[GOAL] OA declarations
When listing the “B” declarations on Open Access, we should add the “Salvador de Bahía Declaration on Open Access: the developing world perspective”, a Declaration promoted by SciELO in 2005 which urges governments to make Open Access a high priority in their scholary development policies. These include: § Insist that publicly funded research is available in Open Access; § Consider the cost of publication as part of the cost of research; § Strengthen local Open Access journals and repositories, and other relevant initiatives; § Promote the integration of scholarly information from developing countries into the repository of the world’s knowledge. http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/13/unesco-guidelines-provide-a-detailed-review-of-open-access/#.UjZmocbTuoM ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Hello from Istanbul, Turkey (about a questionnaire on open access concept in Turkey)
Dear Barbaros; I understand that you are planning to make a survey on Open Access within the area/discipline of chemistry at relevant Turkish universities. I work at the University of Bergen, Norway and are familiar with these issues. To make a general questionnaire you would like to know: - Does the University has an Open Access Mandate? - Are the researchers publishing in Open Access journals? Or which Open Access journal has your diciplin? - Are you choosing them? Why not? Etc. I don't know if this is what you are after.- My best AnneA Anne Gams Steine Asserson Digitale Systems and Services University Library University of Bergen http://www.uib.no/persons/Anne.Asserson euroCRIS board http://www.eurocris.org/Index.php?page=Boardt=1 Work +47 55584580 Mob.: +47 90614901 -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Barbaros Akkurt Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:17 PM To: goal@eprints.org Subject: [GOAL] Hello from Istanbul, Turkey (about a questionnaire on open access concept in Turkey) Greetings, I am a newbie volunteering to work about open access spirit and desiring to raise awareness in Turkish academic community. I have a simple question to you advanced people; I will attend a forum about open access movement in Turkey, and I would like to prepare a questionnaire intended for chemists and chemical engineers in Turkey. My question is very simple: Please send me sample questions which will be asked in the questionnaire. I am willing to finish collecting data on October 13, and the activity will commence on 21 October (due to a religious feast, it is almost impossible to collect data after October 13. The audience will be academicians, say, faculty members and assistants and academic people working as chemists or chemical engineers. I wanted to limit the occupation to these and the people working in Istanbul, Turkey. I am planning to prepare the questionnaire on Survey Monkey website? Is it a good plan? Many thanks for your replies. Best, Mr. Barbaros Akkurt, PhD Chemist, Istanbul Technical University Istanbul, Turkey ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.orgmailto: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
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
I fully agree, There would be no great harm done in the longer perspective if some of the current major publishers dissapeared from the market, as long as the access to older article in their electronic holdings are secured. They would just be replaced by other. Academics need good journals for many reasons, partly because of recognition and evaluation reasons. Good and top journals have usually not been created through design but through a Darwinian selection process where authors, reviewers and academic editors flock to journals which become the leading ones in their fields, and these journals in many fields are not always more expensive to operate, since the major cost difference to lower prestige journals is in the amount of unpaid voluntary work going into the peer review part. And this is large managed by academic editors as well. I see no danger to the quality of scientific article publishing. People are still able to fly around the world even if many major airlines who haven't been able to adapt to changing market conditions have gone bankrupt. Best regards Bo-Christer 9/16/13 12:42 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote: Journal cancellation rates are currently almost impossible to judge, at least for the big publishers because of the big deals. The big deal subscriptions mean that many libraries are subscribing either to whole publisher archives/fleets or at least to whole subjects. In those circumstances institutions cannot unsubscribe from individual journals until and unless sufficient journals could be included to drop the price of the remaining necessary journal subscriptions to below the big deal cost. All the cancellation (because of Green OA) talk is entirely speculative and pretty much impossible to model (because so many other things are also changing at the same time) that we must focus on cutting through the Gordian knot of transitions to sustainable publishing by mandating Green OA (Immediate Deposit/Optional Access where necessary) and let the disruptions to publishing take its course as it may. Some argue that publishing and journals are so important to academia that we must be careful not to undermine them. I make the opposite evaluation: journals and peer review are so important to academia that if Green OA (so far as we can tell from some pretty decent evidence quickly achievable by Mandates [and only by mandates]) causes significant disruption to journal publishing viability, that the relevant communities would quickly find a way to ensure the survival of the important avenues of communications by means other than the current subscription model. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] OA declarations
You may include the Bangalore Declaration of 2006 as well. It was adopted at an international workshop held at IISc, Bangalore, and drafted by Alma swan and Barbara Kirsop. Arun On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 7:45 AM, Dominique Babini dasbab...@gmail.comwrote: When listing the “B” declarations on Open Access, we should add the “Salvador de Bahía Declaration on Open Access: the developing world perspective”, a Declaration promoted by SciELO in 2005 which urges governments to make Open Access a high priority in their scholary development policies. These include: § Insist that publicly funded research is available in Open Access; § Consider the cost of publication as part of the cost of research; § Strengthen local Open Access journals and repositories, and other relevant initiatives; § Promote the integration of scholarly information from developing countries into the repository of the world’s knowledge. http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/13/unesco-guidelines-provide-a-detailed-review-of-open-access/#.UjZmocbTuoM ___ open-access mailing list open-acc...@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-access Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-access ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
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.ukmailto:f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk Date: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:06 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org, LibLicense-L Discussion Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edumailto:liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu, SPARC Open Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.orgmailto: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.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of Danny Kingsley danny.kings...@anu.edu.aumailto: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
