Re: [tlug] Open Access Journals

[Raymond Wan <rwan.kyoto@example.com>]

Sorry for missing this, Darren...


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Darren Cook <darren@example.com> wrote:
>> I'm more worried that the "open" in open access journals is not quite
>> the same as open source software.  Open access journals have simply
>> shifted the cost from the readers to the authors.
>
> Actually, this *is* the open source business model: the producer pays,
> the consumer gets it for free.
>
> The "pay me $2500 to publish it" model is (loosely) equivalent to the
> Kickstarter-financed model where development cost is explicit and up-front.


Perhaps, but I think that there is a small difference.

With open source software, the producers pay with their own time.
With open access publishing, they still pay with time (usually funded
through government funds), but they also have to pay with money.
Money that publishers could say, "Ah-ha!  So, if I accept more papers,
I get more money!"

The only thing that prevents good journals from going overboard with
paper acceptance is their desire to keep their reputation good...both
the journal and the publisher behind the journal.  This means
maintaining a "high" impact factor (number of citations per paper).

If it weren't for that, then quality of work could keep going down...


> Some journals are being produced as labours of love, in spare time, just
> as some open source code is.
>
> But most (*) open journals seem to be produced by groups of academics,
> spread across universities, using university facilities and their
> research time; just like most of the development on the well known open
> source projects is done inside companies.


Yes, not all open access journals are evil.  Some are very good.  But
the model, as it currently stands, is open for abuse and all the new
journals cropping up asking for "Submissions to their NEW open access
journal" is an example of that.

Ray