[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

# [drf:3826] Fwd: [sparc-oaforum] Cameron Neylon on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?

- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 10:04:52 +0900

皆様

内島です。Richard PoynderのブログのOAシリーズに、PLoSのDirectorのナイロン・キャメロン

（イギリスの人）のインタビューが載りました。

今後、下記に仮訳した点は、図書館にとっても大きな論点になるような気がします。図書館

がAPCに介入した方がいいのか、研究者に任せた方がいいのか。まあ、少なくとも、各雑誌

（各出版社）のAPC価格の比較表みたいなものは誰か（図書館？）が提供しないといけない

ような気はしますし、イギリスのようにAPC予算をブロックで各大学に配ると、今と同じように

研究者の雑誌予算に対する無感覚（モラルハザード）を呼びこむように感じます。

キャメロン・ナイロンの発言の一部（仮訳）

But more importantly from my perspective it also creates an explicit market in substitutable goods, and this ultimately will bring the price of those services down — assuming that we can create an effective market.

（研究者が価格を比較して投稿先を決めた場合）

しかし、私の観点からより重要なことは、ー私たちが有効な市場を創出することができると仮

定してのことだがー、GOLD OAが代替可能な製品による明確な市場を作り出し、究極的には

価格の低下をもたらすだろうことだ。

“The scary thing is that libraries seem to be jumping to create big APC deals, which will have exactly the same problems as the big subscription deals.

（図書館が価格を決定するモデルに介入した場合）

怖いのは、図書館がビッグディールと同等の問題を惹起するだろう包括APC契約（モデル

）を生み出すことに突進することだ。

ここからPoynderのメール本文。

A new Q&A in a series exploring the current state of Open Access has been published. This one is with Cameron Neylon, Advocacy Director for the non-profit OA publisher Public Library of Science (PLOS).

*Some excerpts from Cameron Neylon’s answers*:

“I think the biggest achievement [of the OA movement since 2001] is actual

adoption: the scale and growth of accessible research content today is both large and growing far faster than any other segment of research publishing.

“By some estimates we already have public access to half of new literature in the biomedical sciences. This is a huge achievement, even though everyone at PLOS and in the wider OA movement would wish it to move faster.

“Successful repositories are burgeoning, pure Open Access publishers are growing at an unbelievable pace, and driven by an increasing pace of policy change from funders and governments our more traditional competitors in the legacy publishing industry are scrambling to catch up.”

~~

“From my perspective there are strong advantages to journal-mediated Open Access supported by direct author side charges. When we buy a publication service we can and should set the requirements on immediate access and enabling re-use. But more importantly from my perspective it also creates an explicit market in substitutable goods, and this ultimately will bring the price of those services down — assuming that we can create an effective market.

“Alongside this, repositories are a critical means of increasing access at relatively low costs where journal-mediated access is not available or appropriate. There are transitional paths for different communities that rely to different extents on repositories and journals but neither in their current form offers a long-term solution.

“In the longer term we will need publication infrastructures that are efficient, enable ongoing review, and support wide-ranging re-use. These could be run by institutions, by communities, or by third party providers. They will have some characteristics of repositories and some of journals and some of publishers but will also be quite different.”

~~

“Hybrid OA might be, or perhaps might have been, a viable transitional strategy to support a fully engaged effort of legacy publishers to move towards an Open Access footing. What we’re getting though is the use of hybrid approaches to lock in the existing inefficiencies of big deals.

“The scary thing is that libraries seem to be jumping to create big APC deals, which will have exactly the same problems as the big subscription deals.

Alongside the problems of double-dipping by receiving both subscription and APC revenue for the same journal, and perhaps worse some publishers charging colour and page charges *on top* of APCs this isn’t an effective way to deliver a properly functioning market that brings prices down.”

~~

“The single most important task today is putting in place robust and transparent mechanisms to report on policy compliance, pricing, and monitor the growth of access.

“This may seem rather prosaic but we have wildly different estimates of the proportion and quantity of OA. Much of the fragmentation in today’s debate is caused by people building arguments on contradictory data. And it has been too easy for institutions and funders to announce mandates without systems to monitor their success, let alone enforce them.”

The Q&A can be read here:

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/public-library-of-sciences-cameron.html

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to sparc-oaforum ＠ xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe ＠ xxxxxxx
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe ＠ xxxxxxx.

    ──────────────────☆────────
    月刊DRF http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/gekkandrf/
    　2013年9月号(44号)を発行しました！

    DRF（Digital Repository Federation）
    http://drf.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/drf/
    ─────★─────────────────────

- Follow-Ups:
  - [drf:3827] Re: Fwd: [sparc-oaforum] Cameron Neylon on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?
    - From: Syun Tutiya

- Prev by Date: [drf:3825] 月刊DRF9月号（第44号）を公開しました
- Next by Date: [drf:3827] Re: Fwd: [sparc-oaforum] Cameron Neylon on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?
- Previous by thread: [drf:3825] 月刊DRF9月号（第44号）を公開しました
- Next by thread: [drf:3827] Re: Fwd: [sparc-oaforum] Cameron Neylon on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?
- Index(es):
  - Date
  - Thread