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Rick I don't know if there is a way of getting a list, but I think you are conflating two things. I assume you are saying you would cancel if all of the content of the journal was available without embargo. Sherpa/Romeo doesn't tell you that - it just tells you whether or not the publisher allows green deposit without embargo. And lots of publishers do - for the majority of papers in the majority of Elsevier titles, for example, the author is free to make available their papers - either pre- or post-prints. But as most authors don't take advantage of that offer I guess you'll not want to cancel Elsevier's titles. David On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:31, Rick Anderson wrote: 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
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
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
[GOAL] DOAJ publishes response to public feedback on revised selection criteria and a Roadmap
In June 2013, DOAJ announced its intention to revise its criteria for selecting journals to be included in the directory (http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=newsnId=303uiLanguage=en). A public consultation period followed where feedback was received. The consultation period incited much discussion on social media, in mailing lists and via email. Redalyc ran several workshops (see page 5 - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Fw8p9XB3C6Qlp1Rm9kRVUwNzg/edit?usp=sharing ) dedicated to raising awareness and collecting feedback. In general, the changes were welcomed by the communities but further refining was needed: the consultation period produced some important feedback. A summary of changes and DOAJ's response to each is now available: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Fw8p9XB3C6NjBwN3dGNFpqajA/edit?usp=sharing. Most significantly, it was clear that the term revised Selection Criteria was not appropriate to describe the project that DOAJ is undertaking. As a first step, all changes have been incorporated into a draft Google form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1u0F-fVbEHySkTRXvJLkfd1s_ace9-nTzRYIWdJwSR68/viewform The fully functional form will be hosted directly on the DOAJ site, as it is now. DOAJ is also publishing its Roadmap of activities until the end of 2013 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1Fw8p9XB3C6OGtUZzZTVFFCSkk/edit?usp=sharing We encourage you to share this document with your institutions and libraries. For further information, contact Lars Bjørnshauge (l...@doaj.org) or Dom Mitchell (d...@doaj.org) Dom Mitchell Community Manager, DOAJ Support us! http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=loadTemplatetemplate=supportDoaj Follow us: https://twitter.com/DOAJplus ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Rick, in terms of subscription cancellations is that really true with big deals? Doesn't Elsevier allow immediate deposit with most of their journals except if your institution has a mandate. Also I believe Björk and his colleagues found faculty often take awhile getting around to archiving their manuscripts even with a mandate. http://preview.tinyurl.com/lw7vwbz Would you really consider dropping a journal with say 70% percent of the content available after a year? I'm not a librarian but I just wonder how much of a difference allowing immediate archiving of the accepted version really makes in subscription decisions. On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: I don't know if there is a way of getting a list, but I think you are conflating two things. I assume you are saying you would cancel if all of the content of the journal was available without embargo. Sherpa/Romeo doesn't tell you that - it just tells you whether or not the publisher allows green deposit without embargo. You're right, I should be more precise: if I know that a publisher allows green deposit of all articles without embargo, then the likelihood that we'll maintain a paid subscription drops dramatically — and drops even further if the journal is near the periphery of my institution's research and curricular interests. If the journal is closer to the center of our interests, then before dropping the subscription we'd probably do a quick survey to see what percentage of its articles are showing up in public repositories within a reasonably brief period. --- 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 -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups SPARC OA Forum group. To post to this group, send email to sparc-oafo...@arl.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org. -- David J Solomon dsolomonmsu...@gmail.com ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: if I know that a publisher allows green deposit of all articles without embargo, then the likelihood that we'll maintain a paid subscription drops dramatically Rick Anderson has made a public announcement that he may think serves the interests of University of Utah's Library and its users: It does not, because it is both arbitrary and absurd to cancel a journal because it is Green rather than because their users no longer need it About 60% of subscription journals are Green and there are no data whatsoever to show that the percentage of the contents of Green journals made OA by their authors is higher than the percentage for non-Green journals -- and, more important, the percentage of articles that are made OA today from either Green or non-Green journals is still low, and the sample is likewise arbitrary. But more important than any of that is the gross disservice that gratuitous public librarian announcements like that do to the OA movement: We have been objecting vehemently to the perverse incentive Finch/RCUK have given publishers to adopt or lengthen Green OA embargoes and offer hybrid Gold in order to get the money the UK has foolishly elected to throw at Fool's Gold unilaterally, and preferentially. Now is it going to be the library community publicly notifying putting publishers on notice that unless they adopt or lengthen Green OA embargoes, libraries plan to cancel their journals? With friends like these, the OA movement hardly needs enemies. May I suggest, though, that such postings should not go to the GOAL, BOAI or SPARC lists? Please keep such brilliant ideas to the library lists. And please don't reply that it's just one factor in our cancelation equation. There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with their serials budgets when it's at the expense of OA. Stevan Harnad --- 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 ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Would you really consider dropping a journal with say 70% percent of the content available after a year? I'm not a librarian but I just wonder how much of a difference allowing immediate archiving of the accepted version really makes in subscription decisions. It depends. Obviously, a subscription provides enhanced access over green repository access. But as I mentioned before, the less central a journal is to my institution's curricular and research focus, the more willing I'll be to settle for less-than-ideal access. If I had a generous materials budget, the calculus would be different—but the combination of a relatively stagnant budget and constantly/steeply-rising journal prices means that I have to settle for solutions that are less than ideal. One less-than-ideal solution is to maintain a subscription