Re: [GOAL] [sparc-oaforum] Journal-flipping report open for public comments
Thanks very much for this, Peter. I’m probably being dense, but I can’t see a way to download the report. On the possibility that I’m not the only one failing to see it, could you (or someone else more quick-witted/observant than I) tell us how that can be done? --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu From: Peter Suber Reply-To: Peter Suber Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 10:37 AM To: GOAL post, BOAI Forum post, SOAF post, "sparc-co...@arl.org<mailto:sparc-co...@arl.org>" Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Journal-flipping report open for public comments Last year (April 2015) the Harvard Library Office for Scholarly Communication issued a request for proposals to write "a comprehensive literature review on methods for converting subscription-based scholarly journals to open access." https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/request-for-proposal/ In June 2015 we awarded the contract to David Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk, and Mikael Laakso. We're happy to announce today that the preliminary version of their report is now open for public comments. https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/public-consultation/ Please read it and add comments, and please spread the word to help us gather as many useful comments as possible. From our original RFP: "The purpose of the public comments is to supplement the literature review, make it more complete, more detailed, and more useful. For example, the public comments might add readings omitted from the literature review, extract new recommendations from readings already covered, suggest new clarity or detail for recommendations already formulated, and add notes to help readers consider the merits of the recommendations." The version we release today will not be the final version. After the public-comment period (toward the end of April 2016), we'll create a new version incorporating selected public comments, and pass it to a panel of experts for an additional set of comments. Then Dave, Bo-Christer, and Mikael will make their final revisions in light of the public comments, the panelist comments, our comments from within the Office for Scholarly Communication, and their own second thoughts. We'll add a preface and publish that version in the summer or early fall. We don't promise to incorporate all the public comments in the final version, not even all attributed comments. But we'll favor comments that carry real-name attribution. The panelist comments will all carry real-name attribution. (If you post a comment on the document, you'll be granting us permission to include it in this and future versions under a CC-BY version 4.0 international license.) We thank Arcadia for the funds we used to commission this research. We thank Eddie Tejeda, Christian Wach, and the Institute for the Future of the Book for CommentPress, the open-source WordPress plugin we're using to post the current draft for public comments. We also thank Kathleen Fitzpatrick for the CommentPress theme we adapted for the present use. http://futureofthebook.org/commentpress/ Finally, we thank David Solomon, Bo-Christer Björk, and Mikael Laakso for their careful research and their willingness to subject it to public comment before final publication. Home page for the journal-flipping project https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/journal-flipping/ Thanks, Peter Peter Suber bit.ly/petersuber<http://bit.ly/petersuber> -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to sparc-oafo...@arl.org<mailto:sparc-oafo...@arl.org> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org<mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org<mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org>. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows?
Thanks very much for sharing these notes and the blog post, Danny. A couple of comments: 1. I think it’s interesting that plagiarism keeps being raised as a CC BY issue, since plagiarism is not a reuse issue but rather an attribution issue — it’s pretending that you wrote something someone else did. Those who raise it in the context of CC BY probably don’t understand (or aren’t thinking clearly about) the very important difference between plagiarism and piracy. 2. One issue that (as far as I can see from the notes) doesn’t seem to have gotten the attention it deserves is that of mandates. The pros and cons of CC BY are very important to understand and discuss, but so is the question of the degree to which adopting CC BY for one’s work ought to be a condition of receiving research funding, or of graduation, or of employment. This latter issue is getting much less discussion, unfortunately, than the implications of CC BY itself. Speaking personally, I think CC BY is wonderful and I’m very glad that it’s available as an option to authors. I’m much less comfortable with making it mandatory. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu From: <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org<mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> on behalf of Danny Kingsley Organization: University of Cambridge Reply-To: Danny Kingsley Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:11 AM To: "lib-l...@lists.cam.ac.uk<mailto:lib-l...@lists.cam.ac.uk>", "lib-st...@lists.cam.ac.uk<mailto:lib-st...@lists.cam.ac.uk>", "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>", "ukcorr-discuss...@jiscmail.ac.uk<mailto:ukcorr-discuss...