On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jan Velterop <velte...@gmail.com> wrote:
(1) Stevan trades off expected speed of achieving OA against quality of the > resulting OA. It's his right to do that. I just point out that that's what > it is. That's my right. He calls it 'deprecating green OA'; I prefer to > call it 'comparing outcome'. > > (2) My 'jumping with a closed parachute' is not in any way a criticism of > green OA or advocating green OA. It *is* a criticism of presenting green OA > (in which the publication of articles being paid for by subscriptions) as > the *only* way until all scholarly literature is available as green OA, and > only then consider alternatives to the subscription system. I consider that > deeply unrealistic, utterly unfeasible and not viable, and I favour > developing gold OA as a replacement of the subscription system *alongside* > green OA, gradually replacing the subscription system. > > (3) The agreement reached at the BOAI to pursue both strategies (later > called green and gold) proved short-lived. This has been most unfortunate, > in my view. Stevan has introduced the idea that gold and green are > rivalrous. They aren't. They both contribute to growing OA. They both come > with a transition price. In one case the price is lower quality of the > resulting OA; in the other it is money. > Green vs. Gold is not a question of rivalry, it's a question of priority. The reason Green has to come first is very simple: (i) Gold OA journal publishing is vastly over-priced today and (ii) the money to pay for it (even once it has been downsized to a fair, affordable price) is still locked into institutional journal subscriptions. Green OA (which is now only 25% when unmandated, but can be increased to 100% when mandated) provides the way both to release the subscription money to pay for Gold OA and to force journals to downsize to a fair, affordable, sustainable price for Gold OA (namely, the price of managing peer review alone, as a per-review (sic) service: no more print edition; no more online edition; all access-provision and archiving offloaded onto the worldwide network of Green OA institutional repositories): Institutions can only cancel subscriptions when the subscribed content is available as Green OA. Until then they can only double-pay (whether for hybrid subscription/Gold journals or for subscription journals plus Gold journals). And publishers will not unbundle and cut costs to the minimum (peer review service alone, nothing else) until cancellations force them to do so. And (before you say it): If a Gold OA journal enters the market today with a truly rock-bottom price, for the peer-review service alone, the money to pay for it is still over and above what is being paid for subscriptions today, because the subscriptions cannot be cancelled until most journals (or at least the most important ones) likewise downsize to the bare essentials. And most journals are not downsizing to the bare essentials. And institutions and funders cannot make journals downsize. All institutions and funders can do is pay them more than what they are paying them already (which is exactly what the publisher lobby has managed to persuade the UK and the Finch Committee to do). I do not call that a "parachute" toward a "soft landing": I call it good publisher PR, to preserve their bottom-lines. And for most institutions and funders, it not only costs more money, but it is even more unaffordable and unsustainable than the serials status-quo today (which is reputedly in crisis). The promise from hybrid Gold publishers to cut subscription costs in proportion to growth in Gold uptake revenues, even if kept, is unaffordable, because it involves paying more, in advance; and all it does is lock in the current status quo insofar as total publisher revenue is concerned, in exchange for OA that researchers can already provide for themselves via Green, since publication and its costs are already being fully paid for -- via subscriptions. Nor is "price competition" the corrective: Authors don't pick journals for their price but for their quality standards, which means their peer-review standards. It would be nothing short of grotesque to imagine that it should be otherwise (think about it!). The corrective is global Green OA mandates: That, and not price competition between Gold OA journals, will see to it that the huge, unnecessary overlay of commercially co-bundled products and services that scholarly journal publishing inherited from the Gutenberg (and Robert-Maxwell) era is scaled down, at long last, to the only thing that scholars and scientists really still want and need in the online era, which is a reliable peer review service, provided by a hierarchy of journals, in different fields, each with its own established track record for quality -- hence selectivity -- at the various quality levels required by the field. So what's at issue is not a trade-off of "speed" for "quality" (whether peer review quality, or re-use rights) at all, but a trade-off of speed vs. the status quo. And yes, that's speed, in the first instance, toward 100% free online access (Gratis OA) -- of which, let us remind ourselves, we currently have only about 25% via Green and maybe another 12% via Gold. The rest of the "quality" -- Gold OA and Libre OA -- will come once we have 100% Green OA, and publishers are forced to downsize and convert to Gold. But not if we keep playing the snail's-pace game of paying pre-emptively for Gold while research access and impact keeping being lost, year upon year -- all in order to cushion the landing for the only ones that are comfortable with the status quo: toll-access publishers. And please let's stop solemnly invoking the BOAI as a justification for continuing this no-sum, no-win game of no-OA unless you pay extra. Publication costs are being paid, in full (and fulsomely) today. What's missing is OA. And Green OA mandates will provide it. The rest will take care of itself, as a natural process of adaptation by publishers to the new reality of global Green OA. Stevan Harnad On 29 Oct 2012, at 13:18, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Richard Poynder < > ri...