despite the fact that 70% of the journal's content is available immediately (or after a year). That solution is attractive because it provides more complete and convenient access, but it's less than ideal because it ties up money that can't be used to secure access to a journal that is not green at all. Another less-than-ideal solution is to cancel the subscription and rely on green access. The downside of that approach is that repository access is a pain and may be incomplete; the upside is that it frees up money that I can use to provide access to another needed journal that offers no green access. These issues are complex. The subscription decisions we make in libraries are binary (either your subscribe or you don't), but the criteria we have to use in making those decisions are not binary—we're typically considering multiple criteria (relevance, price, cost per download, demonstrated demand, etc.) that exist on a continuum. One thing is for certain, though: the more a journal's content is available for free, and the quicker it becomes available for free, the less likely it is that we'll maintain a subscription. I think that's the only rational position to take when there are so many journals out there that our faculty want, and that we're not subscribing to because we're out of money. --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Open access research: some basics for scientists
As the OA movement continues to gain steam, we are seeing scholars with a background in sciences take a keen interest and even develop surveys and such. While the enthusiasm is welcome, from what I am seeing in several instances now, is that scientists do not necessarily understand how to go about social science research. A scholar with a background in chemistry doing social science research with no training is not unlike a social scientist with no training in chemistry walking into a lab and playing about (although the potential damages are generally of a different nature). Scientists doing social science research: - should be aware of research ethics requirements - at universities in North America, for example, you must get a research ethics clearance to conduct survey or interview research - should understand the methodology used and its limitations - should know the area. A poorly conducted survey by someone who is not an expert on the topic surveyed may be more damaging than helpful. For example, the way questions are framed shapes how people understand the topic. Before you develop a survey on open access, you should be aware that there are least two basic approaches (green and gold), and if asking questions about gold, you should be aware that this is not equivalent to the article processing fee business model 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.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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: May I suggest, though, that such postings should not go to the GOAL, BOAI or SPARC lists? Please keep such brilliant ideas to the library lists. And please don't reply that it's just one factor in our cancelation equation. There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with their serials budgets when it's at the expense of OA. Censorship? I'm not the moderator of this list. I am just expressing my view, as you are. But if you must keep posting here, could you perhaps address the points of substance? SH It's hard to know how to respond to this. I guess I'll say simply that I'm dumbfounded at this blatant attempt to stifle any discussion of OA in anything other than cheerleading mode. If we can't talk about all the downstream implications (whether positive, negative, or mixed) of the various publishing models and options that are on the table, then it's hard to see how we're going to come up with sustainable, fair, and widely-beneficial solutions. All of us have a stake in this conversation. I trust the moderators of these listservs will resist Stevan's call to silence those stakeholders who fail to support unreservedly and uncriticially the one model that he favors. A policy of prior restraint doesn't strike me as terribly consistent with the goals of OA. --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs
Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs, not whether the content is available for free. In April of last year Harvard sent a memo to faculty informing them that they cannot continue to afford high priced journals and asking them to consider costs when deciding where to publish. The memo can be found here: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448 This is not an open access issue, rather another issue that needs to be addressed, and the drive for OA policy should not impede progress on necessary market corrections. May I suggest that research funding agencies should look carefully at the publishing record of academics (past, future plans, editing etc.), and look at high-priced choices the way funding agencies and committees in my area would look at grant submissions including first-class airfares at many times the cost of available economy airfares? 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] In fairness (Re: Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)
I should publicly acknowledge that I misread this sentence from Stevan's message: May I suggest, though, that such postings should not go to the GOAL, BOAI or SPARC lists? Please keep such brilliant ideas to the library lists. I should not have characterized it as a call to the moderators to exclude such contributions from the list. While I believe that it's completely inappropriate for Stevan to discourage open and objective discussion of these issues by librarians, his discouragement did not amount to calling on the list moderators to censor it, and I should have read more carefully before responding as if it did. My apologies. --- 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 And please don't reply that it's just one factor in our cancelation equation. There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with their serials budgets when it's at the expense of OA. It's hard to know how to respond to this. I guess I'll say simply that I'm dumbfounded at this blatant attempt to stifle any discussion of OA in anything other than cheerleading mode. If we can't talk about all the downstream implications (whether positive, negative, or mixed) of the various publishing models and options that are on the table, then it's hard to see how we're going to come up with sustainable, fair, and widely-beneficial solutions. All of us have a stake in this conversation. I trust the moderators of these listservs will resist Stevan's call to silence those stakeholders who fail to support unreservedly and uncriticially the one model that he favors. A policy of prior restraint doesn't strike me as terribly consistent with the goals of OA. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edumailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups SPARC OA Forum group. To post to this group, send email to sparc-oafo...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oafo...@arl.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
