Let's please distinguish between (1) mandating (requiring) to do X and (2) offering a subsidy to do X.
Gratis Green OA self-archiving of journal articles can be and is being mandated, unproblematically (with the ID/OA Immediate-Deposit/Optional OA compromise). Finding the money to pay for Gold OA and/or CC-BY and/or for books is another matter, with problems that do not beset mandating ID/OA for articles. So let's keep thinking about subsidizing Gold OA and/or CC-BY and/or books. But meanwhile, let's mandate ID/OA for articles, unproblematically. And let's not handicap those mandates with needless constraints that apply only to Gold, CC-BY, or books. Stevan Harnad On 2013-01-18, at 10:13 AM, "Reckling, Falk, Dr." <falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at> wrote: > I'd like to mention that some funding agencies and initiatives which have > already launched some interesting initiatives which fund OA books or are > prepared to do it in the future: > > OAPEN: http://www.oapen.org/home > > Austrian Science Fund (FWF): > http://www.fwf.ac.at/en/projects/stand_alone_publications.html > > German Research Fundation (DFG): > http://www.dfg.de/foerderung/info_wissenschaft/info_wissenschaft_12_53/index.html > > A Consortium Approach to OA Monographs in Sweden: > http://www.ep.liu.se/aboutliep/pdf/progress_report_oa_monopraphs.pdf > > Best, > > Falk > > __________________________________________________ > Falk Reckling, PhD > Social Science and Humanities / Strategic Analysis / Open Access > Head of Units > Austrian Science Fund (FWF) > Sensengasse 1 > A-1090 Vienna > email: falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at<mailto:falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at> > Tel.: +43-1-5056740-8301 > Mobil: + 43-699-19010147 > Web: http://www.fwf.ac.at/de/contact/personen/reckling_falk.html > ________________________________ > Von: goal-boun...@eprints.org [goal-boun...@eprints.org]" im Auftrag von > "Jean-Claude Guédon [jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca] > Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Jänner 2013 15:19 > An: goal@eprints.org > Cc: SPARC Open Access Forum > Betreff: [GOAL] Re: Statement: Australian Open Access Support Group applauds > new ARC open access policy > > The issue of books has always been a difficult terrain within the OA > community. A narrow interpretation of Open Access tends to limit its reach to > journal articles, and this choice has the obvious advantage of leaving the > issue of royalties aside. However, it should be remembered that scholars who > write scholarly monographs or contribute to scholarly anthologies do not > generally do it for money, but for the same kind of goals that scholars do > when they publish in articles. Consequently, drawing a red line around the > royalty issue is really a moot point in the great majority of case and can be > justified only on the ground of wanting to simplify matters to the extreme. > At the same time, it must be remembered that books and even anthologies carry > more weight in most SSH (social science and humanities) areas. leaving them > aside would be like telling scientists that, for whatever reason, publishing > in the most prestigious journals cannot be taken into account. And citation > trackers, until very recently, have also systematically neglected books > despite their obvious importance. > > Now, let us look at the issues of books with regard to the ARC policy. > > Books do not have “less developed mechanisms for open access copyright > clearance than journal articles”. They have better developed mechanisms for > copyright transfer, and greater justification for closed access. There is no > simple parallel between scholarly book publishing and scholarly journal > publishing. The industries are very different, and convergence is slow in > coming though we may be starting on that path. > > I believe this statement to be very poorly written. In this I agree with > Arthur. But I am not sure that they have greater justification for closed > access. And I do not understand why scholarly book publishing and scholarly > journal publishing are so vastly different. Book publishing in general, yes; > but scholarly book publishing works about the same way as journal publishing > (with the minor difference of insignificant royalties). If there are so many > justifications for closed access to books, why are some academic presses > practising open access? Are they crazy? Unrealistic? Whatever? > > If the ARC policy extends to books, and according to the AOASG statement also > to ibooks and ebooks, and to a lesser extent but still importantly book > contributions (chapters), then it is easy to predict: > > 1. Very few books will be published as the outcomes of a research > project. Book publishers incur real costs (editorial, printing, stock and > distribution), especially research or review books, and require closed access > to recover costs over much longer timeframes than articles. They will simply > refuse to publish books that are to be made open access, unless heavily > subsidized. > > 2. Very few ibooks will be published as outcomes of a research project. > Although the iTunes policy is that free ibooks (ie open access) are accepted, > most people wanting to publish a research output as an ibook (.iba format for > iPad) will want to recover some of their development cost. This will be less > significant in the less interactive ..pub format. > > > 1. It is true that book publishers incur real costs, but so do journal > publishers, especially when they maintain a paper version, as is still the > case in a majority of SSH journals. Then, even printing, stock and > distribution issues are shared by both worlds. > > The life cycle of scholarly books (and articles within