On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> *PM-R: *Stevan Harnad's goal [is] that Green OA will destroy the > subscription market ( > http://poynder.blogspot.ch/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html) > My only goal is (and always has been) 100% OA: no more, no less. The means of attaining that goal is Green OA mandates from funders and institutions. The mandates require authors (1) to deposit their final, refereed drafts in their institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance for publication and (2) to set access to the immediate-deposit as OA as soon as possible and (3) to rely on the repository's facilitated copy-request Button to provide Almost-OA during any embargo/ The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. *PM-R: *On the one hand the advocates of Green OA seem to be telling the > publishers "please give us Green OA mandates - they won't hurt you" and on > the other "Green OA is going to disrupt your business". No. Green OA advocates are asking *funders* and *institutions* "please give us Green OA mandates." What is asked from publishers is to endorse setting access to the immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- -- as over 60% of publishers<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple> already do-- rather than after an embargo. The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. *PM-R: *Why should any publisher provide for deposition of something that > is designed to disrupt their business? The immediate-deposit in the repository has nothing to do with the publisher. What is helpful from publishers is to endorse setting access to the immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- as over 60% of publishers<http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple>already do. The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. *Stevan Harnad* > *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
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