The problem with this analysis, from a another librarian's viewpoint, is that ... 1. Rick is suggesting that libraries reward publishers by providing subscription funds for journals that [are] not green at all. ... and 2. It also penalizes responsible society publishers who allow quick access to 'green repository' manuscripts. In my mind, there are far too many examples of exorbitant library subscription pricing to avoid dealing with this problem FIRST! 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 Rick Anderson Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:15 AM To: David Solomon Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Friend, Fred; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; SPARC Open Access Forum Subject: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection Would you really consider dropping a journal with say 70% percent of the content available after a year? I'm not a librarian but I just wonder how much of a difference allowing immediate archiving of the accepted version really makes in subscription decisions. It depends. Obviously, a subscription provides enhanced access over green repository access. But as I mentioned before, the less central a journal is to my institution's curricular and research focus, the more willing I'll be to settle for less-than-ideal access. If I had a generous materials budget, the calculus would be different-but the combination of a relatively stagnant budget and constantly/steeply-rising journal prices means that I have to settle for solutions that are less than ideal. One less-than-ideal solution is to maintain a subscription despite the fact that 70% of the journal's content is available immediately (or after a year). That solution is attractive because it provides more complete and convenient access, but it's less than ideal because it ties up money that can't be used to secure access to a journal that is not green at all. Another less-than-ideal solution is to cancel the subscription and rely on green access. The downside of that approach is that repository access is a pain and may be incomplete; the upside is that it frees up money that I can use to provide access to another needed journal that offers no green access. These issues are complex. The subscription decisions we make in libraries are binary (either your subscribe or you don't), but the criteria we have to use in making those decisions are not binary-we're typically considering multiple criteria (relevance, price, cost per download, demonstrated demand, etc.) that exist on a continuum. One thing is for certain, though: the more a journal's content is available for free, and the quicker it becomes available for free, the less likely it is that we'll maintain a subscription. I think that's the only rational position to take when there are so many journals out there that our faculty want, and that we're not subscribing to because we're out of money. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edumailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: The issue that was raised (by Fred) under this subject thread was the possibility of subscription losses dues to Green OA archiving. Yes. But not the possibility of subscription losses because the publisher allows Green OA archiving. (That too can be discussed here -- but only to point out the deleterious consequences of such a policy for OA, and the self-defeating basis of such a cancellation policy. Since libraries comprise a substantial portion of journal subscribers, then surely it's substantially relevant to discuss how libraries might make cancellation decisions about Green OA journals. It is indeed. And if librarian's cancellation decisions are based on unthinking criteria that self-destruct -- namely, if a journal allows Green OA, cancel it -- it needs to be pointed out that this would be an excellent way to ensure that journals decide not to allow Green OA. And thereby slow the growth of Green OA. And thereby undermine the basis of the cancellation decision. (Such discussion may or may not end up lending support to your favored outcome — but is that really the filtering criterion we ought to impose on contributions to the conversation?) OA is not the filtering criterion for library lists dedicated to the library's budget problems. But it is certainly the filtering criterion for the gOAl, bOAi and sparc OA lists. Stevan Harnad --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)
May I suggest, though, that such postings should not go to the GOAL, BOAI or SPARC lists? Please keep such brilliant ideas to the library lists. And please don't reply that it's just one factor in our cancelation equation. There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with their serials budgets when it's at the expense of OA. It's hard to know how to respond to this. I guess I'll say simply that I'm dumbfounded at this blatant attempt to stifle any discussion of OA in anything other than cheerleading mode. If we can't talk about all the downstream implications (whether positive, negative, or mixed) of the various publishing models and options that are on the table, then it's hard to see how we're going to come up with sustainable, fair, and widely-beneficial solutions. All of us have a stake in this conversation. I trust the moderators of these listservs will resist Stevan's call to silence those stakeholders who fail to support unreservedly and uncriticially the one model that he favors. A policy of prior restraint doesn't strike me as terribly consistent with the goals of OA. --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The issue that was raised (by Fred) under this subject thread was the possibility of subscription losses dues to Green OA archiving. Yes. But not the possibility of subscription losses because the publisher allows Green OA archiving. So it's okay to discuss the impact of actual archiving, but it's not okay to discuss the impact of publishers allowing archiving? Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? (And wouldn't that be a much more constructive response than Don't talk about that here!?) (That too can be discussed here -- but only to point out the deleterious consequences of such a policy for OA, and the self-defeating basis of such a cancellation policy.) Sorry, but I don't accept that limitation. Surely it ought to be okay to discuss such a policy beyond simply bringing it up in order to agree with a predetermined position on it. Since libraries comprise a substantial portion of journal subscribers, then surely it's substantially relevant to discuss how libraries might make cancellation decisions about Green OA journals. It is indeed. And if librarian's cancellation decisions are based on unthinking criteria that self-destruct -- namely, if a journal allows Green OA, cancel it -- it needs to be pointed out that this would be an excellent way to ensure that journals decide not to allow Green OA. And thereby slow the growth of Green OA. And thereby undermine the basis of the cancellation decision. Simply declaring such decisions to be unthinking is no substitute for actual discussion of them (and of the thinking that has been laid out concerning them). And a declaration of unthinkingness hardly justifies calling for the exclusion of such discussion. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is rather than just saying that bringing up issues hurts the cause. (Such discussion may or may not end up lending support to your favored outcome — but is that really the filtering criterion we ought to impose on contributions to the conversation?) OA is not the filtering criterion for library lists dedicated to the library's budget problems. But it is certainly the filtering criterion for the gOAl, bOAi and sparc OA lists. Agreed. And since the issue Fred raised demonstrates a clear connection between OA policies and library's financial decisions (notably journal cancellations), it would seem that this discussion fits nicely through the filter — even if the discussion doesn't tend toward the particular conclusion one prefers. --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? Yes. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. 5. Publicly announcing (as you did) that journals are to be cancelled because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is certain to induce Green publishers to stop being Green and instead adopt and Green OA embargoes. 6. Library cancellation of Green journals will slow the growth of OA, thereby compounding the disservice that such an unthinking (sic) policy does both to users and to OA. *Stevan Harnad* ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs
