Stevan- I appreciate your general support.
First, I want to call the group's attention to our initial response to the editors of Science (see http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/plosScience.htm). We are also currently drafting a broader response to the growing set of journals that are siding with Science (see, for example, http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/rup-tjo032201.html. I'm not quite as pessimistic as you about our chances for success. > (i) There is no reason journals should pre-emptively agree to give > away their own contents online at this time. If researchers wait > until many or most journals find a reason for doing so, it will be a > very, very long wait. This is the reason why we have organized our "boycott". Journal publishers are a very conservative lot. We are hoping that economic pressure, rather than good will, will force a change in policy. There is some evidence that journals are concerned by the growing number of people who have agreed to shun non-compliant journals and that they are looking to craft positions that will satisfy them. So long as we respond successfully to their current set of unacceptable proposals, I think they will move rapidly in the right direction. > (ii) Asking authors to choose which journal to submit their > research to on the basis of whether or not the journal agrees to give > away its contents online for free rather than on the basis authors > currently use -- journal quality, reputation, impact factor -- is > again an unreasonable thing to ask, and will result in a long, long > wait. More important, it is an unnecessary thing to ask, as there > is already a means for authors to achieve precisely the same goal > immediately without having to give up anything at all: by > self-archiving their refereed articles themselves, in > interoperable, University Eprint Archives > <http://www.eprints.org>. Three years ago we tried to organize such an effort in biomedical sciences and it was not well received. Although there were many reasons why this proposal did not fly, I think the main reason was a widespread reluctance to adopt anything that seemed to be circumventing peer review. I, of course, understand that self-archiving and peer review are not in conflict, but I worry that this is still a difficult sell to many biologists. In recommending alternatives publication options for the people who support our initiative, we will include self-archiving, along with related options that we hope will take. One option we are considering is the production of something like a GPL for scientific manuscripts which scientists would attach to their manuscripts to remove any copyright restrictions associated with publication. > (iii) Creating new journals, without track-records, to draw away > submissions from the noncompliant established journals, is another > long uphill path, and again it is not at all clear why authors > should prefer to take that path, renouncing their preferred > established journals, when they can have their cake and eat it too > (through self-archiving). We are planning on starting new journals on our own. One would be a high-profile, editorially exclusive journal with a very prominent set of editors and publishers (drawn from our organizers and supporters) and the second would essentially be a series of branded self-archives. Keep up the great work. -Mike Michael Eisen, Ph.D. ([email protected]) Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California at Berkeley http://rana.lbl.gov --Support Unrestricted Access to Scientific Publications-- --Visit http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 1:42 AM Subject: Science Article (Roberts et al.) and Science Editorial > On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Thomas Krichel wrote: > > > interesting article in the Chronicle of HE > > "Scholars Urge a Boycott of Journals That > > Won't Release Articles to Free Archives" > > > > http://chronicle.com/free/2001/03/2001032601t.htm > > See the original Roberts et al. article on which it is based, in > this week's Science: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5512/2318a > > and also "Science's Response" by the Editors: > > http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5512/2318b > > Roberts et al. are comrades-at-arms, so it is regrettable that I have to > express some pessimism about the likelihood of success of their > proposal. My own response to it is appended below. But much more > important is rebutting the Science Editors' Rebuttal to Roberts et al. > in their editorial response (in which they offer a compromise -- freeing > Science's contents on-line 12 months after they are published -- and > suggesting "Government" do the rest). I am preparing a critique entitled > "Too Little, Too Late". Stay tuned. Meanwhile, the comment on Roberts et > al. -- SH > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > THE SELF-ARCHIVING ALTERNATIVE > > Stevan Harnad > > > Roberts et al., in "Building A "GenBank" of the Published Literature" > <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5512/2318a> argue > compellingly for the following three pleas to publishers and authors: > > It is imperative to free the refereed literature online. To achieve this > goal, the following should be done: > > (1) Established journal publishers should give away their > journal contents online for free. > > (2) Authors should submit preferentially to journals that give > their contents away online for free. > > (3) In place of established journals that do not give away their > contents online for free, new journals (e.g., BioMed Central > <http://www.biomedcentral.com>) should be established that do. > > The goal of freeing the refereed literature online is completely valid, > optimal for science and scholarship, attainable, inevitable, and indeed > already overdue. But these proposed means alas do not look like the > fastest or surest way of attaining that goal, particularly as there is a > tested and proven alternative means that will attain the very same goal > without asking journals to do anything, and without asking authors to > give up anything: > > (i) There is no reason journals should pre-emptively agree to give > away their own contents online at this time. If researchers wait > until many or most journals find a reason for doing so, it will be a > very, very long wait. > > (ii) Asking authors to choose which journal to submit their > research to on the basis of whether or not the journal agrees to give > away its contents online for free rather than on the basis authors > currently use -- journal quality, reputation, impact factor -- is > again an unreasonable thing to ask, and will result in a long, long > wait. More important, it is an unnecessary thing to ask, as there > is already a means for authors to achieve precisely the same goal > immediately without having to give up anything at all: by > self-archiving their refereed articles themselves, in > interoperable, University Eprint Archives > <http://www.eprints.org>. > > (iii) Creating new journals, without track-records, to draw away > submissions from the noncompliant established journals, is another > long uphill path, and again it is not at all clear why authors > should prefer to take that path, renouncing their preferred > established journals, when they can have their cake and eat it too > (through self-archiving). > > The details of the self-archiving alternative (including questions of > copyright and embargo) are fully described in "For Whom the Gate > Tolls? How and Why to Free the Refereed Research Literature Online > Through Author/Institution Self-Archiving, Now." > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Stevan Harnad [email protected] > Professor of Cognitive Science [email protected] > Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582 > Computer Science fax: +44 23-80 592-865 > University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ > Highfield, Southampton http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/ > SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM > > NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free > access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the > American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01): > > > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > > You may join the list at the site above. > > Discussion can be posted to: > > [email protected] >
