There seem to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA: 1. That Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing - see this thread and frequent other posts.(DK: "It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not exist". )
2. Stevan Harnad's goal that Green OA will destroy the subscription market ( http://poynder.blogspot.ch/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html) >> SH >>Universal Green makes all articles OA, thereby making subscriptions unsustainable, forcing publishers to cut needless costs and downsize to managing peer review alone. No more demand for a print edition. No more demand for an online edition. All access-provision and archiving offloaded onto the global network of institutional OA repositories. and above: >>SH>>"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." I cannot reconcile these. One the one hand the advocates of Green OA seem to be telling the publishers "please give us Green OA mandates[1] - they won't hurt you" and on the other "Green OA is going to disrupt your business". Why should any publisher provide for deposition of something that is designed to disrupt their business? (If they were smart they would design a different business that cuts out libraries altogether and I suspect that is what some will do). [1] Note that we require publisher consent to have Green OA deposition (having failed to convince universities and authors to withhold copyright transfer - which would solve the problem). On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Friend, Fred <f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: > 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 > > p: +612 6125 6839 > > w: wwww.aoasg.org.au > > t: @openaccess_oz > > > > > From: Dana Roth <dzr...@library.caltech.edu> > Reply-To: "goal@eprints.org" <goal@eprints.org> > Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM > To: "goal@eprints.org" <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 > http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<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 > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