Good points, Heather. But surely free and open OA publications are about cost too (i.e., free of cost). While almost all subscription journal articles that can be freely posted do not cut into the subscription base, there must be some correlation between the most expensive subscription journals and trepidation to allow OA access, especially non-embargoed. Has anyone done an analysis of the correlation of those two price structures? Paul F. Uhlir, J.D. Director, Board on Research Data and Information National Academy of Sciences, Keck-511 500 Fifth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 U.S.A. Tel.+1 202 334 1531; Cell +1 703 217 5143 Skype: pfuhlir; Email: puh...@nas.edu Web: www.nas.edu/brdihttp://www.nas.edu/brdi; Twitter: @paulfuhlir From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison [heather.morri...@uottawa.ca] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:53 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs, not whether the content is available for free. In April of last year Harvard sent a memo to faculty informing them that they cannot continue to afford high priced journals and asking them to consider costs when deciding where to publish. The memo can be found here: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448 This is not an open access issue, rather another issue that needs to be addressed, and the drive for OA policy should not impede progress on necessary market corrections. May I suggest that research funding agencies should look carefully at the publishing record of academics (past, future plans, editing etc.), and look at high-priced choices the way funding agencies and committees in my area would look at grant submissions including first-class airfares at many times the cost of available economy airfares? 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Stevan Harnad writes It does not, because it is both arbitrary and absurd to cancel a journal because it is Green rather than because their users no longer need it It is not. There simply is not the money to buy all subscriptions, and the more a journal's contents can be recovered from the web the more the need for subscribing to it declines. But more important than any of that is the gross disservice that gratuitous public librarian announcements like that do to the OA movement: Libraries are not there to serve the OA movement. to get the money the UK has foolishly elected to throw at Fool's Gold unilaterally, and preferentially. I agree. But the subscription model is even more foolish. Let toll-gating publishers have embargoes till kingdom come. If nobody reads the papers, authors, who need the attention of readers, will have to use the IR to place a version of the paper out. Scholars will find alternative ways to evaluate these papers. With friends like these, the OA movement hardly needs enemies. I'm all in favour of OA, but it will not happen until subscriptions decline. The more subscriptions decline the better for OA. -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs
Heather Morrison writes Journal cancellations are primarily about journal costs, not whether the content is available for free. Sure. In April of last year Harvard sent a memo to faculty informing them that they cannot continue to afford high priced journals and asking them to consider costs when deciding where to publish. The memo can be found here: http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448 I don't see incentives for academics to comply with such a request. It would be more effective for universities to set up black lists of journals not review for. Academics then would have a better excuse not to review for journals that are high-priced, ultimately putting pressure on the quality of these journals. This is not an open access issue, rather another issue that needs to be addressed, and the drive for OA policy should not impede progress on necessary market corrections. I beg to differ. The same euro can only be spent once. It can be spent to beef up the IR, or on subscriptions. May I suggest that research funding agencies should look carefully at the publishing record of academics (past, future plans, editing etc.), and look at high-priced choices the way funding agencies and committees in my area would look at grant submissions including first-class airfares at many times the cost of available economy airfares? Again, you can surely suggest this but I don't see why funding agencies would have incentives to take up your suggestions. -- Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? Yes. See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion: Yes, you raise a valid point. Just because a publisher allows complete and unembargoed Green OA archiving of a journal doesn't mean that all of the journal's content will end up being archived. So I would adjust the categorical statement I made in my original posting thus: My library will cancel our subscriptions to any such journal, once we have determined that a sufficient percentage of its content is being made publicly available promptly and at no charge — promptness being assessed on a sliding scale relative to the journal's relevance to our needs. Obviously, this will be relatively easy to do for new Green journals or for journals that make the shift in the future. As for existing Green-without-embargo journals, I'm currently discussing with my collection development staff how we might cost-effectively review the list of Green-without-embargo journal publishers found at http://bit.ly/1aOetHB and see which of their journals we currently subscribe to, and which of these we might be able to cancel. This would be a relatively time-intensive project, but we have students working at service desks in my library who could probably help. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. Depending on what our goals are, reality can sometimes be counterproductive. It's a reality that a subscription is less needed when the content of the journal in question is freely available online. (It matters, of course, what percentage of the content really becomes available that way, and how quickly it will become available. But the more its content is free and the faster it gets that way, the less incentive there is for anyone, including libraries, to pay for access to it. And the tighter a library's budget, the more sensitive its cancellation response will be to the Green-without-embargo signal.) 5. Publicly announcing (as you did) that journals are to be cancelled because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is certain to induce Green publishers to stop being Green and instead adopt and Green OA embargoes. Discussing reality may not always help to advance an OA agenda (or any other agenda, for that matter), but eventually reality will always win. Scolding people for talking about reality is ultimately much more counterproductive than figuring out how to deal with it. 6. Library cancellation of Green journals will slow the growth of OA, thereby compounding the disservice that such an unthinking (sic) policy does both to users and to OA. It doesn't seem to me that OA is something to which we owe allegiance. It seems to me that our goal should be a healthy, vital, and sustainable scholarly communication environment that brings the maximum possible benefit to the world. Deciding up front that OA is the only road to such an environment has two seriously debilitating effects: first, it makes the questioning of OA, or even of specific OA strategies, into a thoughtcrime (as we've seen here today), and second, it precludes the consideration of other, possibly promising options. Why on earth would scholars look to those that can't or won't discuss these issues in a rational, reasonably objective way for guidance on how to conduct their own scholarly communication? --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)
