[visionlist] [cvnet] Re: Open Access responses

Tom Wallis tsawallis at gmail.com
Mon May 15 16:12:27 -04 2017


Thanks for pointing that out Andrew. I obviously missed it. I have also
updated my website to reflect this response (
https://tomwallis.info/2016/11/08/vision-journal-community-responses/).

Best

Tom

--
Thomas Wallis, PhD
Project Leader, SFB 1233 Robust Vision
AG Bethge
Center for Integrative Neuroscience
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
Otfried-Müller-Str 25
72076 Tübingen
Germany
www.tomwallis.info


On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Andrew Parker <andrew.parker at dpag.ox.ac.uk>
wrote:

> Dear Tom
>
> It is my understanding that the following was sent to cvnet in February
> this year. I am recirculating this.
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Vision - MDPI APC policy
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:36:52 +0100
> From: Dr. Franck Vazquez | CEO | MDPI <vazquez at mdpi.com>
> <vazquez at mdpi.com>
> Organization: MDPI
> To: cvnet at mail.ewind.com
> CC: Andrew Parker <andrew.parker at dpag.ox.ac.uk>
> <andrew.parker at dpag.ox.ac.uk>, Dr. Franck Vazquez | CEO | MDPI
> <vazquez at mdpi.com> <vazquez at mdpi.com>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have been invited by Prof. Dr. Andrew Parker, the Editor-in-Chief of our
> journal "Vision",
> to highlight MDPI’s APC policy in this discussion group.
>
> MDPI seeks to maintain a fair and sustainable APC policy that allows its
> staff to run journals
> to expected industry standards, to launch and develop new titles, and to
> subsidize articles in
> many various cases. Articles may be discounted or waived for fields where
> little or no funding is
> available for open access publication (such as humanities and social
> sciences), for authors from
> low-income countries, or for few invited articles. Our new journals, in
> the process of establishing their
> reputation and gaining visibility, do not charge an APC for at least the
> first three to four years
> of operation.
>
> As indicated in our annual report 2015 (http://www.mdpi.com/about), the
> average APC for articles
> published in 2015 across all MDPI journals (including those with no APC)
> is around 830CHF
> (770EUR/800USD). This is sufficient to cover our costs while maintaining a
> rigorous editorial process.
> The OpenAPC project page currently reports €1,163 per article. This
> discrepancy arises from the
> fact that the Open APC project list only 45 of our 160 journals. This
> average APC per paper is
> clearly among the lowest APC in the field:
> https://treemaps.intact-project.org/apcdata/openapc/#publisher/
> The full list of APC across our journals is available here:
> http://www.mdpi.com/about/apc#amount-apc
>
> MDPI works closely with editorial boards consisting of scholars with an
> international reputation.
> They work on a voluntary basis or receive a small honorarium, and are
> responsible for the
> editorial decisions about which papers to publish. MDPI supports them with
> all time-consuming
> administrative tasks.
> MDPI is also involved in a number of not-for-profit project to help
> scholarly communities to interact
> and communicate, like the multidisciplinary preprint project developed at
> "Preprints.org", the "sciforum.net"
> platform where scholars can create, organize and run their conference
> entirely for free, or "SciLit.net",
> our database of scholarly literature (currently 88.8 millions articles)
> that allows scholar to stay up-to-date
> every day with the most recent articles published by any publisher.
>
> Best wishes,
> Franck
>
> --
> Franck Vazquez, Ph.D
> Chief Executive Officer, MDPI AG
> St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
> Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 <+41%2061%20683%2077%2034>http://www.mdpi.com
> --http://www.researcherid.com/rid/B-9849-2013https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Franck_Vazquez
>
>
> Professor AJ Parker, MA, PhD, ScD, FRSB
> Dept Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics,
> University of Oxford
> Sherrington Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PT
> Phone +44 1865 272504 <+44%201865%20272504>
>
> On 15/05/2017 16:05, Tom Wallis wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> The VSS meeting (and the corresponding meeting of the Vision Research
> board) is nearly upon us. I thought I'd send a friendly reminder of the
> issue below: namely that to my knowledge, Vision Research (Elsevier), the
> APA (JEP:HPP), Multisensory Research and MDPI's Vision have still not
> formally responded to our community's questions about open access costs.
>
> Of course, if I've missed a response please let me know.
>
> If you run into any board members of the journals listed above at VSS next
