I'm on it !!
Graham
H: +44 (0)141 422 1483 (after 18.00 GMT)
C: +44 (0)7900441046
E: steelgrah...@gmail.com
Fav: http://www.plos.org - research made public
Fb: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=709026752
Blog: http://mcblawg.blogspot.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/McDawg
FriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/mcdawg
From: rick.ander...@utah.edu
To: f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk; goal@eprints.org; liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu;
sparc-oafo...@arl.org
Subject: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:31:08 +
Is there an easy way (easier than searching title-by-title through
SHERPA/RoMEO) to get a complete list of journals offering Green access with no
embargo? I can't speak for the marketplace as a whole, but my library will
cancel most if not all of our subscriptions
to any such journals — my institution is not giving us money so that we can
spend it on content that's available for free.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.ander...@utah.edu
From: Friend, Fred f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:06 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.org,
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu,
SPARC Open Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.org
Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
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):
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.Earlier this year (21
March) SAGE changed their policy to