Stevan Harnad wrote: There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with their serials budgets when it's at the expense of OA As previous messages in this thread clearly show, the ultimate fate of the subscription model, and how it will unfold, is completely unknown, so that any contribution that will help to answer the following question If Green OA goes from 20% to 100%, and if the demise of the subscription model ensues, when will subscription cancellation begin? is relevant in my opinion. We may not like the hypothesis that embargo-free Green OA journals may be the first to be cancelled, but it is kind of logical, though from a very limited perspective. And it's a good thing that it has been raised here, in order to allow for the OA community to put the issue on a more general level, like when Stevan points out that actions or policies which may seem justified locally, because they allow for short term savings, can be globally harmful in the long term. Marc Couture ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA declarations
Also see the Open Access Directory list of declarations in support of OA. http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Declarations_in_support_of_OA Note that OAD is a wiki and welcomes additions and corrections from the OA community. Peter Peter Suber bit.ly/petersuber On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Dominique Babini dasbab...@gmail.comwrote: When listing the “B” declarations on Open Access, we should add the “Salvador de Bahía Declaration on Open Access: the developing world perspective”, a Declaration promoted by SciELO in 2005 which urges governments to make Open Access a high priority in their scholary development policies. These include: § Insist that publicly funded research is available in Open Access; § Consider the cost of publication as part of the cost of research; § Strengthen local Open Access journals and repositories, and other relevant initiatives; § Promote the integration of scholarly information from developing countries into the repository of the world’s knowledge. http://blog.scielo.org/en/2013/09/13/unesco-guidelines-provide-a-detailed-review-of-open-access/#.UjZmocbTuoM ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's friend or foe. (1) Cancelling journals when all or most of their contents have become Green OA is rational and constructive -- but we're nowhere near there; and whether and when we get there is partly contingent on (2): (2) Cancelling (or even announcing the intention to cancel) journals because they allow Green OA is irrational, extremely short-sighted, and extremely destructive (to OA) as well as self-destructive (to libraries). But I already have enough to do trying to get institutions and funders to adopt rational and constructive OA mandates that researchers can and will comply with. If libraries are not allies in this, so be it; we already have publishers whose interests conflict with those of OA. If it's to be the same with libraries, it's better we know it sooner rather than later. I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned. Stevan Harnad On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? Yes. See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion: Yes, you raise a valid point. Just because a publisher allows complete and unembargoed Green OA archiving of a journal doesn't mean that all of the journal's content will end up being archived. So I would adjust the categorical statement I made in my original posting thus: My library will cancel our subscriptions to any such journal, once we have determined that a sufficient percentage of its content is being made publicly available promptly and at no charge — promptness being assessed on a sliding scale relative to the journal's relevance to our needs. Obviously, this will be relatively easy to do for new Green journals or for journals that make the shift in the future. As for existing Green-without-embargo journals, I'm currently discussing with my collection development staff how we might cost-effectively review the list of Green-without-embargo journal publishers found at http://bit.ly/1aOetHB and see which of their journals we currently subscribe to, and which of these we might be able to cancel. This would be a relatively time-intensive project, but we have students working at service desks in my library who could probably help. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. Depending on what our goals are, reality can sometimes be counterproductive. It's a reality that a subscription is less needed when the content of the journal in question is freely available online. (It matters, of course, what percentage of the content really becomes available that way, and how quickly it will become available. But the more its content is free and the faster it gets that way, the less incentive there is for anyone, including libraries, to pay for access to it. And the tighter a library's budget, the more sensitive its cancellation response will be to the Green-without-embargo signal.) 5. Publicly announcing (as you did) that journals are to be cancelled because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is certain to induce Green publishers to stop being Green and instead adopt and Green OA embargoes. Discussing reality may not always help to advance an OA agenda (or any other agenda, for that matter), but eventually reality will always win. Scolding people for talking about reality is ultimately much more counterproductive than figuring out how to deal with it. 6. Library cancellation of Green journals will slow the growth of OA, thereby compounding the disservice that such an unthinking (sic) policy does both to users and to OA. It doesn't seem to me that OA is something to which we owe allegiance. It seems to me that our goal should be a healthy, vital, and sustainable scholarly communication environment that brings the maximum possible benefit to the world. Deciding up front that
[GOAL] Re: Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)
Couture Marc writes As previous messages in this thread clearly show, the ultimate fate of the subscription model, and how it will unfold, is completely unknown, Stevan has written many times that open access is optimal and inevitable. If you accept this what room is there left for subscriptions? I don't see any. Stevan points out that actions or policies which may seem justified locally, because they allow for short term savings, can be globally harmful in the long term. Cutting subscriptions is benefical locally, because it saves money and/or allows to improve institutional visibility. And it is beneficial globally as it increases incentives for academics to make papers available in IRs or with open access publishers because otherwise they loose more impact. Cheers, Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel skype:thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Library Community: Friend or Foe of OA?