@jiscmail.ac.uk>", SCHOLCOMM Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] BLOG: Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? Dear all, You might be interested in the outcomes of a roundtable discussion held at Cambridge University earlier this week on the topic of Creative Commons Attribution licences. Is CC-BY really a problem or are we boxing shadows? https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=555 A taster: *** Comments from researchers and colleagues have indicated some disquiet about the Creative Commons (CC-BY) licence in some areas of the academic community. However, in conversation with some legal people and contemporaries at other institutions one of the observations was that generally academics are not necessarily cognizant with what the licences offer and indeed what protections are available under regular copyright. To try and determine whether this was an education and advocacy problem or if there are real issues we had a roundtable discussion on 29 February at Cambridge University attended by about 35 people who were a mixture of academics, administrators, publishers and legal practitioners. In summary, the discussion indicated that CC-BY licences do not encourage plagiarism, or issues with commercialism within academia (although there is a broader ethical issue). However in some cases CC-BY licences could pose problems for the moral integrity of the work and cause issues with translations. CC-BY licenses do create challenges for works containing sensitive information and for works containing third party copyright. ** Please feel free to comment on the list. Due to a serious spam problem with the blog, comments sent to the blog are being buried (we are working on this). Thanks Danny -- Dr Danny Kingsley Head of Scholarly Communications Cambridge University Library West Road, Cambridge CB39DR P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437 M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564 E: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> T: @dannykay68 ORCID iD: -0002-3636-5939 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Question (Re: Caltech announces Open Access policy)
With the ID/OA mandate, immediate-deposihttps://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#c2coff=1hl=enlr=q=%22immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fsafe=activetbm=blgt is mandatory, but access-setting (immediate OA or embargo, with the copy-request Button) is up to the author. In other words, a policy that actually makes deposit mandatory is a mandate. No argument here. But it appears that many of the institutional policies listed on the ROARMAP site—all of which are presented on that site as mandates—actually require no deposit at all. A few examples would be those of MIT (The Provost or Provost's designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written notification by the author), the University of Oregon library (The Dean of the Libraries will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written notification by the author), and the University of Glasgow (Staff are asked to deposit a copy of peer-reviewed, published journal articles and conference proceedings into Enlighten, where copyright allows, as soon as possible after publication.) To be clear, these are not offers of indefinite embargo upon request following mandatory deposit—they are policies that require no deposit. So my question remains: why the insistence on calling such policies mandates? If they make no action mandatory, then why not simply call them policies? (ROARAP is a less snappy acronym, I'll grant you.) --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Unanimity (Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Monographs)
there is unanimity among researchers about desiring -- even if not daring, except if mandated, to provide -- OA to peer-reviewed journal articles If researchers unanimously desired OA, then there would be an OA mandate on every campus. Nothing is stopping the faculty from requiring OA of themselves except their own ambivalence about it—an ambivalence which is deep, real, and widespread. This ambivalence can be seen in the nature of those mandates that do exist on campuses, which are almost invariably not mandates at all, but rather expressions of institutional preference thinly disguised as mandates. One of the things hobbling the growth of OA is a mindset that assumes everyone obviously wants OA, and that shouts down critical questions as heretical rather than treating them seriously as expressions real and well-informed concern. Take it from someone working with real-world faculty at a real-world Research I university: in the real world, researchers are ambivalent about OA. Not against it, but ambivalent about it: they see benefits, they see costs, they're not sure that they fully comprehend all of the benefits and all of the costs, and many are unsure how the benefits and costs will ultimately balance out for them. Until they're certain the costs will outweight the benefits, many researchers are unwilling simply to run to the OA barricades just because someone says they should. (And it's this kind of independent and critical thinking, incidentally, that tends to make a good researcher.) --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Unanimity (Re: Monographs)
