I find myself fully in full agreement with both Danny Kingsley and Fred
Friend.

In a previous message, I mentioned the PEER project  funded by the
European Commission. The final report is available at
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_PEER_Final_public_report_D9-13.pdf
 .

One interesting report coming from this project to read is
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/PEER_Economics_Report.pdf. A 
bit strangely, it reintroduces the issue of Gold "author-pay" journals within a 
project that ostensibly aimed at judging the possible impact of repositories on 
the business models of publishers. That detail alone is symptomatic of the fact 
that publishers were intent on foregrounding author-pay, Gold, publishing at 
the expense of depositories, even though the real objective of the project was 
the study of repositories.

Interestingly, the commercial publishers that were involved in PEER had
apparently hoped to demonstrate what Dana Roth reflects in her message -
namely a negative impact of repositories on their business models - but
the outcome did not work out that way, and they proceeded to move away
from the objective of the project and immediately revert to the
author-pay gold model as the only viable road to Open Access. Since
then, commercial publishers have strenuously tried to promote this
flavour of OA publishing and have even tried to make it pass for the
whole of Gold (thus excluding entities such as Scielo and Redalyc in
latin America that are Gold, "libre" for readers and "libre" for
readers)..

And the conclusion remains: despite long and sometimes costly efforts,
studies of repositories that involve all parties (librarians,
publishers, etc.) strengthen the point that the feared consequences
really belong to the realm of fantasies, not facts. The "fears" are
psychological states among some players. They reflect the risk
evaluation mentality of entrepreneurs, and not the realities of the
world. Furthermore, while speaking of realities, one may wonder whether
these fears are real, or whether they are rhetorical... 

Jean-Claude Guédon





Le samedi 14 septembre 2013 à 11:06 +0000, Friend, Fred a écrit :
> 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] 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): "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 and FRSN Belgium have adopted --
> and HEFCE and BIS 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


-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal

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

Reply via email to