> week, perhaps you can ask them about it?
>
> Best regards and see you in Florida,
>
> Tom
>
> --
> Thomas Wallis, PhD
> Project Leader, SFB 1233 Robust Vision
> AG Bethge
> Center for Integrative Neuroscience
> Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
> Otfried-Müller-Str 25
> 72076 Tübingen
> Germany
> www.tomwallis.info
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Tom Wallis <tsawallis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Over nine months ago, our journals were asked to "...respond to the
>> survey, particularly addressing exactly why each journal is as expensive /
>> cheap as it is, particularly its open access option, and whether each
>> journal will provide transparent accounting of costs."
>>
>> To my knowledge, four publishers (ARVO, Perception / SAGE, Frontiers and
>> Psychonomics) have provided at least a cursory response, whereas Vision
>> Research (Elsevier), the APA (JEP:HPP), Multisensory Research and MDPI's
>> Vision journal have provided no response.
>>
>> I recently decided to refuse a review request for Vision Research,
>> providing the editor with the following letter:
>>
>> Dear Editor,
>>
>> As you’re aware, in January 2016 CVNet hosted a long discussion about
>> open-access charges and journal costings more generally. This discussion
>> resulted in a survey of the community (results here:
>> https://docs.google.com/…/1tfpSVeLflOG4moGvhHlT2SivnW…/edit…
>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tfpSVeLflOG4moGvhHlT2SivnW5Rqw-upGrwLZkqEcA/edit#gid=1335831285>).
>> All journals publishing vision-related content were invited to respond to
>> the survey, particularly addressing “exactly why each journal is as
>> expensive/cheap as it is, particularly its open access option, and whether
>> each journal will provide transparent accounting of costs. Given that the
>> data indicate that “Full academic or professional society control” is a
>> high priority, editors should also comment on the ability of themselves and
>> the rest of us to affect their journal’s policies, features and cost.”.
>>
>> To my knowledge, Vision Research has as yet failed to respond to this
>> survey, despite having agreed to such a response at its editorial board
>> meeting at VSS in May. This is in contrast to some other journals and
>> publishers, such as Perception / iPerception and ARVO. If this
>> understanding is mistaken, please let me know and I will correct my stance.
>>
>> Failing that, I therefore choose to withhold my services as a reviewer
>> until such time as Vision Research / Elsevier engage with the community
>> they supposedly serve.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Tom Wallis
>>
>> Should you feel similarly to me, perhaps you will also consider refusing
>> review requests until those journals engage with our community. I provide
>> more details, and will try to update a list of journals who have / have not
>> replied, at my blog here:
>>
>> https://tomwallis.info/2016/11/08/vision-journal-community-responses/
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Tom Wallis
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Lester Loschky <loschky at ksu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks so much, Hans!  That is a very enlightening blog recapping the
>>> 2015 political action taken by the Dutch, English, Germans, and other
>>> countries to end the "serials crisis" caused by publishers over-charging
>>> for open access publication.  Interestingly, it sounds like Elsevier really
>>> IS the biggest obstacle among the major publishers. It also sounds like
>>> actions by libraries (e.g., the Library Partnership Subsidies
>>> <https://about.openlibhums.org/2014/04/07/library-partnership-subsidies-lps/>)
>>> to get involved in open access publishing is a fantastic way to get prices
>>> down to the real costs.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Les
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 4:52 AM, Hans Strasburger <
>>> strasburger at uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> while we are all brooding over what to do next, you might enjoy this
>>>> blog on PLOS on open access developments:
>>>>
>>>> http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2016/02/01/open-acces
>>>> s-2015-a-year-access-negotiators-edged-closer-to-the-brink/
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Hans
>>>>
>>>> Hans Strasburger, apl. Prof.
>>>> Ludwig Maximilian University München
>>>> Inst. f. Med. Psychologie
>>>> Georg August University Göttingen
>>>> strasburger at uni-muenchen.de
>>>> www.hans.strasburger.de
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 27.02.2016 um 21:22 schrieb Lester Loschky:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>> I fully share your reaction and your interpretation of the responses
