[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.edumailto: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)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 Liègehttp://roarmap.eprints.org/56/ and FRSN Belgiumhttp://roarmap.eprints.org/850/ have adopted -- and HEFCEhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html and BIShttp://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
[GOAL] My potential survey about OA in Turkey
Hello, I have prepared a novice type survey out of 10 questions (surveymonkey's free limit). Please find the questions below and allow me to learn your opinions about them. 1] Have you heard the concept, open access? How can one define the best meaning of this concept? 2] Would you be happy if everybody, including you, are able to retrieve a publication without paying anything? You might have to pay a small fee, sometimes called as “processing fee”, as designated by the Author-pay model. Have you known this before? 3] Which of the following factors play the greatest role for you? a) Having a publication in a journal with high impact factor, b) having a publication in a journal designated as “A” or “B” quality by Turkish Research Council (TUBITAK), c) other. What is the correct processing fee range for a publication? 4] In order to reduce the publication costs, would you opt for an electronic journal rather than a published one? Do you agree with the conclusion, which states that electronic journals are harder to read and process in front of the monitor? 5] Would it be possible to publish an article in an open-access journal without charges? What can be done about this? 6] Which record in the list (accessed at http://web.itu.edu.tr/~akkurtb/open_access/open_access_journals.pdf http://web.itu.edu.tr/%7Eakkurtb/open_access/open_access_journals.pdf) seems familiar to you (The pdf file was generated from the online data in DOAJ's website)? 7] One of the 12 academic journals of TUBITAK is Turkish Journal of Chemistry, like the others, operating on the open-access philosophy. Would you be willing to send your articles to this journal to be published? 8] Shall the Turkish Chemical Society (founded in 1919), being the oldest scientific and chemical society in Turkey,volunteer about launching a series of publications, just like the very famous American example, titled as “Journal of the American Chemical Society”? The possible name, including the category, might be something like “Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society, Section A: Chemistry”? 9] What would be the decision of the jury member, assigned to examine your scientific publications for promotion of your academic title, when he/she finds an open-access article in your briefcase? 10] How would you respond to a suggestion about recruiting everybody with a PhD degree as potential reviewers to open-access Turkish and foreign chemistry and chemical engineering publications? ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] ICAR adopts Open Access policy
*ICAR adopts Open Access policy* Today (13th September 2013) the Indian Council of Agricultural Research ( ICAR http://icar.org.in/en/node/6609) had announced its Open Access policy on its website http://icar.org.in/en/node/6609. The full-text of Open Access policy of the ICAR is follows: ICAR 's Open Access Policy - Each ICAR institute to setup an Open Access Institutional Repository. - ICAR shall setup a central harvester to harvest the metadata and full-text of all the records from all the OA repositories of the ICAR institutes for one stop access to all the agricultural knowledge generated in ICAR. - All the meta-data and other information of the institutional repositories are copyrighted with the ICAR. These are licensed for use, re-use and sharing for academic and research purposes. Commercial and other reuse requires written permission. - All publications viz., research articles, popular articles, monographs, catalogues, conference proceedings, success stories, case studies, annual reports, newsletters, pamphlets, brochures, bulletins, summary of the completed projects, speeches, and other grey literatures available with the institutes to be placed under Open Access. - The institutes are free to place their unpublished reports in their open access repository. They are encouraged to share their works in public repositories like YouTube and social networking sites like Facebook ®, Google+, etc. along with appropriate disclaimer. - The authors of the scholarly articles produced from the research conducted at the ICAR institutes have to deposit immediately the final authors version manuscripts of papers accepted for publication (pre-prints and post-prints) in the institute’s Open Access repository. - Scientists and other research personnel of the ICAR working in all ICAR institutes or elsewhere are encouraged to publish their research work with publishers which allow self- archiving in Open Access Institutional Repositories. - The authors of the scholarly literature produced from the research funded in whole or part by the ICAR or by other Public Funds at ICAR establishments are required to deposit the final version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript in the ICAR institute’s Open Access Institutional Repository. - Scientists are advised to mention the ICAR’s Open Access policy while signing the copyright agreements with the publishers and the embargo, if any, should not be later than 12 months. - M.Sc. and