This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be 
interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from 
publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very 
occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication, but 
the number appears very low by comparison with the total number of research 
journals published, and the causal link with repository deposit is obscure. A 
reduction in the quality of a journal (and I do not mean impact factor) or a 
reduction in library funding could be more influential factors than green open 
access. Presumably for commercial reasons publishers have not been willing to 
release information about subscription levels, but if they are to continue to 
use green open access as a threat they have to provide more evidence.

Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide more 
information about sustainability. They speak about repositories not being a 
sustainable model for research dissemination, by which they appear to mean that 
their journals will not be sustainable in a large-scale repository environment. 
Most institutional repositories are fully-sustainable, their sustainability 
derived from the sustainability of the university in which they are based. If 
any research journals are not sustainable, the reasons may have nothing to do 
with repositories. Those reasons are currently hidden within the "big deal" 
model, the weak journals surviving through the strength of other journals. 
Rather than blame any lack of sustainability upon green open access, perhaps 
publishers should take a harder look at the sustainability of some of their 
weaker journals. Repositories are sustainable; some journals may not be.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL

________________________________
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Danny 
Kingsley <danny.kings...@anu.edu.au>
Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not 
exist.

The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access 
threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes in 
the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey sent out early last 
year to librarians 
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf
 . Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that survey 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html

And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is what 
Springer referred to as their 'evidence' 
http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html
 .

There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the industry to 
collect some actual evidence either way (as opposed to opinions on a badly 
expressed hypothetical):


  1.  Taylor & Francis have decided to indefinitely expand their trial of 
immediate green permissions to articles in their Library & Information Science 
journals. If they were to run a comparison of those titles against the titles 
in, say , three other disciplinary areas over two to three years they would be 
able to ascertain if this decision has made any difference to their 
subscription patterns.
  2.  Earlier this year (21 March) SAGE changed their policy to immediate green 
open access – again this offers a clean comparison between their subscription 
levels prior to and after the implementation of this policy.

If it is the case that immediate green open access disrupts subscriptions (and 
I strongly suspect that it does not) then we can have that conversation when 
the evidence presents itself. Until then we are boxing at shadows.

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Executive Officer
Australian Open Access Support Group
e: e...@aoasg.org.au<mailto:e...@aoasg.org.au>
p: +612 6125 6839
w: wwww.aoasg.org.au
t: @openaccess_oz



From: Dana Roth <dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>>
Reply-To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM
To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Isn’t the fact that “The BIS report finds no evidence to support this 
distinction,” due to the fact that there isn’t sufficient data?

I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription 
journals for some time … and that it is the subscription model for commercially 
published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the short term.

An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially published 
‘Journal of Comparative Neurology’ … that for 2012 cost its subscribers $30,860 
and published only 234 articles.

Dana L. Roth
Caltech Library  1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection

End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, 
cilip)<http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/end-gold-rush>: "In the interest of 
making research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or no 
embargo periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers… have argued that 
short embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions to their journals… 
The BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction."
________________________________

I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being 
voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and unaffordable; 
publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license) model is 
unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force 
it to evolve toward Gold OA.

II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened by (Green) OA, 
which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the subscription model 
needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA.
Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who 
cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription model.

Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot 
afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model from 
disruption.

Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide immediate 
OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel beholden to promise 
(d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from disruption)?

University of Liège<http://roarmap.eprints.org/56/> and FRSN 
Belgium<http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/> have adopted -- and 
HEFCE<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html>
 and 
BIS<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html>
 have both proposed adopting -- the compromise resolution to this contradiction:

Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft of all 
articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if the author wishes 
to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do not require access to the 
deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the deposit be made Closed Access during 
the allowable embargo period and let the repository's automated eprint-request 
Button tide over the needs of research and researchers by making it easy for 
users to request and authors to provide a copy for research purposes with one 
click each.

This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still disrupts serials 
publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable, chances are that it's time 
for publishers to phase out the products and services for which there is no 
longer a market in the online era and evolve instead toward something more in 
line with the real needs of the PostGutenberg research community.

Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive) pressure of 
necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal publishing industry from 
evolutionary pressure, at the expense of research progress?

Stevan Harnad
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to