Independent and critical thinking researchers will act according to the evidence: depend on it. They may be slow, but they are not stupid… Not only do I agree that they're not stupid, I wouldn't even say that they're slow. And as for acting according to the evidence, I couldn't agree with you more. In my experience talking about these issues with faculty researchers, their ambivalence about OA is based neither on stupidity nor on slowness, but on an insufficiency of evidence that OA is always and necessarily the answer. Researchers tend to see OA models as presenting a mixed bag of upsides and downsides (as any publishing model does). Researchers are generally smart and quick enough to immediately recognize, for example, that mandates constrain their publishing options, so they approach mandate proposals cautiously. One way they demonstrate caution is by insisting that such mandates include powerful escape clauses, thus turning them into mandates rather than mandates. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA -- A practical evaluation of library workflow
Ellen, the very detailed and time-intensive process you outline below is one that would arguably be necessary in order to perform an ongoing, comprehensive analysis of article availability under a Green OA regime, but I think it's much more than would be necessary in order to make reasonable cancellation decisions in many cases. As I said before, the criteria we use to make subscription and cancellation decisions are multidimensional and each criterion is on a continuum — but each one's position on every continuum doesn't always have to be carefully analyzed in order to make good decisions. So, for example: if I learn that Biology Journal X has gone Green with a 12-month embargo, I can forward that information to our collection development manager. He can look up the title and see that we have a freestanding subscription and that it costs $2000/year. Because is familiar with both our budget situation and our institution's curricular focus, he can then make a quick decision: is $2000 a high-enough price to justify putting Biology Journal X on a to be reviewed list, given the centrality (or lack thereof) of that journal to our institutional needs? If so, then it goes on the list and our serials review team will be prompted to look at it later on (one year later, two years later, whatever). The review could consist of sampling several issues from the period under review and searching their contents to see what percentage of the articles are publicly available. This would be kind of drudgey work, but we have people who can do it at a low cost during down times at service desks. The cheaper and more locally-relevant the journal, the less likely we would be to undertake this kind of review (and the less likely we'd be to cancel it as a result). The more expensive and more peripheral the journal, and the higher the percentage of publicly-available articles in it, the more likely would be review and cancellation. All of the above applies only to newly-Green journals going forward, of course. Reviewing the current field of Green journals for likely cancellation candidates is a more daunting task — one that I'm scheduled to discuss with my CD staff today. But I'm pretty confident that we'll be able to come up with an approach that will return good value for cost. And if we can't, then we won't do it. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu From: Ellen Finnie Duranceau efin...@mit.edumailto:efin...@mit.edu Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:30 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.commailto:amscifo...@gmail.com Cc: Friend, Fred f.fri...@ucl.ac.ukmailto:f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk, LibLicense-L Discussion Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edumailto:liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu, SPARC Open Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oafo...@arl.org, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.edumailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu Subject: RE: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA -- A practical evaluation of library workflow With this debate underway, I’ve been trying to picture a reasonable workflow that would assess the rate of immediate green OA via publisher’s self-archiving policy and use it effectively in a collections process. I have been unable to come up with any scenario that seems solid enough to even experiment with, let alone deploy, in a research library. For this exercise, I’m leaving aside any broader goals of wider distribution of publicly funded research, etc., or any philosophical factors, and am just focusing on providing sufficient service to one’s own community. First, we have the problem that a wide sampling from any given journal would be required, since author practices in self-archiving vary.This sampling would also have to be repeated regularly, and take in several sample years, since practices will vary over time. Whoever performs this sampling would also have to be trained in recognizing the version of articles, since presumably one wants the peer-reviewed version available to one’s faculty and researchers and students. This would require, in many cases, comparing the manuscript with the version of record (which, please note, is only available to you if you subscribe). After all the sampling is done and a spreadsheet created, one would then have to calculate what percentage of the journal was openly available (and whether that percentage was acceptable – this would have to be a very high number, presumably), and after what time period. This would not be an easy feat, as one has to have numbers representing the total number of articles in order to make the comparison, and as far as I’m aware, this would involve manually tabulating the number of articles
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Abrogatio Praecox: Librarian Cancellation Plans Are Grotesquely Premature and Profoundly Counterproductive