Ph.D. thesis/dissertations (full contents) and summary of completed research projects to be deposited in the institutes open access repository after completion of the work. The metadata (e.g., title, abstract, authors, publisher, etc.) be freely accessible from the time of deposition of the content and their free unrestricted use through Open Access can be made after an embargo period not more than 12 months. - All the journals published by the ICAR have been made Open Access. Journals, conference proceedings and other scholarly literature published with the financial support from ICAR to the professional societies and others, to be made Open. - The documents having material to be patented or commercialised, or where the promulgations would infringe a legal commitment by the institute and/or the author, may not be included in institute’s Open Access repository. However, the ICAR scientists and staff as authors of the commercial books may negotiate with the publishers to share the same via institutional repositories after a suitable embargo period. *Implementation* The DKMA to function as nodal agency for implementation of the ICAR Open Access policy. The DKMA will organize advocacy workshops and capacity building of scientific technical personnel, repository administrators, editors and publishers on Institutional Repositories, application and usage of Free and Open Source Software. *End Note* OA initiative is not a single event. It is a process and expects full compliance over a period of three years. Therefore, the proposed modest policy is a first step in the journey towards formal declaration of openness and then after reviews progress, compliance and impact periodically. -- Sridhar Gutam PhD, ARS, Patent Laws (NALSAR), IP Biotech. (WIPO) Senior Scientist (Plant Physiology), Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture http://cishlko.org/ Joint Secretary, Agricultural Research Service Scientists' Forumhttp://www.icar.org.in/node/1168 Convenor, Open Access India https://www.facebook.com/oaindia Country Representative, Young Professionals' Platform for Agricultural Research for Development http://ypard.net/ Rehmankhera, Kakori Post Lucknow 226101, Uttar Pradesh, India Phone: +91-522-2841022/23/24; Fax: +91-522-2841025 Mobile:+91-9005760036/8005346136 Publications: http://works.bepress.com/sridhar_gutam/
[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.aumailto:e...@aoasg.org.au p: +612 6125 6839 w: .aoasg.org.au t: @openaccess_oz From: Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu Reply-To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org goal@eprints.orgmailto: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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto: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)?
[GOAL] missing link of journal list for my survey
Hello, The link in my previous e-mail is wrong, please find the links for DOC and PDF version of that list below: http://web.itu.edu.tr/~akkurtb/open_access/oa.doc http://web.itu.edu.tr/~akkurtb/open_access/oa.pdf The column titles are in Turkish, but the table is self-explanatory. Some links in it will only work if all text is copied and pasted onto the browser. I am working through solving this error. Thank you, Barbaros Akkurt Chemist, Istanbul Technical University ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] 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): 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.aumailto:e...@aoasg.org.au p: +612 6125 6839 w: .aoasg.org.au t: @openaccess_oz From: Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu Reply-To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM To: goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org goal@eprints.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
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: SHGreen 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
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
A journal publishing 234 articles per year charging $30,860 for a subscription SHOULD be disrupted, on the basis of price. At this rate it would cost 7 times more to provide access to only the medical schools in North America than to provide open access to everyone, everywhere with an internet connection, even at the rates of a for-profit professional commercial publisher's very high impact journal. At the rates of The Journal of Machine Learning, aptly described by Shieber as an efficient journal, all of the articles published in this journal could be made open access for a total cost that is less than 10% of a single subscription. Details: The Association of American Medical Colleges accredits 141 medical schools in the U.S. and Canada alone. If each one of these schools purchased a subscription at $30,860, that would add up to revenue of $4.3 million per year. $4.3 million would be sufficient to pay open access article processing fees for 1,657 articles at the rates of the professional for-profit BioMedCentral's very-high-impact journal Genome Biology (U.S. $2,265). Shieber describes the approach and costs (average $10 per article) of the Journal of Machine Learning on his blog The Occasional Pamphlet: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ The question should be how we can protect and sustain high-quality scholarly publishing in an open access environment - not how to protect such mind-boggling inefficiency as journals that charge over $30,000 for a subscription! Those who think that it is important to sustain scholarly journals so that a surplus can assist with things like education might want to consider whether medical schools should immediately cancel this journal and offer a medical student a $30,000 scholarship instead. best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html heather.morri...@uottawa.camailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 / Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30 sept-1 oct 2013 http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html On 2013-09-13, at 4:53 PM, Dana Roth dzr...@library.caltech.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu wrote: 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.edumailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
