On 2 May 2012, at 00:45, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> Let's be honest with ourselves, because OA will not come
> through fantasy or wishful thinking:
So true!
>
> It is undeniable that OA is desirable, beneficial, inspires
> a lot of enthusiasm (even in those who don't do a thing about
> it, which is most people, including most researchers) and is
> probably inevitable.
>
So true!
> But it is also undeniable that despite the desirability,
> benefits, enthusiasm and inevitability, and a good deal of
> euphoria it periodically inspires, OA is extremely slow in
> coming, it has been hovering around 20% for years, and its
> growth rate is minimal.
>
Indeed. In spite of relentless efforts, green as well as gold.
> Enthusiasts who deny or are oblivious to this reality are
> fooling themselves and not doing OA a favor either.
So true!
>
> So the realistic question is: what is a credible, viable way
> to accelerate the growth of OA to 100% before this generation
> of OA advocates reaches its dotage?
Indeed it is. We clearly haven't found it yet.
>
> 100% OA will not be reached within our lifetimes via a
> concerted strategy by institutions to phase out subscription
> journals in favor of OA journals. Publishers already have a
> strategy for countering that, and it's called hybrid gold OA:
How is providing OA at source "a countering strategy for phasing out
subscriptions"? Muddled thinking.
>
> Those institutions who want to pay subscriptions pay
> subscriptions; those who want to pay for Gold OA pay for Gold
> OA. No money is saved by universities, because journals can
> and do adjust the price of hybrid Gold OA however they wish,
> to preserve their revenue streams. Hence there's no incentive
> for institutions to join or stick to the concerted strategy.
Bigger problem is that 'institutions' are far from homogenous organisations and
an 'institution's point of view' rarely exists.
>
> What the non-subscribing institutions get is a patchwork of
> Gold OA articles, missing the non-Gold articles. (This is a
> classic example of what is called an "evolutionarily unstable
> strategy." It looks good in theory; it crumbles in practice.)
They will, until *all* articles are OA in some way. BTW, instability is
evolution's greatest asset; its basic mechanism.
>
> I won't say much about the variant strategy of institutions
> trying to force ("mandate") that their researchers publish
> only in pure Gold OA journals. Enthusiasm there may be, for
> OA, among researchers, be they ever so passive. But if any
> institution starts telling them that they may no longer
> publish in the journals they choose based on their
> appropriateness for their work, but must choose journals
> based on their cost-recovery model, and I predict these
> passive authors will break into active revolt. Another
> evolutionarily unstable strategy.
In practice, various echelons in institutions (though not institutions as such)
are quite prescriptive as to the journals authors should preferably publish in.
If not guided by impact factor, then by editorship or editorial board
membership of senior colleagues, supervisors or tenure committee members.
>
> I'll say even less about the Elsevier boycott threat --
> 10,000 strong. The biomedical researcher boycott
> threat in 2000 was 34,000 strong, but they all had
> their fingers crossed (and so do the Elsevier authors).
> Like all gestures from authors who are fervent
> enough about OA to threaten boycotts for it, but
> not fervent enough to provide themselves, by
> self-archiving their published articles -- yet another
> evolutionarily unstable strategy.
Agree. No more than a 'tick in the fur' approach. Itches a bit, that's it.
>
> What does that leave (besides waiting for the current
> sluggish course of events to continue slogging on till we
> expire)?
>
> If FRPAA mandates *institutional* green OA self-archiving for
> all funded research, not only will this make the huge tranche
> of FRPAA-funded research OA, but it will oblige institutions
> to monitor and ensure fulfillment of the funder conditions, in
> their own institutional repositories -- for which the natural
> mechanism is for all institutions to adopt complementary
> green OA self-archiving mandates as well, making
> self-archiving part of routine academic procedure.
>
> FRPAA is just US funders. But it reaches into virtually all
> US research institutions. And it will be emulated worldwide.
> (The EU may even beat them to it, if Alma Swan has her way!)
If, if and if, yes. Too many ifs, though, so far.
>
> That is an evolutionarily stable strategy.
>
> Now I am ready for the usual welter of nay-sayers. But I
> urge the uncommitted reader to be attentive to the grounds
> for the objections. I suggest being suspicious of those that
> are based on ideology or on speculation. Mandates have been tried
> and tested; and where properly implemented (e.g., at Southampton
> ECS, QUT, Minho and Liege), they work. What has not yet been
> tested is funder mandates designating *institutional* deposit.
> But that's only because the funders have only been listening to the
> nay-sayers. I recommend a little p[en-mindedness and empiricism.