(6) And for OA to really begin to grow, we need effective Green OA mandates. (7) And although I want to stress that it is not essential for the effectiveness of Green OA mandates, it is very helpful for Green OA mandates if publisher Green OA embargoes are zero or minimal. Honestly, I was going to withdraw from the field at this point, because I don't think I can usefully say much more on this, but these two points brought me up short. To the degree that Green policies are a) widespread, b) mandatory, c) effective and d) embargo-free, won't that make it much easier for libraries to see which subscriptions they no longer need to keep? It seems to me that if you want to encourage adoption of Green policies, your best bet is for them to be spottily observed, optional, and embargoed, thus making it maximally difficult for libraries to see which titles they can cancel. Unless, that is, your actual goal is to drive publishers out of business — but that would be counterproductive given that Green models depend on traditional publishers continuing to publish journals in traditional ways, which in turn requires a continued stream of traditional subscription revenue. One solution to this conundrum might be for libraries to continue subscribing to journals whose content has become comprehensively and immediately available for free, thus keeping traditional publishing alive with what amounts to charitable giving. But I'm not sure that sounds like a very healthy or sustainable system in the long term. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Is there an easy way (easier than searching title-by-title through SHERPA/RoMEO) to get a complete list of journals offering Green access with no embargo? I can't speak for the marketplace as a whole, but my library will cancel most if not all of our subscriptions to any such journals — my institution is not giving us money so that we can spend it on content that's available for free. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu From: Friend, Fred f.fri...@ucl.ac.ukmailto:f.fri...@ucl.ac.uk Date: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:06 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) goal@eprints.orgmailto:goal@eprints.org, LibLicense-L Discussion Forum liblicens...@listserv.crl.edumailto:liblicens...@listserv.crl.edu, SPARC Open Access Forum sparc-oafo...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oafo...@arl.org Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication, but the number appears very low by comparison with the total number of research journals published, and the causal link with repository deposit is obscure. A reduction in the quality of a journal (and I do not mean impact factor) or a reduction in library funding could be more influential factors than green open access. Presumably for commercial reasons publishers have not been willing to release information about subscription levels, but if they are to continue to use green open access as a threat they have to provide more evidence. Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide more information about sustainability. They speak about repositories not being a sustainable model for research dissemination, by which they appear to mean that their journals will not be sustainable in a large-scale repository environment. Most institutional repositories are fully-sustainable, their sustainability derived from the sustainability of the university in which they are based. If any research journals are not sustainable, the reasons may have nothing to do with repositories. Those reasons are currently hidden within the big deal model, the weak journals surviving through the strength of other journals. Rather than blame any lack of sustainability upon green open access, perhaps publishers should take a harder look at the sustainability of some of their weaker journals. Repositories are sustainable; some journals may not be. Fred Friend Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL From: goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org goal-boun...@eprints.orgmailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of Danny Kingsley danny.kings...@anu.edu.aumailto:danny.kings...@anu.edu.au Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not exist. The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes in the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey sent out early last year to librarians http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf . Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that survey http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is what Springer referred to as their 'evidence' http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html . There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the industry to collect some actual evidence either way (as opposed to opinions on a badly expressed hypothetical): 1. Taylor Francis have decided to indefinitely expand their trial of immediate green permissions to articles in their Library Information Science journals. If they were to run a comparison of those titles against the titles in, say , three other disciplinary areas over two to three years they would be able to ascertain if this decision has made any difference to their subscription patterns. 2. Earlier this year (21 March) SAGE changed their policy to immediate green open access – again this offers a clean comparison between their subscription levels prior to and after the implementation of this policy. If it is the case that immediate green open access disrupts subscriptions (and I strongly suspect that it does not) then we can have that conversation when the evidence presents itself. Until then we
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
