Dear Peter,
When I give a donation to a medical charity I am very happy for the charity to
spend my money as it best thinks fit, even including payments to publishers.
What I do not expect is that the charity would influence Government policy on
what happens to the taxes I pay in an area of public policy that is broader
than medical research. Also many donations to medical charities come through
bequests or from people who are not UK taxpayers, and the taxpayer base is very
different in composition to the charitable donors base. In my view the Wellcome
went a step too far in encouraging the application to public policy of its own
policy of making additional payments to publishers for open access. It is not
surprising that the publishing interests dominating the Finch Group seized upon
this support from the Wellcome.
With best wishes,
Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
________________________________
From: Peter Morgan <p...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: 11 September 2013 09:54
To: Friend, Fred; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: RE: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Some Reflection from Wellcome Would Be
Welcome
Fred,
"the mistake came when they supported the application of their own policies to
taxpayer-funded research."
To the extent that Wellcome and other charities enjoy tax-breaks, it can be
argued that theirs is also "taxpayer-funded research". See, for example…
Lisbet Rausing ("Toward a New Alexandria: Imagining the Future of Libraries",
The New Republic, 2010)
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/toward-new-alexandria
"Few academic databases and research tools are in the public domain, even though
the public has paid for them—through research grants, tax breaks, and
donations."
and Peter Suber ("Open Access", MIT Press, 2012, ch.1)
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf
"Public and private funding agencies are essentially
public and private charities, funding research they regard
as useful or beneficial. Universities have a public purpose
as well, even when they are private institutions. We sup-
port the public institutions with public funds, and we
support the private ones with tax exemptions for their
property and tax deductions for their donors."
Regards,
Peter
--
Peter Morgan
Head of Medical and Science Libraries
Medical Library
Cambridge University Library
Addenbrooke's Hospital
Hills Road
Cambridge
CB2 0SP
UK
email: p...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:p...@cam.ac.uk>
tel: +44 (0)1223 336757
fax: +44 (0)1223 331918
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of
Friend, Fred
Sent: 10 September 2013 17:16
To: Stevan Harnad; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Some Reflection from Wellcome Would Be
Welcome
Stevan explains the influence of the Wellcome upon OA policy very well. The
Wellcome did an excellent job in making publications from its own researchers
OA, but the mistake came when they supported the application of their own
policies to taxpayer-funded research. They were over-influenced by publishers,
who of course stood to benefit considerably from the extension of Wellcome's
largesse by the taxpayer.
Fred Friend
________________________________
From: Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com<mailto:amscifo...@gmail.com>>
Sent: 10 September 2013 16:29:35
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Some Reflection from Wellcome Would Be Welcome
It's time for the Wellcome Trust to think more deeply about its endlessly
repeated mantra that the "cost of publication is part of the cost of funding
research."
The statement is true enough, but profoundly incomplete: As a private
foundation, Wellcome only funds researchers' research. It does not have to fund
their institutional journal subscriptions, which are currently paying the costs
of publication for all non-OA research. And without access to those
subscription journals, researchers would lose access to everything that is not
yet Open Access (OA) -- which means access to most of currently published
research. Moreover, if those subscriptions stopped being paid, no one would be
paying the costs of publication.
In the UK, it is the tax-payer who pays the costs of publication (which is
"part of the cost of funding research"), by paying the cost of journal access
via institutional subscriptions. It is fine to wish that to be otherwise, but
it cannot just be wished away, and Wellcome has never had to worry about paying
for it.
The Wellcome slogan and solution -- the "cost of publication is part of the
cost of funding research," so pay pre-emptively for Gold OA -- works for
Wellcome, and as a wish list. But it is not a formula for getting us all from
here (c. 30% OA, mostly Green) to there (100% OA). It does not scale up from
Wellcome to the UK, let alone to the rest of the world. What scales up is
mandating Green OA. Once Green OA reaches 100%, journals can be cancelled,
forcing them to downsize and convert to Fair Gold, single-paid at an
affordable, sustianable price, instead of double-paid pre-emptively at today's
arbitrarily inflated Fools-Gold price.
Hence it is exceedingly bad advice on Wellcome's part, to urge the UK, that
because the "cost of publication is part of the cost of funding research," the
UK should double-pay (subscriptions + Gold OA) for what Wellcome itself only
needs to single-pay. (And this is without even getting into the sticky question
of overpricing and double-dipping.)
Wellcome took a bold and pioneering step in
2004<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4115.html> in
mandating OA.
But in since cleaving unreflectively to pre-emptive payment for Gold OA as the
preferred means of providing OA -- because Wellcome does not have to pay for
subscriptions -- the net effect of the Wellcome pioneering intiative is now
beginning to turn negative rather than positive.
I hope the BIS
Report<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html>
will encourage Wellcome to re-think the rigid route that it has been promoting
for a decade, culminating in the Finch Fiasco.
Stevan Harnad
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to
sparc-oafo...@arl.org<mailto:sparc-oafo...@arl.org>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org<mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org>
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org<mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org>.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
