[GOAL] Re: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
Stevan Harnad writes > Mike Eisen, in his splendid, timely op-ed article, The article, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html contains the statement. "Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling subscriptions." Do you agree with this? Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
Stevan Harnad writes > Mike Eisen, in his splendid, timely op-ed article, The article, at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html contains the statement. "Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling subscriptions." Do you agree with this? Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel
[GOAL] Re: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
On 2012-01-12, at 7:14 AM, FrederickFriend wrote: > I am surprised by Steve [Hitchcock's] view that "calls to abandon library > journal subscriptions > are ultimately antithetical to repositories". It would be helpful if Steve > could explain his viewpoint in more detail. Because *until they are made freely accessible online* (Green OA), researchers still need access to those journal articles. Hence universal Green OA mandates must come before any talk of journal cancelation. > I can understand an argument that if subscriptions are cancelled, some > journals may die and therefore the versions currently published in those > journals will not be available for deposit in repositories. But under that > scenario two other version types would still be available for deposit in > repositories: the author's final version, and the OA journal version if > publication switches from subscription journals to OA journals. Abandoning > the current high-cost journal subscriptions would enable expenditure to be > spent more effectively either by adding peer review to the author's final > version in a repository, or by paying the charges for publication in OA > journals with simultaneous deposit in a repository. Under either of these > models a university would retain the administrative value it gains by having > all its researchers' publications in its repository. Researchers would gain > by having immediate open access instead of open access delayed by a > publisher's embargo. Maintaining the current high-cost library subscriptions > only delays a large-scale switch to open access. Once Green OA is mandated *universally*, you can think of cancelling. But not until: What the research community needs, urgently, is free online access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output. Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 100% Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing (which is not in the hands of the research community) and it also requires the funds to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% Green OA, the research community's access and impact problems are already solved. If and when 100% Green OA should cause significant cancellation pressure (no one knows whether or when that will happen, because OA Green grows anarchically, article by article, not journal by journal) then the cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, downsizing and eventually a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing on the part of journals. As subscription revenues shrink, institutional windfall savings from cancellations grow. If and when journal subscriptions become unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be low enough, and institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, because publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service provision alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and access-provision and archiving onto the global network of OA Institutional Repositories. Green OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA. Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: Anna Gacs. The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. L'Harmattan. 99-106.http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/ Stevan Harnad, EOS > Fred Friend > Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
[GOAL] Re: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Thomas Krichel wrote: > Â Stevan Harnad writes >> Mike Eisen, in his splendid, timely op-ed article... > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html > Â [wrote]: "Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling > subscriptions." > > Â Do you agree with this? No, and I explained why, in my posting. "...cancelling journals when their articles are not otherwise accessible is not a realistic option for institutional libraries (since their researchers still need access to them). " So why are you asking me this question? Stevan Harnad ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Thomas Krichel wrote: > ?Stevan Harnad writes >> Mike Eisen, in his splendid, timely op-ed article... > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html > ?[wrote]: "Libraries should cut off their supply of money by canceling > subscriptions." > > ?Do you agree with this? No, and I explained why, in my posting. "...cancelling journals when their articles are not otherwise accessible is not a realistic option for institutional libraries (since their researchers still need access to them). " So why are you asking me this question? Stevan Harnad
[GOAL] Re: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
Mike Eisen, in his splendid, timely op-ed article, is completely right that the publisher anti-OA lobby's attempts to embargo open access and roll back what OA progress has been made is abominable. There is every reason to hope and expect that the attempt will backfire on them as it did the last time, when they hired Eric Dezenhall to fight NIH's Public Access Policy almost exactly a half decade ago: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445347a.html Steve Hitchcock is quite right to point out that what HR3699 is aimed at is NIH's open access self-archiving mandate, and that cancelling journals when their articles are not otherwise accessible is not a realistic option for institutional libraries (since their researchers still need access to them). To go in this direction would just be to repeat the failed strategy of over a decade ago, of threatening to boycott non-OA journals: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ What is needed is OA, and that's OA mandates mandate. David Prosser is quite right that the obstacle is not libraries but researchers (and Thomas Krichel is quite spectacularly wrong): Not enough researchers self-archive their articles of their own accord; that's why OA self-archiving mandates have turned out to be so essential. With a few blips still, the OA movement is converging on a consensus on both the problem and the solution: Problem: Access-denial to non-subscribers, resulting in lost research uptake and impact, and hence lost return on the public investment in research Solution: Mandate OA self-archiving, PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access (Jan 2007) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445347a.html Pit-Bulls vs. Petitions: A Historic Time for Open Access (Jan 2007) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/200-guid.html (Jan 2007) A Tale of Fleas, Tails, Dogs, and Pit-Bulls... (Feb 2007) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/208-guid.html The Publishing Tail Wagging the Research Dog (Aug 2007) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/277-guid.html Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again (Jan 