Would you really consider dropping a journal with say 70% percent of the content available after a year? I'm not a librarian but I just wonder how much of a difference allowing immediate archiving of the accepted version really makes in subscription decisions. It depends. Obviously, a subscription provides enhanced access over green repository access. But as I mentioned before, the less central a journal is to my institution's curricular and research focus, the more willing I'll be to settle for less-than-ideal access. If I had a generous materials budget, the calculus would be different—but the combination of a relatively stagnant budget and constantly/steeply-rising journal prices means that I have to settle for solutions that are less than ideal. One less-than-ideal solution is to maintain a subscription despite the fact that 70% of the journal's content is available immediately (or after a year). That solution is attractive because it provides more complete and convenient access, but it's less than ideal because it ties up money that can't be used to secure access to a journal that is not green at all. Another less-than-ideal solution is to cancel the subscription and rely on green access. The downside of that approach is that repository access is a pain and may be incomplete; the upside is that it frees up money that I can use to provide access to another needed journal that offers no green access. These issues are complex. The subscription decisions we make in libraries are binary (either your subscribe or you don't), but the criteria we have to use in making those decisions are not binary—we're typically considering multiple criteria (relevance, price, cost per download, demonstrated demand, etc.) that exist on a continuum. One thing is for certain, though: the more a journal's content is available for free, and the quicker it becomes available for free, the less likely it is that we'll maintain a subscription. I think that's the only rational position to take when there are so many journals out there that our faculty want, and that we're not subscribing to because we're out of money. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] In fairness (Re: Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)
I should publicly acknowledge that I misread this sentence from Stevan's message: May I suggest, though, that such postings should not go to the GOAL, BOAI or SPARC lists? Please keep such brilliant ideas to the library lists. I should not have characterized it as a call to the moderators to exclude such contributions from the list. While I believe that it's completely inappropriate for Stevan to discourage open and objective discussion of these issues by librarians, his discouragement did not amount to calling on the list moderators to censor it, and I should have read more carefully before responding as if it did. My apologies. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu And please don't reply that it's just one factor in our cancelation equation. There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with their serials budgets when it's at the expense of OA. It's hard to know how to respond to this. I guess I'll say simply that I'm dumbfounded at this blatant attempt to stifle any discussion of OA in anything other than cheerleading mode. If we can't talk about all the downstream implications (whether positive, negative, or mixed) of the various publishing models and options that are on the table, then it's hard to see how we're going to come up with sustainable, fair, and widely-beneficial solutions. All of us have a stake in this conversation. I trust the moderators of these listservs will resist Stevan's call to silence those stakeholders who fail to support unreservedly and uncriticially the one model that he favors. A policy of prior restraint doesn't strike me as terribly consistent with the goals of OA. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edumailto:rick.ander...@utah.edu -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups SPARC OA Forum group. To post to this group, send email to sparc-oafo...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oafo...@arl.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.orgmailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org. ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Censorship? Seriously? (Re: Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection)
May I suggest, though, that such postings should not go to the GOAL, BOAI or SPARC lists? Please keep such brilliant ideas to the library lists. And please don't reply that it's just one factor in our cancelation equation. There's no need for the OA community to hear about librarians' struggles with their serials budgets when it's at the expense of OA. It's hard to know how to respond to this. I guess I'll say simply that I'm dumbfounded at this blatant attempt to stifle any discussion of OA in anything other than cheerleading mode. If we can't talk about all the downstream implications (whether positive, negative, or mixed) of the various publishing models and options that are on the table, then it's hard to see how we're going to come up with sustainable, fair, and widely-beneficial solutions. All of us have a stake in this conversation. I trust the moderators of these listservs will resist Stevan's call to silence those stakeholders who fail to support unreservedly and uncriticially the one model that he favors. A policy of prior restraint doesn't strike me as terribly consistent with the goals of OA. