-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I sent a reply to this yesterday, but it doesn't seem to have posted to the list (neither did it bounce). I'll try again.
Asheesh Laroia wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Jay Sulzberger wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Jennifer McLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > >>> Under a mandatory policy, NIH-funded researchers will be required >>> to deposit copies of eligible manuscripts into the National >>> Library of Medicine?s online database, PubMed Central. Articles >>> will be made publicly available no later than 12 months after >>> publication in a peer-reviewed journal. >> This is absurd. I was once asked to sign a petition in favor of >> such a rule. I did not sign because there is no excuse for handing >> over to old style publishers of scholarly journals the power to >> block distribution of work for one year. The old style publishers >> deserve nothing from us, because they offer us nothing. We write >> the articles, we do the reviewing for free, and we now possess a >> better system of distribution. Peter Suber has a good post on why an embargo is an acceptable temporary compromise: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/10/legislating-immediate-oa.html Quoting Peter: > I believe that any embargo is a compromise with the public > interest....But...compromise may be politically necessary....I would > like publishers to recognise that embargoes are a satisfactory way to > meet their legitimate interests. I would like them to accept that the > cost of a research project is almost always greater than the cost of > publication, sometimes thousands of times greater, and therefore that > the agencies funding research -- and in the case of public funders, > taxpayers -- add at least as much value to peer-reviewed research > articles as publishers do. If so, then publishers can't trump all the > other stakeholders just because they "add value" and want to dig in > their heels. But neither can we expect publishers to continue to add > value without compensation. So we have to compromise. I believe the > best compromise is a period of exclusivity for the publisher followed > by unqualified open access for the public. I would like publishers to > accept OA mandates for publicly funded research and focus their > concern on the length of the embargo. But for that to happen, OA > proponents must accept the legitimacy of compromise. If they don't, > ironically, they'll create a new kind of embargo -- an indefinite > delay of strong OA policies in the name of purity. Coming back to Asheesh's response: > I think that'd be great, but the difficulty is getting scientists on > board. PLoS seems to be working on this with some software called > Topaz; you can check it out on their website. But on the other hand, > there's a nightmare of regulation, corporate interests, and old > tradition to fight. > > I think that mandating some openness, even if not everything we want, > sets the stage for moving the conversation toward more openness, even > all of the openness we do want. > > This is a common topic of conversation among proponents for more > kinds of freedom of many kinds. Let's be clear: these are two separate issues (though obviously closely related). One is self-archiving; the other is publishing. The NIH mandate is a self-archiving funder mandate: If you take our grant, publish in whatever journal you like, but post a copy of the article on our Web site no later than 12 months after publication. PLoS, on the other hand, is a publisher. They publish journals with immediate open access upon publication. There are about 3,000 such journals (PLoS only publishes a few of those) out of an estimated 25,000 - - 50,000 academic journals. Depending which end of the estimate you use, that means probably 5% - 10% of journals are immediate open access. Those numbers are substantial and represent incredible growth, but obviously they're still only a sliver of the market. However, open access can still be provided per-article to the other 90% - - 95% of journals. Among the journals for which we have data, about 90% permit their authors to self-archive, as a policy; for the rest, it's always possible to try to negotiate for that right in the publication agreement. Unfortunately, most authors never take the time to do so. That's where a funder mandate comes in. If we paid for the research, a sponsor says, then you'd better make sure people can read it. That's all the incentive it takes to cause compliance rates to skyrocket. I don't offer any excuses for authors who don't self-archive, but the reality is most don't. We (the community) can and should work to change that culture by impressing upon academics the importance of open access. But we also can and should work to change the incentive structure under which academics operate; that's what self-archiving mandates, like the NIH policy, do. The best way to achieve open access will be a multifaceted approach. We can and should work for immediate per-journal open access. But we don't have to wait for the publishers for change. It's possible to attain 100% open access with per-article self-archiving. We ought to pursue both paths. Funder mandates are just one way to advance self-archiving. There's many valid angles to this. Re: Topaz, there are a number of FOSS journal management systems already available, most prominently Open Journal Systems. But there's no need for special software (though there are some advantages). Just post the PDF and stick a CC license on there; done. Let's not make this any harder than necessary ;) - -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHIkbStLXQdLhFpekRAoAIAJ9NiazEZzOMtlv+EE3Vr+e0Cv4fHgCdHT6q 0eQOIjg4zb2g7Bz5+tGARDc= =elgU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
