[visionlist] [cvnet] Re: Open Access responses

Tue May 16 04:44:13 -05 2017

Thanks for your response Marc. I've added Multisensory Research to the list
of journals that have provided a response to the community here
<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 11:14 PM, Marc Ernst <
marc.oliver.ernst at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> we have discussed this issue several times with Brill, the publisher of
> Multisensory Research. In response to our permanent queries they have
> updated their web-pages beginning of the year such that they now include
> more detailed descriptions on their open access policy. See e.g.
>
> http://www.brill.com/publications/journals/multisensory-research
>
> As editors we constantly try to push the publisher to better justify their
> cost models and to make their policy transparent as we know this is
> important for the community.
>
> Unfortunately, I will not be at VSS this year to discuss this further.
> However, I hope to see you next year.
>
> Enjoy & best,
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 15.05.2017 um 22:12 schrieb Tom Wallis <tsawallis at gmail.com>:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> cvnet mailing list
> cvnet at lawton.ewind.com
> http://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Dr. Marc O. Ernst
> Rosengartenstr. 52
> 70184 Stuttgart
>
> fon: +49-711-620 2856 <0711%206202856>
> fax: +49-711-380 3840 <0711%203803840>
> cell: +49-152-22 543 156
> mail at marcernst.de
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170516/2ed7bc58/attachment-0001.html>