2012) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > If "UKCoRR's voice may not be overly loud (yet)" then I'm glad to see Gareth > trying to make it louder. But I have some concerns in this case. Does this > post confuse SOPA and RWA? They seem to be referred to interchangeably, > connected by AAP. Gareth concludes by committing UKCoRR to oppose SOPA, but > not RWA. > > More pertinently, since this is the voice of UK repositories, what can > repositories do beyond oppose SOPA and RWA (presumably both)? There are > implications in the proposed legislation that are hugely negative for > repositories, of course, but there is also a need to guard against > instinctive reactions - anti-publisher inevitably but with e.g. calls to > abandon library journal subscriptions > (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html?) > - that are also ultimately antithetical to repositories. > > In promoting and protecting the role of repositories in this highly-charged > atmosphere, UKCoRR should also consider carefully the wider effects of the > proposals with reference to the interdependencies of green open access on > which they depend. > > Oppose the proposed legislation for the detriment it seeks to introduce and > lay open the indefensible complicity of the publishers who support it, > without defusing that message by invoking old enmities. > > Steve Hitchcock > WAIS Group, Building 32 > School of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK > Email: sh...@ecs.soton.ac.uk > Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit > Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit > Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 Â Â Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379 > > > On 11 Jan 2012, at 12:07, Tate, Dominic wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> You may be interested to see a blog post from the UKCoRR Chair, Gareth >> Johnson, in response to this matter: >> http://ukcorr.blogspot.com/2012/01/sopa-and-app-dumb-and-dumber-publishers.html >> >> With best wishes, >> >> Dominic Tate >> UKCoRR External Liaison Officer >> Phone: 01784 276619 >> Email: dominic.t...@rhul.ac.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk] >> On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad >> Sent: 08 January 2012 00:12 >> To: jisc-repositor...@jiscmail.ac.uk >> Subject: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying >> Again To Wag The Public Research Dog >> >> ** Cross-Posted ** >> >> Full hyperlinked text: >> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html >> >> EXCERPT: >> >> The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699): >> "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise >> engage in
[GOAL] Re: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying Again To Wag The Public Research Dog
Mike Eisen, in his splendid, timely op-ed article, is completely right that the publisher anti-OA lobby's attempts to embargo open access and roll back what OA progress has been made is abominable. There is every reason to hope and expect that the attempt will backfire on them as it did the last time, when they hired Eric Dezenhall to fight NIH's Public Access Policy almost exactly a half decade ago: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445347a.html Steve Hitchcock is quite right to point out that what HR3699 is aimed at is NIH's open access self-archiving mandate, and that cancelling journals when their articles are not otherwise accessible is not a realistic option for institutional libraries (since their researchers still need access to them). To go in this direction would just be to repeat the failed strategy of over a decade ago, of threatening to boycott non-OA journals: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/ What is needed is OA, and that's OA mandates mandate. David Prosser is quite right that the obstacle is not libraries but researchers (and Thomas Krichel is quite spectacularly wrong): Not enough researchers self-archive their articles of their own accord; that's why OA self-archiving mandates have turned out to be so essential. With a few blips still, the OA movement is converging on a consensus on both the problem and the solution: Problem: Access-denial to non-subscribers, resulting in lost research uptake and impact, and hence lost return on the public investment in research Solution: Mandate OA self-archiving, PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access (Jan 2007) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7126/full/445347a.html Pit-Bulls vs. Petitions: A Historic Time for Open Access (Jan 2007) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/200-guid.html (Jan 2007) A Tale of Fleas, Tails, Dogs, and Pit-Bulls... (Feb 2007) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/208-guid.html The Publishing Tail Wagging the Research Dog (Aug 2007) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/277-guid.html Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again (Jan 2012) http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Steve Hitchcock wrote: > If "UKCoRR's voice may not be overly loud (yet)" then I'm glad to see Gareth > trying to make it louder. But I have some concerns in this case. Does this > post confuse SOPA and RWA? They seem to be referred to interchangeably, > connected by AAP. Gareth concludes by committing UKCoRR to oppose SOPA, but > not RWA. > > More pertinently, since this is the voice of UK repositories, what can > repositories do beyond oppose SOPA and RWA (presumably both)? There are > implications in the proposed legislation that are hugely negative for > repositories, of course, but there is also a need to guard against > instinctive reactions - anti-publisher inevitably but with e.g. calls to > abandon library journal subscriptions > (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html?) > - that are also ultimately antithetical to repositories. > > In promoting and protecting the role of repositories in this highly-charged > atmosphere, UKCoRR should also consider carefully the wider effects of the > proposals with reference to the interdependencies of green open access on > which they depend. > > Oppose the proposed legislation for the detriment it seeks to introduce and > lay open the indefensible complicity of the publishers who support it, > without defusing that message by invoking old enmities. > > Steve Hitchcock > WAIS Group, Building 32 > School of Electronics and Computer Science > University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK > Email: sh94r at ecs.soton.ac.uk > 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 11 Jan 2012, at 12:07, Tate, Dominic wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> You may be interested to see a blog post from the UKCoRR Chair, Gareth >> Johnson, in response to this matter: >> http://ukcorr.blogspot.com/2012/01/sopa-and-app-dumb-and-dumber-publishers.html >> >> With best wishes, >> >> Dominic Tate >> UKCoRR External Liaison Officer >> Phone: 01784 276619 >> Email: dominic.tate at rhul.ac.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES at >> JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad >> Sent: 08 January 2012 00:12 >> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK >> Subject: Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying >> Again To Wag The Public Research Dog >> >> ** Cross-Posted ** >> >> Full hyperlinked text: >> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html >> >> EXCERPT: >> >> The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699): >> "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise >
