Re: Author Publication Charge Debate

From: Suhail A. R. <>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 03:02:20 +0000

Stevan Harnad wrote:

>sh> (2) So far as I know, both BMC and PLoS are making arrangements to ease
>sh> the burden on authors from poorer countries or institutions.
>sh> So there is certainly no reason to throw out the baby (OA) with the
>sh> bathwater (inability to pay OA journal publishing costs).

These attempts at easing the burden for authors are fraught with bias and
certainly have been inadequate in terms of myself and my colleagues.

>ars> I would suggest a system [in which] all research after 1 year of
>ars> publication becomes open access. That within 1 year is not open access.
>sh> That is not Open Access, it is Embargoed Access, with access and usage
>sh> and impact denied to all would-be users who cannot afford it especially
>sh> in the critical first year which is the growth region for many
>sh> disciplines.

As far as embargoed access goes, the number of articles a researcher
might need that have been published in the preceeding year are limited
and paying for these is certainly cheaper than paying author costs to
"OA" journals. At the present time, embargoed access seems really better
than author charged open access at 500-1500 dollars - how many embargoed
articles can I buy?

Jean-Claude Guedon wrote:

>jcc> In short, the situation where a lonely author is left with no
>jcc> alternative but to shell out several hundred dollars or even 1500
>jcc> dollars in the case of PLoS is not supposed to be the typical or
>jcc> even minority case. Most people I talk to envision this case as a
>jcc> rare one that ultimtely ought to disappear. And, indeed, a variety
>jcc> of mechanisms and institutions are moving to provide funds for the
>jcc> support of these new publishing models. One can expect to see this
>jcc> movement accelerate everywhere in the next couple of years

I think this situation is very much the rule in the majority of countries
worldwide, even affluent countries like Kuwait. We cannot undermine
research work by waiting until new publishing models appear. Unless open
access works out a new model to bear operating costs, we should be heavily
on the side of embargoed access. True, it has its problems, but at least
potential authors are not refused publication because they don't have money.
That's a more serious problem than having to pay for access to the literature
and the costs are worlds apart.

Received on Sat Feb 07 2004 - 03:02:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:20 GMT