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The issue that was raised (by Fred) under this subject thread was the possibility of subscription losses dues to Green OA archiving. Yes. But not the possibility of subscription losses because the publisher allows Green OA archiving. So it's okay to discuss the impact of actual archiving, but it's not okay to discuss the impact of publishers allowing archiving? Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? (And wouldn't that be a much more constructive response than Don't talk about that here!?) (That too can be discussed here -- but only to point out the deleterious consequences of such a policy for OA, and the self-defeating basis of such a cancellation policy.) Sorry, but I don't accept that limitation. Surely it ought to be okay to discuss such a policy beyond simply bringing it up in order to agree with a predetermined position on it. Since libraries comprise a substantial portion of journal subscribers, then surely it's substantially relevant to discuss how libraries might make cancellation decisions about Green OA journals. It is indeed. And if librarian's cancellation decisions are based on unthinking criteria that self-destruct -- namely, if a journal allows Green OA, cancel it -- it needs to be pointed out that this would be an excellent way to ensure that journals decide not to allow Green OA. And thereby slow the growth of Green OA. And thereby undermine the basis of the cancellation decision. Simply declaring such decisions to be unthinking is no substitute for actual discussion of them (and of the thinking that has been laid out concerning them). And a declaration of unthinkingness hardly justifies calling for the exclusion of such discussion. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is rather than just saying that bringing up issues hurts the cause. (Such discussion may or may not end up lending support to your favored outcome — but is that really the filtering criterion we ought to impose on contributions to the conversation?) OA is not the filtering criterion for library lists dedicated to the library's budget problems. But it is certainly the filtering criterion for the gOAl, bOAi and sparc OA lists. Agreed. And since the issue Fred raised demonstrates a clear connection between OA policies and library's financial decisions (notably journal cancellations), it would seem that this discussion fits nicely through the filter — even if the discussion doesn't tend toward the particular conclusion one prefers. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? Yes. See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion: Yes, you raise a valid point. Just because a publisher allows complete and unembargoed Green OA archiving of a journal doesn't mean that all of the journal's content will end up being archived. So I would adjust the categorical statement I made in my original posting thus: My library will cancel our subscriptions to any such journal, once we have determined that a sufficient percentage of its content is being made publicly available promptly and at no charge — promptness being assessed on a sliding scale relative to the journal's relevance to our needs. Obviously, this will be relatively easy to do for new Green journals or for journals that make the shift in the future. As for existing Green-without-embargo journals, I'm currently discussing with my collection development staff how we might cost-effectively review the list of Green-without-embargo journal publishers found at http://bit.ly/1aOetHB and see which of their journals we currently subscribe to, and which of these we might be able to cancel. This would be a relatively time-intensive project, but we have students working at service desks in my library who could probably help. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. Depending on what our goals are, reality can sometimes be counterproductive. It's a reality that a subscription is less needed when the content of the journal in question is freely available online. (It matters, of course, what percentage of the content really becomes available that way, and how quickly it will become available. But the more its content is free and the faster it gets that way, the less incentive there is for anyone, including libraries, to pay for access to it. And the tighter a library's budget, the more sensitive its cancellation response will be to the Green-without-embargo signal.) 5. Publicly announcing (as you did) that journals are to be cancelled because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is certain to induce Green publishers to stop being Green and instead adopt and Green OA embargoes. Discussing reality may not always help to advance an OA agenda (or any other agenda, for that matter), but eventually reality will always win. Scolding people for talking about reality is ultimately much more counterproductive than figuring out how to deal with it. 6. Library cancellation of Green journals will slow the growth of OA, thereby compounding the disservice that such an unthinking (sic) policy does both to users and to OA. It doesn't seem to me that OA is something to which we owe allegiance. It seems to me that our goal should be a healthy, vital, and sustainable scholarly communication environment that brings the maximum possible benefit to the world. Deciding up front that OA is the only road to such an environment has two seriously debilitating effects: first, it makes the questioning of OA, or even of specific OA strategies, into a thoughtcrime (as we've seen here today), and second, it precludes the consideration of other, possibly promising options. Why on earth would scholars look to those that can't or won't discuss these issues in a rational, reasonably objective way for guidance on how to conduct their own scholarly communication? --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's