anthologies) may or > may not be longer than those of journal articles: it all depends on the > discipline, and the best proof of this is JSTOR which is a success. But > Arthur is not really speaking about life cyles of articles; he is speaking > about cost recovery of journals and articles. Actually, given the present > price of many scholarly books - anyone looking at catalogues from Sage or > similar publishers can confirm this point - few individuals buy them, which > means that the scholarly book market depends on library demand as heavily as > scholarly journals. > > Finally, in many countries (e.g. Canada, France, Italy, etc.), scholarly > books are heavily subsidized to the point that, for these books, publishers > really face a risk-free world. And not so long ago, most US university > presses were in a position to work at a loss, which means that their books > were subsidized locally. In fact, ever since Johns Hopkins U. Presss was > founded, university presses original mandate was to publish books that could > not succeed commercially but were important for the growth of knowledge. > > 2. Arthur makes a prediction that does not appear substantiated. If > university presses that already practise OA decide to produce eBooks (why > limit oneself to iBooks?), they will simply decrease many of their > production, storage and distribution costs, and this will help them > financially in their effort to promote book OA. > > One has to doubt whether the ARC intends such undesirable consequences, and > if it has thought this through. I just mention newspaper articles, video > recordings, music scores, film and play scripts, photographs, architectural > designs, computer programs, patents, and silicon chip designs, without going > into detail. > > I will not speculate on whether ARC has thought the issue through or not, but > it is true that scholarly publishing will eventually move across the whole > gamut of document types one can imagine, plus the data behind it. However, a > scholarly video will maintain with a commercial video the same kind of > relationship that a scholarly book maintains with a novel or a cookbook: > although superfically alike, they enter entirely different economic circuits > and should, therefore, be treated accordingly. Conflating all kinds of > codices into one lump does not help thinking through the digital mutation we > are experiencing. In fact, if we pushed the argument further, we could say > that because scientists use writing in their work, it should be treated like > any other form of writing, from a laundry bill to a D. Steele novel. Moving > down that road will quickly lead us into absurdities. > > In conclusion, I am not saying that the ARC policy is perfect; but I am > saying that policy formulations that do include scholarly books and > anthologies make a lot of sense if one is interested in thinking about Open > Access as an important tool for the great conversation of knowledge, be it in > the STM disciplines, or in SSH. And, once and for all, let us forget about > this artificial red line dealing with the royalty issue. In fact, all > subsidized, scholarly, books should exclude the possibility of royalties. > > Incidentally, mandates for depositing research publications into > institutional/central/thematic repositories should clearly extend to SSH > publications in whatever form, codex, journals, etc.. > > Best, > > Jean-Claude Guédon > > Le vendredi 18 janvier 2013 à 00:41 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > Many thanks to Arthur Sale for posting this. When I saw these (obvious) > howlers in the ARC Policy I assumed the policy-makers (or the policy-writers) > had fallen asleep at the wheel (and I gave up). > > > Let's hope that Arthur's firm and confident corrective will be noticed and > heeded. > > > The ARC gaffe is nothing compared to the UK's Finch/RCUK gaffe, which was > done -- and has since been defended -- with eyes wide shut... > > > Stevan Harnad > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Arthur Sale > <a...@ozemail.com.au<mailto:a...@ozemail.com.au>> wrote: > Danny > > > > I believe this AOASG statement contains an error. It states that the ARC > policy applies to all research outputs of an ARC project, including books. > While this can be inferred from the text, it is an extraordinary claim which > will be ineffective and cannot have been intended by the ARC. > > > > Books do not have “less developed mechanisms for open access copyright > clearance than journal articles”. They have better developed mechanisms for > copyright transfer, and greater justification for closed access. There is no > simple parallel between scholarly book publishing and scholarly journal > publishing. The industries are very different, and convergence is slow in > coming though we may be starting on that path. > > > > If the ARC policy extends to books, and according to the AOASG statement also > to ibooks and ebooks, and to a lesser extent but still importantly book > contributions (chapters), then it is easy to predict: > > 1. Very few books will be published as the outcomes of a research > project. Book publishers incur real costs (editorial, printing, stock and > distribution), especially research or review books, and require closed access > to recover costs over much longer timeframes than articles. They will simply > refuse to publish books that are to be made open access, unless heavily > subsidized. > > 2. Very few ibooks will be published as outcomes of a research project. > Although the iTunes policy is that free ibooks (ie open access) are accepted, > most people wanting to publish a research output as an ibook (.iba format for > iPad) will want to recover some of their development cost. This will be less > significant in the less