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Couture Marc marc.cout...@teluq.ca wrote: *MC:* any contribution that will help to answer the following question “If Green OA goes from 20% to 100%, and if the demise of the subscription model ensues, when will subscription cancellation begin?” is relevant in my opinion.** I agree. But the discussion here was not about about where along the interval 20% OA to 100% OA to cancel subscriptions. It was about cancelling journal subscriptions because the journals are Green, i.e., because they are among the majority of journals who do not try to embargo OA. ** *MC:* We may not like the hypothesis that embargo-free Green OA journals may be the first to be cancelled, but it is kind of logical, though from a very limited perspective. Logical would not have been the word I used to describe it! And I have spelled out the reasons it is neither rational nor constructive -- reasons which just require thinking a few steps ahead, exactly as Finch/RCUK failed to do. *MC:* And it’s a good thing that it has been raised here, in order to allow for the “OA community” to put the issue on a more general level, like when Stevan points out that actions or policies which may seem justified locally, because they allow for short term savings, can be globally harmful in the long term. The short-term savings from cancelling Green journals because they are Green are the same short-term savings one can enjoy from arbitrarily cancelling any journal. The difference is that completely random cancellations have no systematic effect on OA: Systematically cancelling Green journals most definitely would. But this systematic longer-term consequence is so blindingly obvious that I can hardly imagine a librarian even contemplating the step unless (like publishers) their only interest was in their own bottom line. And when that bottom line is in conflict with the interests of OA -- which means research and researchers worldwide -- then, again, *exactly* like publishers, the librarians become adversaries of OA instead of allies. (Ironic that it's precisely this sort of narrow self-interest with which librarians so often reproach publishers for libraries' plight...) Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
Librarians are a much more collaborative profession than most, but librarians do not all share the same opinions or work in the same environments. At most academic libraries, librarians do not have the ability to unilaterally cancel journals. If librarians did have this power, some of the big deal publishers might have disappeared a long time ago. Physics journals have not experienced cancellations in spite of near 100% self-archiving in arXiv because physicists value their journals and will not allow their libraries to cancel. Rick Anderson's approach to actively seek OA material in order to cancel is unique, in my opinion. Even other librarians with a similar philosophy are unlikely to undertake the work to figure out what percentage is free, or risk the wrath of faculty members who value their journals and/or do not wish to do the extra work of searching in repositories. It would be interesting to see how much money Rick's library would save, and compare this with how much they could save by cancelling a single big deal with a high-cost publisher. best, Heather Morrison On 2013-09-16, at 5:06 PM, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com wrote: The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's friend or foe. (1) Cancelling journals when all or most of their contents have become Green OA is rational and constructive -- but we're nowhere near there; and whether and when we get there is partly contingent on (2): (2) Cancelling (or even announcing the intention to cancel) journals because they allow Green OA is irrational, extremely short-sighted, and extremely destructive (to OA) as well as self-destructive (to libraries). But I already have enough to do trying to get institutions and funders to adopt rational and constructive OA mandates that researchers can and will comply with. If libraries are not allies in this, so be it; we already have publishers whose interests conflict with those of OA. If it's to be the same with libraries, it's better we know it sooner rather than later. I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned. Stevan Harnad On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.edumailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu wrote: Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? Yes. See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion: Yes, you raise a valid point. Just because a publisher allows complete and unembargoed Green OA archiving of a journal doesn't mean that all of the journal's content will end up being archived. So I would adjust the categorical statement I made in my original posting thus: My library will cancel our subscriptions to any such journal, once we have determined that a sufficient percentage of its content is being made publicly available promptly and at no charge — promptness being assessed on a sliding scale relative to the journal's relevance to our needs. Obviously, this will be relatively easy to do for new Green journals or for journals that make the shift in the future. As for existing Green-without-embargo journals, I'm currently discussing with my collection development staff how we might cost-effectively review the list of Green-without-embargo journal publishers found at http://bit.ly/1aOetHB and see which of their journals we currently subscribe to, and which of these we might be able to cancel. This would be a relatively time-intensive project, but we have students working at service desks in my library who could probably help. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. Depending on what our goals are, reality can sometimes be counterproductive. It's a reality that a subscription is less needed when the content of the journal in question is freely available online. (It matters, of course, what percentage of the content really becomes available that way, and how quickly it will become available. But the more its content is free and the faster it
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's friend or foe. And this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that gives certain sectors/members of the OA community a bad name. The problem isn't OA; the problem is the unwillingness to deal with OA as something other than revealed religion. This kind of talk may help us come up with an Enemies List, but it doesn't actually help us solve any problems — unless, of course, you've decided up front that the only solution to every scholcomm problem is OA. I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned. That was never in doubt, Stevan. The library community is not a monolith. Different libraries have different policies and practices. Publishers are not stupid — they don't think that just because one librarian says I'm more likely to cancel a Green-without-embargoes journal than a toll-access one, all other things being equal that every library is going to do the same thing. --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
