[visionlist] [cvnet] Re: Open Access responses

Lester Loschky loschky at ksu.edu
Sun Jul 2 03:44:19 -04 2017


Thanks for sharing that, PremNandhini!  It is a great history of how we got
to the troubled present in academic publishing.  It's extremely informative.

I think the author of the article, Stephen Buranyi, needs to write
a follow-up article, though, that goes into all the various types of open
access publishing, which he only minimally alludes to at the end.

Best,

Les

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Premnandhini Satgunam <
premnandhini at gmail.com> wrote:

> Long read, but almost like watching "The GodFather"!!!
>
> The legacy of scientific publishing!
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-
> scientific-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
>
> -PremNandhini
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Tom Wallis <tsawallis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 <(785)%20532-6882>
>>>>>> E-mail: 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> visionlist mailing list
>> visionlist at visionscience.com
>> http://visionscience.com/mailman/listinfo/visionlist_visionscience.com
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cvnet mailing list
> cvnet at lawton.ewind.com
> http://lawton.ewind.com/mailman/listinfo/cvnet
>
>


-- 
Lester Loschky
Associate Professor
Department of Psychological Sciences
471 Bluemont Hall
1114 Mid-Campus Dr North
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/
<http://www.k-state.edu/psych/vcl/index.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://visionscience.com/pipermail/visionlist_visionscience.com/attachments/20170702/37ae5a66/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the visionlist mailing list