[Taxacom] UNESCO Open Science Recommendation

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Sat Mar 7 16:08:58 CST 2020


Stephen, could you be more specific about what institutions would be able
"to strategically ditch some of the remaining funding, after the
"overheads" have been claimed, such that their employee scientists have to
do less work per dollar of "overheads" claimed by the institution". I guess
I am a bit puzzled about this, but then I really only have experience of a
couple of US university system. In grant funding where overhead was
allowed, it was a set percentage regardless of the research and the
research budget. The amount of work done was set by the research budget,
not the overhead (which was used toward general university facilities
costs). So I am not sure how the university would "ditch" any of the
research funding or that the research time/effort would be reduced by any
of the overheads going towards open access (if I understand correctly that
is what you suggest). Perhaps its different in NZ or elsewhere (any other
clarification of that would be interesting).

John Grehan

On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 5:01 PM Stephen Thorpe via Taxacom <
taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:

>  Wouter said: "I agree, paying over $500 per OA page of a paper benefits
> nobody except the publisher". Actually, that may be importantly incorrect.
> It may also, as I have already tried to explain, benefit the research
> institution if they claim overheads from external funding. It allows them
> to strategically ditch some of the remaining funding, after the "overheads"
> have been claimed, such that their employee scientists have to do less work
> per dollar of "overheads" claimed by the institution. This clearly results
> in a more efficient funding stream for the institution. So, research
> institutions AND commercial publishers may both benefit from high APCs for
> OA. That is going to be a powerful force determining how things pan out in
> relation to OA, don't you think? Scientists objecting to it are effectively
> threatening their employing institution's ability to profit from external
> funding. It wouldn't surprise me if any such scientists found themselves
> somewhat overlooked for promotion, etc.!
> Stephen
>     On Saturday, 7 March 2020, 09:44:02 pm UTC, Wouter Addink via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>
>  Interesting comments. I agree, paying over $500 per OA page of a paper
> benefits nobody except the publisher. That is not a problem with OA, it is
> a problem with the publishers monopoly. I see too logical options,
> Either institutes/universities (or funders) unite and bargain reasonable
> prices (the journals provide a service, it does not have to be totally
> free) or we publish entirely without journals but with some measurements to
> sustain societies.
>
>
> Op za 7 mrt. 2020 20:31 schreef Nick Grishin via Taxacom <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>:
>
> > > OA will prevail.
> >
> > Yes it will. Indeed, science benefits best from open and free
> > communication.
> >
> > But the way OA is implemented today is unreasonable. Paying over $500 per
> > OA page of a paper benefits nobody except the publisher.
> >
> > The amount a journal charges depends on how the journal feels about its
> > standing in the field. Starting OA journals charge less. More prestigious
> > journals charge more. I love Pensoft, they do great job on electronic
> > publishing. But when Zookeys was launched, the charge was about $20 per
> > page, which was somewhat reasonable. And now, it is about $800 per paper.
> > Which for an 8-page paper (usually enough to make your point) translates
> > to $100 per page: a 5-fold increase from the past.
> >
> > Why do most taxonomists publish in Zootaxa these days? Because it is a
> > decent journal that is free to publish in. And more, optional OA is $20
> > per page.
> >
> >
> > One solution is to eliminate journals, because publishing today does not
> > need printing, and each paper can and should stand on its own, not as a
> > segment of a journal. On-line platform that publishes papers, not
> journals
> > (similar to bioRvix, or like Zookeys for everyone, so many people publish
> > in Zookeys these days) seems to be best for science and open
> > communication, and it will be the most economical solution to OA (it
> > cannot cost more than $20 per archived page, probably less). Yes, as
> > someone pointed out, this no-journal system hurts societies. But I think
> > it benefits science overall by providing enormous savings, part of which
> > can be directed towards societies.
> >
> > The agencies that require OA should provide support for such publishing
> on
> > top of research funding they assign to a researcher, not from it, and do
> > it in a way that decreases the total effective funds spent on publishing
> > today, not increases it further. n
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> >
> > Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > You can reach the person managing the list at:
> > taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years,
> 1987-2020.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 33 years, 1987-2020.
>


More information about the Taxacom mailing list