The “Statement on position in relation to open access” issued by the Editors of twenty-one important history journals is a very significant development and has not received the discussion it deserves (see http://www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statement-position-relation-open-access ). In particular the Statement contains the following decision in relation to “green” open access when the author does not pay an APC: “The period of embargo we will offer will be 36 MONTHS. We think this is the shortest possible period that would still protect our viability as subscription-funded organisations, which have to pay for copyediting and the management of peer review, and is fully consistent with the need to make research publicly available.” Given the importance of the journals listed in the Statement this decision will have a major impact not only upon the academic history community world-wide but also upon the substantial readership of history journals outside academia.
Although the Statement comes from the Editors it has to be assumed that the decision to raise the embargo period to 36 months is made with the blessing of the journals’ proprietors. Many of the journals on the list are owned by publishers with embargo periods shorter than 36 months, even for humanities journals, so the question needs to be asked: is this Statement the precursor for a general increase in the length of embargo periods? One of the predictions made by critics of new open access policies in the UK is that publishers will exploit the weaknesses in the Finch Report, increase embargo periods and stunt the growth in open access repository content. The rationale given by the Editors of the History journals for the increase in the embargo period also needs to be challenged. Where is their evidence that their subscription base will be harmed by short embargo periods? Can they name any journal in any subject field that has ceased publication because of the deposit of content in open access repositories? Repository content on open access is now at a sufficiently high level that even a minor impact upon subscriptions would have been noticed by now. The only reason for cancellation for which there is any evidence is when unjustified increases in subscription rates have occurred. I have heard it said that the longer usage half-life of humanities journals puts them at greater risk over a longer period, but a longer half-life does not cause librarians to cancel subscriptions; if anything it reinforces the long-term value of a journal. The Statement also misses an opportunity to embrace the value of both green and gold open access to those who read the history journals and consequently the value of open access to the history institutions and to the journal publishers. It may happen that a large number of history authors are able to fund an APC but the present signs are not hopeful. A longer green embargo period will certainly reduce usage of the journal content over time, and there is no evidence that the reduction in open access usage will be made up through increased sales of subscriptions or single articles. The emphasis should surely be upon using open access to increase the readership of the history journals. Without a high readership the future of not only the journals but also of the history research institutions could be put at risk in a climate of reduced public funding. It is in this broad context that I find the History journal Editors’ Statement so disappointing. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL http://www.friendofopenaccess.org.uk
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
