Steve- I'm not sure what you're taking with. I agree that universities should take control of their own scholarly content. But are you trying to argue that they have done this? Because I don't view setting up an IR to hold material published in subscription journals as taking ownership of the process - rather it's attempting to have it both ways without actually challenging the system in any meaningful way.
-Mike On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Steve Hitchcock <[email protected]> wrote: A perspective spanning 20 years on this topic that fails to mention repositories hardly begins to tackle the issues or the problems. If we go back 20 years to 1992 we had arXiv, a repository, but barely any e-journals (although most e-journals then were free). Some journals that followed were called 'overlay' journals, because they effectively overlaid peer review on top of arXiv. The problems they solved were: 1 access to peer reviewed electronic content (when there were few peer reviewed journals available electronically) 2 low costs for peer reviewed content These original overlay journals were so successful they later became subscription journals (mainly because they also began to overlay conventional journal production costs on top of peer review). There were few imitators subsequently because the two problems were effectively solved c. 2000 by the mass switch to electronic journals, and the emergence of IRs and green OA journals. This polemic is trying to solve the same problems, but the solutions from the last 20 years are still in place, and it ignores them. The response of many universities has been pathetic, but not for the reasons suggested, and if the problem being addressed is costs rather than access, then the proposals here, to forcibly switch journals to gold OA, risks making the access problem worse and raising total costs higher than is achievable with IRs. It is not enough simply to talk with publishers about reallocation of charges. Instead institutions should be investing in and promoting local published content, ensuring it is made open access to the world locally; also making the inevitable connection between institutional repositories and research data linked to publications, before that too becomes subject to outside control and cost escalation. We can agree that we don't want it to take 15 more years for open access to become the norm. Steve Hitchcock WAIS Group, Building 32 School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK Email: [email protected] Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379   Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 On 1 May 2012, at 15:30, Michael Eisen wrote: > from my blog: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1058 > 20 years of cowardice: the pathetic response of American universities to the crisis in scholarly publishing > By Michael Eisen | May 1, 2012 > When Harvard University says it can not afford something, people notice. So it was last month when a faculty committee examining the future of the universityâs libraries declared that the continued growth of journal subscription fees was unsustainable, even for them. The accompanying calls for faculty action are being hailed as a major challenge to the traditional publishers of scholarly journals. > > Would that it were so. Rather than being a watershed event in the movement to reform scholarly publishing, the tepidness of the committeeâs recommendations, and the silence of the universityâs administration, are just the latest manifestation of the toothless response of American universities to the âserials crisisâ that has plagued libraries for decades. > > Had the leaders major research universities attacked this issue head on when the deep economic flaws in system became apparent, or if theyâd showed even an ounce of spine in the ensuing twenty or so years, the subscription-based model that is the root of the problem would have long ago been eliminated. The solutions have always been clear. Universities should have stopped paying for subscriptions, forcing publishers to adopt alternative economic models. And they should have started to reshape the criteria for hiring, promotion and tenure, so that current and aspiring faculty did not feel compelled to publish in journals that were bankrupting the system. But they did neither, choosing instead to let the problem fester. And even as cries from the library community intensify, our universities continue to shovel billions of dollars a year to publishers while they repeatedly fail to take the simple steps that could fix the problem overnight. > > The roots of the serials crisis > > Virtually all of the problems in scholarly publishing stem from the simple act, repeated millions of times a year, of a scholar signing over copyright in their work to the journal in which their work is to appear. When they do this they hand publishers a weapon that enables them to extract almost unlimited amounts of money from libraries at the same research institutions that produced the work in the first place. > > The problem arises because research libraries are charged with obtaining for scholars at their institution access to the entire scholarly output of their colleagues. Not just the most important stuff. Not just the most interesting stuff. Not just the most affordable stuff. ALL OF IT. And publishers know this. So they raise prices on their existing journals. And they launch new titles. And then they raise their prices. > > What can libraries do? They have to subscribe to these journals. Their clientele wants them â indeed, they need them to do their work. They canât cancel their subscription to Journal X in favor of the cheaper Journal Y, because the contents of X are only available in X. Every