>>>>> from our Vision Science journals to the results of Alex Holcombe's survey.
>>>>> Clearly, there is a mismatch between what folks in the Vision Science
>>>>> community are wanting, and what we are getting, and it seems that the folks
>>>>> in charge of our journals are, by and large, not sure what to say about it
>>>>> at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will say, however, that the "holding" statements from JOV and
>>>>> Psychonomics are entirely reasonable.  Any official changes are going to
>>>>> have be the product of discussion among the appropriate governing bodies.
>>>>> We cannot expect any official changes to happen over night in response to
>>>>> the Vision Science community's stated wishes for change.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, one might also ask whether there is a valid
>>>>> distinction between "them" and "us" in this case, since the people doing
>>>>> the reviewing and editing are us (the Vision Science community).  So, any
>>>>> changes that start at a "grass roots" level will be by us.  That is,
>>>>> reviewers and editors of our various Vision Science journals who feel
>>>>> strongly about these issues may want to discuss among ourselves what we
>>>>> want, whether that would involve changes of the sort highlighted by Alex
>>>>> Holcombe's questionnaire, and, if so, what those changes would concretely
>>>>> involve.  Such discussions are surely the most direct way to start moving
>>>>> towards the changes that the questionnaire shows are desired by us in the
>>>>> Vision Science community.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Simon Rushton <
>>>>> RushtonSK at cardiff.ac.uk <mailto:RushtonSK at cardiff.ac.uk>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     I've been looking forward to reading the responses from journals.
>>>>>    Now Hoover has posted them (thank you Hoover) I'm not sure how to
>>>>>     interpret them.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Just to recap, Alex Holcombe's survey prompted almost 400
>>>>>     responses.  93% of people indicated that they "want change NOW"
>>>>>     and he invited responses from the journals that serve the vision
>>>>>     community.
>>>>>
>>>>>     iPerception/Perception have provided a comprehensive response.
>>>>>
>>>>>     JoV and Psychonomics have issued what I guess we'd call "holding"
>>>>>     statements.
>>>>>
>>>>>     JEP:HPP; Vision; Multisensory Research; Vision Research and
>>>>>     Frontiers: Perception have not responded.  They must be aware of
>>>>>     the discussion and survey responses.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I can't be the only person that is disappointed by such a poor
>>>>>     response from our journals (except Perception/iPerception) to an
>>>>>     issue on which the community has expressed such a strong view.
>>>>>
>>>>>     simon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     cvnet mailing list
>>>>>     cvnet at mail.ewind.com <mailto:cvnet at mail.ewind.com>
>>>>>     http://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Lester Loschky
>>>>> Associate Professor
>>>>> Department of Psychological Sciences
>>>>> 471 Bluemont Hall
>>>>> Kansas State University
>>>>> Manhattan, KS 66056-5302
>>>>> Phone: 785-532-6882
>>>>> E-mail: loschky at ksu.edu <mailto:loschky at ksu.edu>
>>>>> research page: http://www.k-state.edu/psych/r
>>>>> esearch/loschkylester.html
>>>>> Lab page: www.k-state.edu/psych/vcl/index.html <
>>>>> http://www.k-state.edu/psych/vcl/index.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cvnet mailing list
>>>>> cvnet at mail.ewind.com
>>>>> http://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> cvnet mailing list
>>>> cvnet at mail.ewind.com
>>>> http://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lester Loschky
>>> Associate Professor
>>> Department of Psychological Sciences
>>> 471 Bluemont Hall
>>> Kansas State University
>>> Manhattan, KS 66056-5302
>>> Phone: 785-532-6882
>>> E-mail: loschky at ksu.edu
>>> research page: http://www.k-state.edu/psych/research/loschkylester.html
>>> Lab page: www.k-state.edu/psych/vcl/index.html
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cvnet mailing list
>>> cvnet at mail.ewind.com
>>> http://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cvnet mailing listcvnet at lawton.ewind.comhttp://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cvnet mailing list
> cvnet at lawton.ewind.com
> http://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://visionscience.com/pipermail/visionlist_visionscience.com/attachments/20170515/b85bcd52/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the visionlist mailing list