In Praise of “Double-Dipping” — Fairness, Affordability, Vitality, and Sustainability « The Scholarly Kitchen 2013-01-30


One of the ideas that has been relatively unexamined pertaining to the purchasing and pricing of scholarly content is the notion that publishers should no longer engage in 'double-dipping' — that is, charge once for something, not twice, and never again. This is stated especially as regards open access (OA) articles in hybrid journals, but also is reflected in the preference some have for the CC-BY license. SPARC Europe defines double-dipping thusly: The term 'Double Dipping' is used because publishers receive money twice: the subs[c]riptions are still paid by the universities and authors pay for Open Access Peter Suber has complained that double-dipping isn’t prohibited by RCUK policies regarding Gold OA, and the fact that the policy allows it: . . . is a waste of taxpayer money and a giveaway to bad actors. But does double-dipping really make you a 'bad actor'? Is it really a waste of money? Or is double-dipping merely what content businesses do? Does it make things affordable? Could it be that OA publishers themselves double-dip?


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.business_models oa.publishers oa.licensing oa.comment oa.mandates oa.copyright oa.plos oa.costs oa.sparc oa.prices oa.hybrid oa.funders oa.fees oa.memberships oa.bmc oa.rcuk oa.economics_of oa.libre oa.policies oa.journals oa.double_dipping

Date tagged:

01/30/2013, 15:16

Date published:

01/30/2013, 10:16