@richardpoynder.co.uk> wrote: > >> ** ** >> >> On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> >> **** >> >> *SH: *Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA >> journals was what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been >> lobbying for at the time **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *JV:* Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate. >> What we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I >> still advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open >> access publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we >> realised that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving >> open access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing >> repositories, and the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com** >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *RP:* I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its >> repository service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry? >> >> http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913 >> > > VT & JV certainly were not lobbying for Green OA self-archiving before or > at the Gibson Committee Inquiry. > > After the Committee's Report, BMC did in fact offer a (paid) repository > service (presumably to help fulfill the demand for Green OA in response to > the Committee's recommendations and the ensuing RCUK mandate). > > JV, however, was (and is) continuing to deprecate Green > OA<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg2957>as > not "true" or "full" OA (and as "jumping with a closed > parachute <http://theparachute.blogspot.ca/>"). > > These are not just differences in whims but profound strategic differences > that have had profound effects on the subsequent course of events in the > evolution of OA. The strategic difference is very simple to describe: > > JV has been consistently advocating a direct transition from subscription > publishing to (Libre) Gold OA publishing, with Green OA self-archiving > serving only as a temporary and inadequate supplement. JV has not, however, > proposed a viable means of making this direct transition happen -- and the > direct transition is certainly not happening of its own accord (or at least > not at a pace that in which anyone can take > comfort<http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/bjorkspring.png> > !). > > In contrast, I have been consistently advocating the adoption of Green OA > self-archiving mandates by institutions and funders as a viable, immediate > means of making a direct transition to 100% OA (Gratis, Green) happen -- > not just as a means of eventually inducing a transition to 100% Gold OA. > > [I do believe, however -- and have given > reasons<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/>to believe -- that globally > mandated Green Gratis OA will indeed > also prove to be the surest and fastest means of inducing a subsequent > transition to 100% Libre Gold OA as well, and at a fair, affordable, > sustainable price.] > > JV criticizes Green Gratis OA as inadequate and as jumping with a closed > parachute, but he does not provide a realistic transition mechanism. > > I support the Green OA mandates recommended by the 2004 Gibson Report (but > with a much stronger compliance verification mechanism) as a realistic > transition mechanism (for achieving Green Gratis OA) and criticize > pre-emptive payment for Gold/Libre OA as overpriced, unscalable, > unsustainable, unnecessary -- and a distraction from and retardant to > achieving an immediate transition to 100% OA (Green, Gratis). > > The issue now, for those who have not discerned it among all these arcane > strategic nuances, is the 2012 Finch Committee's decision to reverse the > 2004 Gibson Committee's recommendation to (*G*) mandate Green and merely > experiment with funding Gold and instead now (*F*) mandate and fund Gold > and relegate Green to the supplementary role of data-archiving, grey > literature and digital preservation. > > In 2004 the UK government rejected the Green OA recommendation of the > Gibson Committee, but the RCUK decided to follow it anyway. > > In 2012 the UK government has accepted the Gold OA recommendation of the > Finch Committee (which it commissioned) and the RCUK has taken an > intermediate course -- allowing Green but favouring Gold. > > The criticism of the RCUK policy is over (1) how clear it will make it > that authors can still choose Green, (2) constraints on journal choice, (3) > double-paying publishers for hybrid Gold out of scarce research funds, and > (4) the strong incentive the new RCUK policy gives to publishers to offer > hybrid Gold and lengthen Green embargoes to force authors to pick Gold over > Green. > > Stevan Harnad > > PS The failed link in my comment on Richard's Interview was meant to be > this: revolutionary core > recommendation<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm> > -- > and here it is: > > *Select Committee on Science and Technology > Tenth > Report<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39902.htm> > (2004) > > Summary<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm> > * > [boldface added] > > Academic libraries are struggling to purchase subscriptions to all the > journal titles needed by their users. This is due both to the high and > increasing journal prices imposed by commercial publishers and the > inadequacy of library budgets to meet the demands placed upon them by a > system supporting an ever increasing volume of research. Whilst there are a > number of measures that can be taken by publishers, libraries and academics > to improve the provision of scientific publications, a Government strategy > is urgently needed. > > *This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions > establish institutional repositories on which their published output can be > stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online. It also > recommends that Research Councils and other Government funders mandate > their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all of their articles in this > way. *The Government will need to appoint a central body to oversee the > implementation of the repositories; to help with networking; and to ensure > compliance with the technical standards needed to provide maximum > functionality. Set-up and running costs are relatively low, making > institutional repositories a cost-effective way of improving access to > scientific publications. > > *Institutional repositories will help to improve access to journals but a > more radical solution may be required in the long term. Early indications > suggest that the author-pays publishing model could be viable.* We remain > unconvinced by many of the arguments mounted against it. Nonetheless, this > Report concludes that *further experimentation is necessary*, > particularly to establish the impact that a change of publishing models > would have on learned societies and in respect of the "free rider" problem. > In order *to encourage such experimentation the Report recommends that > the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded > researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish*. The UK > Government has failed to respond to issues surrounding scientific > publications in a coherent manner and we are not convinced that it would be > ready to deal with any changes to the publishing process. The Report > recommends that Government formulate a strategy for future action as a > matter of urgency. > > The preservation of digital material is an expensive process that poses a > significant technical challenge. This Report recommends that the British > Library receives sufficient funding to enable it to carry out this work. It > also recommends that work on new regulations for the legal deposit of > non-print publications begins immediately. Failure to take these steps > would result in a substantial breach in the intellectual record of the UK. > > *The market for scientific publications is international. The UK cannot > act alone. For this reason we recommended that the UK Government act as a > proponent for change on the international stage and lead by example. This > will ultimately benefit researchers across the globe.* > > * > * > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