interactive .pub format. > > One has to doubt whether the ARC intends such undesirable consequences, and > if it has thought this through. I just mention newspaper articles, video > recordings, music scores, film and play scripts, photographs, architectural > designs, computer programs, patents, and silicon chip designs, without going > into detail. > > > > The statement that “The AOASG particularly commends the ARC for requiring > publications to be made available through institutional repositories” is also > incorrect, or rather overstated. The ARC policy makes it clear that deposit > in a repository is not necessary, if the research output is already available > elsewhere on the Internet in an open access form (for example in a subject > repository, on a website, in iTunes, in an open access journal, or as an OA > article in a hybrid journal). The policy does not mandate open access > journals and similar routes (good), but it does not inhibit their natural > growth either (also good). It sets institutional repositories as the OA > mechanism of ultimate resort, and as a compulsory location for a metadata > record and a pointer to an OA full-text. > > > > One could improve on the ARC policy, of course, in order to improve global > discoverability and shorten the excessive embargo delay. The guidelines that > will back up the policy will be especially valuable, as these will be more > influential on grant recipients than reading between the lines. Just imagine > the effect if the policy had stated: > > “the ARC requires that any article publications arising from an ARC supported > research project must be open access and globally discoverable within a six > (6) month period from the date of publication. Discoverability of the > full-text of the publication through Google Scholar is regarded as proof of > meeting this requirement.” > > Arthur Sale > > University of Tasmania > > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org>] On Behalf > Of Danny Kingsley > Sent: Monday, 14 January 2013 7:38 AM > To: goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>; > cai...@googlegroups.com<mailto:cai...@googlegroups.com>; > ao...@mailman.anu.edu.au<mailto:ao...@mailman.anu.edu.au> > Subject: [GOAL] Statement: Australian Open Access Support Group applauds new > ARC open access policy > > > > > > STATEMENT > Australian Open Access Support Group applauds new ARC open access policy > > > The Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG) applauds the Australian > Research Council (ARC) in their implementation of a new open access policy. > > > > The ARC posted their open access policy on their website on Monday 7 January. > The ARC Open Access Policy http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/open_access.htm > states: > > the ARC requires that any publications arising from an ARC supported research > project must be deposited into an open access institutional repository within > a twelve (12) month period from the date of publication. > > > > The AOASG particularly commends the ARC for requiring publications to be made > available through institutional repositories. This method of making work open > access uses the substantial institutional repository network in place across > Australian institutions. It also avoids the potentially costly result of a > mandate that requires publication in open access journals through the payment > of article processing charges. > > > > This policy differs from the “NHMRC revised policy on the dissemination of > research findings” > http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/policy/dissemination-research-findings > (introduced on 1 July 2012) in two important ways. > > > > 1. Unlike the NHMRC policy which only relates to journal articles > resulting from funded research, the ARC policy will apply to all publication > outputs resulting from funded research. This will include books and book > chapters which currently have less developed mechanisms for open access > copyright clearance than journal articles. > > > > 2. The NHMRC policy took effect from 1 July 2012, and all journal > articles from any funded research (regardless of the grant under which it was > funded) published after that date are required to be submitted within 12 > months of publication to an institutional repository. The ARC policy is not > retrospective, and relates specifically to publications resulting from the > Funding Rules and Agreements released after 1 January 2013. This means there > will be a period of some time between the funding allocation and publication > of the work. This longer implementation period presents an opportunity to > address some of the issues facing researchers who publish in outlets other > than journal articles. > > > > The AOASG is a consortium of six Australian universities which supports > Australian institutions and researchers by providing information about, and > support for, the development and implementation of open access policies. The > particular issues facing the humanities and social sciences in the open > access debate will be an early focus for the Group. > > > > Still in early implementation phase, the AOASG will have a web presence > available shortly. > > > > > > Dated: 14 January 2013 > > > > > Further information: > Dr Danny Kingsley, Executive Officer AOASG > > e: danny.kings...@anu.edu.au<mailto:danny.kings...@anu.edu.au> p: 02 6125 6839 > > Australian National University, Charles Sturt University, Macquarie > University, Newcastle University, Queensland University of Technology and > Victoria University > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > -- > > [X] > > Jean-Claude Guédon > Professeur titulaire > Littérature comparée > Université de Montréal > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
