Then don't reply to me all the time, Stevan. Besides, I would dearly like to hear some other voices in response.
Jan On 20 Jun 2012, at 21:12, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Gentle reader, please skip this if you have heard the same things > said by me and Jan over and over. If Jan posts again, I won't > reply. Please do not construe my silence as assent! > > On 2012-06-20, at 2:54 PM, Jan Velterop wrote: > >> On 20 Jun 2012, at 16:21, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >>> On 2012-06-20, at 10:30 AM, Jan Velterop wrote: >>> >>>> The mistake authors make is to 'pay' publishers for their services >>>> by transferring copyright. >>> >>> Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional subscriptions. >> >> What does [Publishers are paid, in full, by institutional >> subscriptions] mean here? > > It means the full costs of publication are being paid. No one > is doing anything without getting paid for it. > >> What is being paid is enough to pay for publication, I agree. >> But it's not paid for publication, it's paid for access. That's >> precisely the problem. > > What is the problem? If the costs are covered (and covered > handsomely) the costs are covered. What is your point? > >> Plain vanilla [free online] access is solving yesterday's problem. > > Yesterday's problem is still today's problem, and it is still > unsolved -- until institutions and funders mandate Green OA. > >> Sometimes one has to leapfrog and anticipate the future. >> CC-BY allows that. OA as simply 'ocular access' doesn't. > > We have even less free OA + CC-BY than plain vanilla > free online OA today. > > How does CC-BY "allow" its solution whereas free online > access doesn't? > > This all sounds very theoretical. But what we need is > real OA, in the world, and there is not only less free > OA + CC-BY than free OA today, but free OA + CC-BY > is harder to get then free OA alone (apart from including > free OA). > > So, practically speaking, what is your point? And in what > sense is CC-BY the solution for anything other than a > self-imposed theoretical puzzle? > >> I'm referring to text mining and re-use rights, or rather >> the lack of it in plain vanilla, before you ask. > > Yes, besides lacking free OA today, we also lack free OA > + CC-BY > > And your point is...? > >> [Green OA works] As long as 'green' means manuscripts, >> yes. If 'green' means the published paper for which the >> copyright has been transferred, no. > > It means the refereed final draft. That's what access-denied > users are denied today. That's what plain vanilla free online > OA gives them -- and it would mean the difference between > night and day for those access-denied users. > > So much for practical reality: Now back to abstract theory: > >> A mandate should make abundantly clear that under no >> circumstances copyright should be transferred to a publisher. > > A mandate should make abundantly clear that the refereed > final draft must be deposited immediately (and made OA no > later than the allowable embargo period). > > If in addition the mandate can be strengthened beyond vanilla > to include copyright retention, that's even better (no embargo!). > > But you forgot to mention how, when we have not yet got the > vanilla mandates, we're going to get the butterscotch-strawberry > ones? > > Should the "even-better" wait for or hold up the "better"? > Especially when the better is already within reach and the > even-better is not? > >> Copyright transfer is a contract. 'Green' mandates rule out >> copyright transfer. Legally and practically. > > All I recall was that they required authors to deposit their > refereed drafts within an embargo period... > >> Researchers shouldn't be enticed into legal conflict zones >> with false assertions that they can transfer legal rights and >> then ignore the fact that they have transferred them. They >> should not transfer them and be advised accordingly. >> Admitting the problem is the first step to a solution. > > I suggest you talk to physicists, who have been doing this > for over 20 years now. You would have had a splendid reason > for them not have done it at all, since 1991. > > And I repeat, everything you are saying applies to the length > of the allowable OA embargo. I have far, far less interest in > that than in mandating the immediate deposit, the keystrokes. > > I haven't the slightest doubt that once ID/OA is universally > mandated, the struggle's over, and the research community > will turn the lights on for the dark deposits forthwith. All this > abstract talk about what the publishers are being paid for > and what rights are transferred is just conceptual > shadow-boxing. > >> Subscriptions pay for access. The fee should be paid >> for the service rendered, which is the organisation of >> peer review and formal publication. Conflating the two >> is the main cause of misunderstanding and conflict. > > The subscription fees are paying for the costs of publication > even if they are designated as contributions to Santa Claus. > > And peer review won't get unbundled from the rest of the > products and services it's wrapped in with until demand for the > rest of the products and services vanishes, because > users are satisfied with just the vanilla final draft (Green OA). > > Then institutions can cancel subscriptions and part of their > windfall savings can be used to pay for the peer review, > as Gold OA. > > But you need to mandate Green OA to get from here to there! > >> Mandates would be an awful lot clearer if the argument that >> "the publication fee is paid in full by subscriptions" were to >> be dropped from the equation. 'Green' mandates are about >> making research results open, and costs nothing; publishing, >> including OA publishing, is about giving those research results >> 'value' and 'context' in the scholarly ego-system, and carries a >> cost, because it involves asking people (publishers) to arrange >> something, professionally, and those people need to be paid. > > Jan: Publication costs are being paid, in full, by subscriptions today. > That's incontestable, even if notionally they're meant to go to Santa > Claus. > > Green mandates supplement that subscription access to the version > of record with free online access to the author's refereed draft. > > That's all there is to it. The rest is a theoretical loop you are inventing > for yourself. > >> CC-BY is not copyright reform. It's using existing copyright effectively, >> and not as a proxy for payment to publishers, that subsequently >> makes it possible - and necessary - to sell subscriptions. > > Whatever it is, there are even fewer authors getting or giving CC-BY > than are giving Green OA, unmandated. Green OA mandates make > the difference even greater. > > Lots of luck trying to get institutions and funders to mandate free access > + CC-BY rather than just free access. Just as long as at least free access > (Green Gratis OA (ID/OA)) gets mandated universally. > > Why are we going on and on like this? Richard's tired of it, and so > are GOAL readers. And it's never anything new. > >> I'm not discussing the length of embargo periods, either. In fact, I don't >> like them at all. 'Gold' OA doesn't need them. > > Yes, but where's the Gold OA? Do you propose to mandate it? > >> Indeed, nobody should even have been thinking about the concept >> of a car until all the horses had [retired]. > > No harm thinking all you like. Just don't let your thinking get in the > way of the Green OA mandates that will get us from here to there instead > of leaving is paralyzed in theoretical thought for yet another lost decade. > > Stevan > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