It's not a question of nay-saying at all. It's a question of seeking ways to
achieve OA and seeing that getting mandates isn't quite delivering the bacon.
That is *not* to say that mandates might not work; I'm saying that getting
institutions to mandate and police the mandates is perhaps a nice idea, but
stagnating.
It may be good to get some psychologists on board of the OA advocacy, who could
help to understand what needs to change in the mindsets of those who are in
positions to change hearts and minds in favour of OA. What's happening
currently is a cart-before-the-horse approach. What we need to achieve is a
cultural (within academia) sense not of desirability of OA (motherhood and
apple pie), but of unacceptability of the lack of OA, and then back it up by
whatever legal and pseudo-legal measures are appropriate. Smoking hasn't become
socially unacceptable due to legislation; legislation came about because of a
growing social unacceptability of smoking. (Another frustratingly slow process
with many similarities to the battle for OA ? and if you think it's different
because addiction plays no role in publishing, think again).
So instead of making the case that OA is desirable, we should strongly make the
case that non-OA is unacceptable, and motivate efforts to promote OA mandates
as well as OA publishing on that basis. Perhaps a subtle difference for some,
but fundamental, in my view.
Jan
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde
> <eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jan:
>>
>> I thought for a long time that conflating the two was wrong, but I have
>> changed my view on that. On Michael Eisen's blog, two comments, one by John
>> C and one by JJ, illustrate the point.
>>
>> Let's start with JJ, a grad student looking for a postdoc or assistant prof
>> position, but it could also be someone up for tenure. These junior
>> researchers need to know that their personal open-access initiatives will be
>> valued. Universities must show real commitment on their part. If they
>> communicate that library subscriptions will disappear in three years,
>> promotion and tenure committees will be on notice, all faculty will be on
>> notice that the university is serious about the change.
>>
>> John C is a researcher who paid gold open access out of his research grants.
>> The overhead on his grants sponsors his library subscriptions AND he pays
>> the full freight of gold open access. That is not sustainable.
>>
>> Three years is plenty long enough for faculty, libraries, and publishers to
>> adapt to a new reality, and it is short enough for the transition not to
>> impact junior researchers adversely.
>>
>> Stevan will say that gold open access is not necessary. And he is right, but
>> green open access has been moving too slowly and it requires mandates that
>> will be difficult to enforce in the long term. The quality of institutional
>> repositories is sufficient for access to research, but it is not at the
>> level necessary for long-term archiving. For institutions participating in
>> green open access, all the costs of open access are additive to subscription
>> costs. If IRs are the answer, their quality have to improve and that means
>> more resources are required.
>>
>> I don't know what the end result will be. No one can plan a disruptive
>> change. However, I have come to the view that site licenses cause the
>> stasis. Phasing out of paid subscriptions is the disruption that will set
>> everything else in motion. Then, let faculty, students, publishers,
>> libraries, and startups figure it out. The money saved on subscriptions can
>> help smooth the transitory effects and can be invested in open access.
>>
>> --Eric.
>>
>> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
>>
>> Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
>> Telephone: (626) 376-5415
>> Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
>> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eric,
>>>
>>> Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they
>>> spend ? or waste ? their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the
>>> access issue isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has stymied
>>> progress in my view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.)
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
>>>
>>> How about the following:
>>>
>>> "Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress,
>>> funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to
>>> their published research results. Institutions and their libraries will
>>> phase out all electronic journal subscriptions by May 1st, 2015 and invest
>>> in OA initiatives instead."
>>>
>>> --Eric.
>>>
>>> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> Google Voice: (626) 898-5415
>>> Telephone: (626) 376-5415
>>> Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde
>>> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would simplify it further:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress,
>>>>> funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to
>>>>> their published research results."
>>>>>
>>>>> Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be achieved is best avoided.
>>>>> Avoiding prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal and
>>>>> also leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing researchers,
>>>>> funders and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly more
>>>>> effective ways.
>>>>>
>>>> I support this. A simple sentence powerful and this probably has what we
>>>> want - like all sentences this may need slight crafting.
>>>>
>>>> The reality of the present situation is that we seem to need a mix of
>>>> strategies. What works for one discipline may not work for another. Things
>>>> have changed over the last 10 years and we need to look for changing
>>>> methods, changing finances and changing allies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Murray-Rust
>>>> Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>>> University of Cambridge
>>>> CB2 1EW, UK
>>>> +44-1223-763069
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> GOAL mailing list
>>>> GOAL at eprints.org
>>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GOAL mailing list
>>> GOAL at eprints.org
>>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goa