It would be interesting to see how much money Rick's library would save, and compare this with how much they could save by cancelling a single big deal with a high-cost publisher. Sadly, canceling our big deal would end up saving us nothing, because we would then have to subscribe to the high-demand titles individually at a higher aggregate price than what we're currently paying for the big deal. That's what broke down our longstanding resistance to the big deal in the first place. (We could save money by not subscribing to those high-demand titles, of course, but of course we could save even more by simply not buying anything our patrons need.) --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Open access research: some basics for scientists
Heather I agree with you and endorse your comments. However, there is a caveat: some questions addressed in open access are indeed scientific, and not social scientific. I think of measuring adoption rates, deposit delays, bibliometrics, etc from analyses of public data on the Internet or services such as ISI and Scopus. To be sure (and this I think you missed and should have mentioned) a reasonably good knowledge of statistics is also necessary (generally). Many agricultural scientists and medical scientists would meet this criterion far better than most social scientists. Many engineers would also have a better grasp of using complex mathematical tools such as chaos theory, fractals, and fourier analysis. It isn't black vs white. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013 2:04 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Open access research: some basics for scientists As the OA movement continues to gain steam, we are seeing scholars with a background in sciences take a keen interest and even develop surveys and such. While the enthusiasm is welcome, from what I am seeing in several instances now, is that scientists do not necessarily understand how to go about social science research. A scholar with a background in chemistry doing social science research with no training is not unlike a social scientist with no training in chemistry walking into a lab and playing about (although the potential damages are generally of a different nature). Scientists doing social science research: - should be aware of research ethics requirements - at universities in North America, for example, you must get a research ethics clearance to conduct survey or interview research - should understand the methodology used and its limitations - should know the area. A poorly conducted survey by someone who is not an expert on the topic surveyed may be more damaging than helpful. For example, the way questions are framed shapes how people understand the topic. Before you develop a survey on open access, you should be aware that there are least two basic approaches (green and gold), and if asking questions about gold, you should be aware that this is not equivalent to the article processing fee business model 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.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 ___ 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
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
At a severe risk of offending Stevan, I write to say that my University has practised an almost-OA policy for at least 15 years that falls into neither the Green nor Gold category. (BTW did you know that these are the two Australian sporting colours?) We subscribe to the online journals our researchers make a great deal of use of (that's free to them, but not to the University), but the difference is that we offer a free (to the researcher) automated document delivery service to any researcher (includes PhD candidates) for an article we do not subscribe to. There is a delay sure, but it is the same delay as the Request-A-Copy button, and more certain. The University meets the cost, so the researcher sees it as free. This is not a solution for developing countries, but for an intelligent first-world university it sure is. I have used the service at least 100 times. It enables us to unsubscribe little used journals and win, and it makes it easier to be right up to date at the far end of the world's communication lines. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania. Australia From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013 2:15 AM To: David Solomon Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Friend, Fred; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; SPARC Open Access Forum Subject: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection Would you really consider dropping a journal with say 70% percent of the content available after a year? I'm not a librarian but I just wonder how much of a difference allowing immediate archiving of the accepted version really makes in subscription decisions. It depends. Obviously, a subscription provides enhanced access over green repository access. But as I mentioned before, the less central a journal is to my institution's curricular and research focus, the more willing I'll be to settle for less-than-ideal access. If I had a generous materials budget, the calculus would be different-but the combination of a relatively stagnant budget and constantly/steeply-rising journal prices means that I have to settle for solutions that are less than ideal. One less-than-ideal solution is to maintain a subscription despite the fact that 70% of the journal's content is available immediately (or after a year). That solution is attractive because it provides more complete and convenient access, but it's less than ideal because it ties up money that can't be used to secure access to a journal that is not green at all. Another less-than-ideal solution is to cancel the subscription and rely on green access. The downside of that approach is that repository access is a pain and may be incomplete; the upside is that it frees up money that I can use to provide access to another needed journal that offers no green access. These issues are complex. The subscription decisions we make in libraries are binary (either your subscribe or you don't), but the criteria we have to use in making those decisions are not binary-we're typically considering multiple criteria (relevance, price, cost per download, demonstrated demand, etc.) that exist on a continuum. One thing is for certain, though: the more a journal's content is available for free, and the quicker it becomes available for free, the less likely it is that we'll maintain a subscription. I think that's the only rational position to take when there are so many journals out there that our faculty want, and that we're not subscribing to because we're out of money. --- 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 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
