I believe that Stevan is logically right on all counts, but one problem remains that is not addressed here: people decide upon the behaviour on the basis of a mixed bag of facts and conjectures. Facts are used to constrain conjectures within the general perimeter of a risk analysis.
Each category of players (researchers, librarians, publishers) follows its own kind of risk analysis. In short, facts are distinct from conjectures, but acts also differ from adventures... How people decide to act or not cannot avoid risk analysis aka conjectures Stevan's analysis covers the logical side of the argument flawlessly; whether it covers the psychology of the players is a different matter. In particular, I worry that this starkly logical approach may not be the best way to convince people. If it were, we would no longer need rhetoric and life might be simpler, but this is an unrealistic assumption. Jean-Claude Guédon Le samedi 14 septembre 2013 à 15:09 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > PM-R: Stevan Harnad's goal [is] that Green OA will destroy the > subscription market > > (http://poynder.blogspot.ch/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html ) > > > > My only goal is (and always has been) 100% OA: no more, no less. > > > The means of attaining that goal is Green OA mandates from funders and > institutions. > > > The mandates require authors (1) to deposit their final, refereed > drafts in their institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance > for publication > > > and (2) to set access to the immediate-deposit as OA as soon as > possible > > > and (3) to rely on the repository's facilitated copy-request Button to > provide Almost-OA during any embargo/ > > > The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. > > > > PM-R: On the one hand the advocates of Green OA seem to be > telling the publishers "please give us Green OA mandates - > they won't hurt you" and on the other "Green OA is going to > disrupt your business". > > > No. Green OA advocates are asking funders and institutions "please > give us Green OA mandates." > > > What is asked from publishers is to endorse setting access to the > immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- -- as over 60% of > publishers already do-- rather than after an embargo. > > > The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. > > > > > PM-R: Why should any publisher provide for deposition of > something that is designed to disrupt their business? > > > > The immediate-deposit in the repository has nothing to do with the > publisher. > > > What is helpful from publishers is to endorse setting access to the > immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- as over 60% of publishers > already do. > > > The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture. > > > > Stevan Harnad > From:goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad > Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection > > > End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, cilip): "In the interest > of making research outputs publicly available; shorter and > consistent or no embargo periods are the desired outcome. > However, publishers… have argued that short embargo periods > make librarians cancel subscriptions to their journals… The > BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction." > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > > I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that > keeps being voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike: > > I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and > unaffordable; publisher profits are excessive; the > subscription (license) model is unsustainable: the > subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force it > to evolve toward Gold OA. > > II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened > by (Green) OA, which risks making the subscription model > unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be protected in > order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA. > > Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA > for all who cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they > disrupt the subscription model. > > Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from > all who cannot afford subscription access, and (d) they > protect the subscription model from disruption. > > Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to > provide immediate OA for all who cannot afford subscription > access) also feel beholden to promise (d) (i.e. to protect the > subscription model from disruption)? > > University of Liège and FRSN Belgium have adopted -- > and HEFCE and BIS have both proposed adopting -- the > compromise resolution to this contradiction: > > Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed > draft of all articles immediately upon acceptance for > publication, but if the author wishes to comply with a > publisher embargo on Green OA, do not require access to the > deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the deposit be made > Closed Access during the allowable embargo period and let the > repository's automated eprint-request Button tide over the > needs of research and researchers by making it easy for users > to request and authors to provide a copy for research purposes > with one click each. > > This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still > disrupts serials publication and makes subscriptions > unsustainable, chances are that it's time for publishers to > phase out the products and services for which there is no > longer a market in the online era and evolve instead toward > something more in line with the real needs of the > PostGutenberg research community. > > Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the > (disruptive) pressure of necessity. Is there any reason to > protect the journal publishing industry from evolutionary > pressure, at the expense of research progress? > > Stevan Harnad > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- 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