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 publishershttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=enfIDnum=|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 publishershttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=enfIDnum=|mode=simplealready do. The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. *Stevan Harnad* *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.orggoal-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 Belgiumhttp://roarmap.eprints.org/850/ have adopted -- and HEFCEhttp://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html and BIShttp://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
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
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 +, 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
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Peter Murray-Rust wrote: There seems to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA: 1. Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing [...] 2. [...] Green OA will destroy the subscription market. I've been struggling with the same dilemma for a long time, and much more since I've launched a campaign to have my university adopt a Green OA deposit mandate, where this issue is regularly raised and has to be addressed. The truth is that we don't know what will happen. One can equally envision any scenario along a spectrum between: A. Green OA (actually ~20%) reaching an upper limit well below 100 % (mandates not generalizing), with limited TA to (Gold) OA conversion among journals, resulting in few subscription cancellations, and (possibly) a slight decrease of total costs to the community (ultimately the taxpayers) due to (1) OA publishing being inherently less expensive, and (2) market pressure (authors choosing an OA journal based in part on its impact/publishing fees ratio). B. Green OA reaching ~100% with total TA to OA conversion, and journals downsizing to peer-review providers (the other publication functions being overtaken by repositories), resulting in a huge overall cost decrease to the community. While the #2 end of the spectrum may certainly be seen as a threat to publishers, or at least to some of them, it's extremely hard to predict which scenario is likely to occur, and to what extent any specific scenario constitutes a real threat. One can easily imagine a scenario with 100% Green OA and journals (partially or totally converted to OA) keeping their actual functions. One problem is that some publishers seem to consider as a threat any pressure to change the still dominant dissemination (or business) model, whose inadequacy is now widely recognized among the scientific community (but not by the shareholders, of course). So, I think that nobody can honestly state either #1 or #2 above as is. But one could say that: - the scholarly publication world is due (and has begun) to change in a profound way; - that nobody knows exactly what this change will be, or what role Green OA will play in it; - that Green OA is a legitimate demand, made in the public interest by (among others) publicly paid and funded researchers giving, as authors and reviewers, their works and their time for free; - that those responsible for public policy (and use of taxpayers' money) are expected to put the public interest above that of private entities. Marc Couture ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
I believe that Stevan is logically right on all counts, but one problem remains that is not addressed here: people decide upon the behaviour on the basis of a mixed bag of facts and conjectures. Facts are used to constrain conjectures within the general perimeter of a risk analysis. Each category of players (researchers, librarians, publishers) follows its own kind of risk analysis. In short, facts are distinct from conjectures, but acts also differ from adventures... How people decide to act or not cannot avoid risk analysis aka conjectures Stevan's analysis covers the logical side of the argument flawlessly; whether it covers the psychology of the players is a different matter. In particular, I worry that this starkly logical approach may not be the best way to convince people. If it were, we would no longer need rhetoric and life might be simpler, but this is an unrealistic assumption. Jean-Claude Guédon Le samedi 14 septembre 2013 à 15:09 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : 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 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 already do. The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. Stevan Harnad 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