publisher is a monopoly selling an essential commodity. No wonder things have gotten out of control. > > And out of control they are. Expenditures on scholarly journals at American research libraries quadrupled from 1986 to 2005, increasing at over three times the rate of inflation. This despite a massive reduction in costs due to a major shift towards electronic dissemination. These rates of growth continue nearly unabated, even in a terrible economy. (For those interested in more details, I point you to SPARC, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, who tracks journal pricing and revenues). > > The opportunity universities missed > > Just as the serials crisis was hitting its stride in the mid-1990â²s, fate handed universities an out â the internet. In the early 1990â²s access to the scholarly literature almost always occurred via print journals. By the end of the decade, virtually all scholarly journals were publishing online. > > This radical transformation in how scholarly works were disseminated should have been accompanied by a corresponding radical shift in the economics of journal publishing. But it barely made a dent. Publishers, who were now primarily shipping electrons instead of ink on paper, kept raising their subscription prices as if nothing had happened. And universities let them get away with it. > > By failing to show even a hint of creativity or initiative in seizing the opportunity presented by the internet to reshape the system of scholarly communication in a productive way, the leaders of American universities condemned themselves to 15 more years (and counting) of rising costs, and decreasing value. Their inaction also cost them the chance to reclaim the primary role they once held (through their university presses) in communicating the output of their scholars. > > But while universities did next to nothing to fix scholarly publishing, others leapt into the fray. A new economic model, which came to be known as âopen accessâ, emerged as an alternative to the subscription journals. Under open access the costs of publishing would be bourn up front by research sponsors, with the finished product freely available to all. In addition to the obvious good greatly expanding the reach of the scholarly literature, open access was largely free of the economic inefficiencies that created the serials crisis in the first place, and enjoyed very strong support from university libraries across the country. But despite its manifold advantages, universities as a whole did little to help it succeed. > > The unholy alliance between journals and universities > > The biggest obstacle to the rise of open access journals was (and to a large extent still is) the major role that journal titles play in how universities evaluate candidates for jobs and promotions. In most academic disciplines, careers are built by publishing papers in prestigious journals â those that are the most selective, and therefore have the most cache. Scholars rising through the ranks of graduate school, the job market, assistant professorships and tenure face a nearly contant barrage of messages telling them that they have to publish in the best journals if they want to succeed at the next step. Never mind that it is far less true than people believe. That people believe it is all that matters. > > Almost everyone I know thinks that simply looking at journal titles is a stupid way to decide who is or is not a good researcher, and yet it remains. There are many reasons why this system persists, but the most important is that universities like it. Administrators love having something like an objective standard that can be applied to all of the candidates for a job, promotion, etc⦠that might allow them to compare not only candidates for one job to each other, but all candidates for any honor across the university. This is perhaps why no university that I know of has taken a forceful stand against the use of journal titles as a major factor in hiring and promotion decisions. And it is, I believe, a major reason why they are unwilling to cut off the flow of money to these journals. > > Itâs never too late > > Although their record is pretty bad, universities could still play a major role in making scholarly publishing work better â and save themselves money in the process â with two simple actions: > >    ⢠Stop the flow of money to subscription journals. Universities should not renew ANY subscriptions. They should, instead, approach them with a new deal â theyâll maintain payments at current levels for 3 more years if the journal(s) commit to being fully open access at the end of that time. >    ⢠Introduce â and heavily promote â new criteria for hiring and promotion that actively discourage the use of journal titles in evaluating candidates. > These ideas are not new. Indeed, the basic outlines appear in a fantastic essay from the Association of Research Librarians published in March 1998, describing the serials crisis and their solutions to fix it: > > The question inevitably asked is, âWho goes first?â Which major universities and which scholarly societies have the will, confidence, and financial resources to get the process started? > > Our answer is simple and to the point. It is time for the presidents of the nationâs major research universities to fish or cut bait. Collectively, they have both opportunity and motiveâand, in the Association of American Universities, they have an organization with the capacity to convene the necessary negotiations. > > Itâs amazing that essentially noboby took them up on the challenge the first time. Letâs hope it doesnât take  another 15 years. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Michael Eisen, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
