK51YST%2FzjcSgGMv8xVXbxowM%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > > *Biogeography of Australasia:  A molecular analysis*. Cambridge
> > University
> > > Press, Cambridge. 2014. https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cambridge.org%2F9781107041028&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QybadsugZR4%2BR6%2BDxho5eH%2FtnkvndtyuVpOpStMydoo%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > > *Molecular panbiogeography of the tropics. *University of California
> > Press,
> > > Berkeley. 2012. https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucpress.edu%2Fbook.php%3Fisbn%3D9780520271968&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WKQz%2BeQW%2BvLAxuA7Dw6v%2FZUmyAYIvYC%2BgF7Ju%2BeXHLM%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > > *Panbiogeography: Tracking the history of life*. Oxford University
> Press,
> > > New York. 1999. (With R. Craw and J. Grehan).
> > > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=WzrUXv3hiWC9j1%2Fr1hVY03GqzrlPZDHXxphVHVEwdYg%3D&reserved=0
> > > <
> >
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.nz%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DBm0_QQ3Z6GUC%26dq%3Dpanbiogeography%26source%3Dgbs_navlinks_s&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=LTLzW92ncjskivhMfUjOFkS3mU7eolF5aVULVhONeBA%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > >
> > > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xuz5s1iakxnrkTZuZIbiT5JhrHy%2By1oDS9cm9pHA5JQ%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration
> for
> > about 36 years, 1987-2023.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xuz5s1iakxnrkTZuZIbiT5JhrHy%2By1oDS9cm9pHA5JQ%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> > about 36 years, 1987-2023.
> >
>
>
> --
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213818129%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=59Qc0547WAM3KqczKHHW7e%2FMseTu3eementBfmIDnEc%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
> link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213974359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Cf1KFQxKnFcZ%2FTQ6IbWfycNbOxW87kuOEqsQkmO4g5w%3D&reserved=0
>
> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for
> about 36 years, 1987-2023.
>

-- 
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhepialidsoftheworld.com.au%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213974359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1vq3J%2BVztSIJUdYnHebMcLjVreBk2BVxrGCPYPnluiA%3D&reserved=0 (use the 'visit archived web site'
link, then the 'Ghost Moth Research page' link.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List

Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cea481ae575154a3847ea08db92738bf2%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638264797213974359%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Cf1KFQxKnFcZ%2FTQ6IbWfycNbOxW87kuOEqsQkmO4g5w%3D&reserved=0

Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration for about 36 years, 1987-2023.