friend or foe. And this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that gives certain sectors/members of the OA community a bad name. The problem isn't OA; the problem is the unwillingness to deal with OA as something other than revealed religion. This kind of talk may help us come up with an Enemies List, but it doesn't actually help us solve any problems — unless, of course, you've decided up front that the only solution to every scholcomm problem is OA. I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned. That was never in doubt, Stevan. The library community is not a monolith. Different libraries have different policies and practices. Publishers are not stupid — they don't think that just because one librarian says I'm more likely to cancel a Green-without-embargoes journal than a toll-access one, all other things being equal that every library is going to do the same thing. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
It would be interesting to see how much money Rick's library would save, and compare this with how much they could save by cancelling a single big deal with a high-cost publisher. Sadly, canceling our big deal would end up saving us nothing, because we would then have to subscribe to the high-demand titles individually at a higher aggregate price than what we're currently paying for the big deal. That's what broke down our longstanding resistance to the big deal in the first place. (We could save money by not subscribing to those high-demand titles, of course, but of course we could save even more by simply not buying anything our patrons need.) --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
Green OA as a threat to traditional publishing (RE: Prophylactic yada yada)
The library has an additional consideration that the individual user does not: the method of providing OA must not interfere with the funding and existence of publications. I do not know whether or not green OA will eventually do so, and I think neither does anyone else. My suspicion is that green OA will not pose a significant threat to traditional publishing models until it offers better access to readers. As things stand currently, the green approach makes articles freely available in theory, but not necessarily easily available in fact -- authors' self-archived copies are sometimes easy to find, but often not. This is a problem that will likely be solved by marketplace forces, as searching tools mature and improve. Until that happens, though, I think one (though not the only) thing that will keep traditional publishers in business will be the value they add by making articles easy to find. --- Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition Univ. of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
Re: Blackwell Publishing Online Open
If you compare Springer and Blackwell on the one hand, to BioMed Central and PLoS on the other hand, it seems clear that authors retain more of their rights with the PLoS/BioMed Central model, no? That may be true, but I'm not sure -- in response to my query on this topic on the LIBLICENSE listserv, a Blackwell representative said that for Online Open articles, the author (or original copyright holder, which might be an institution) retains copyright. I haven't done an exhaustive comparison of the agreements to verify that. Even if it's true, though, it's irrelevant to my point, which is that copyright has little to do with any meaningful definition of open access. What matters is whether the general public can read the article freely -- not (pax the framers of the Berlin, Barcelona and Bethesda protocols) whether the general public also acquires what have traditionally been the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition University of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
Re: Blackwell Publishing Online Open
If publishers claim to offer 'Open Access', and are charging authors for the privilege, it really does not make sense for them to be reserving for themselves these exclusive rights. This is where we get into the question of what open access means. If it means that the general public has a free and unrestricted right to access an article and use it within the bounds of fair use/fair dealing, then in fact Blackwell's policy is perfectly consonant with open access. If, on the other hand, you agree with the Barcelona, Bethesda and Berlin statements that access is only open when the copyright holder assigns what would normally be her exclusive rights (redistribution, reproduction, derivative works, etc.) to the general public, then no, what Blackwell is offering isn't open access. But I think that definition is unnecessarily restrictive. It seems to me that if what we want to do is make content available to everyone, there's really no need to take away the author's traditional rights under copyright law. The latter stance seems to me almost like a conflation of open access with open source. Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition University of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
Re: The Green and Gold Roads to Open Access
groups. Will this approach yield her much in the way of scholarly reputation, or help her to earn tenure? Probably not. Will it bring her lots of readers? Probably so. Rick Anderson's example therefore seems irrelevant to the question what of two journals, both equivalent in respect of being peer-reviewed, an author might or should prefer. Being equivalent in the respect of peer review doesn't mean being equivalent in the ability to confer prestige on authors. There are differences in prestige between peer-reviewed journals, and journals gain prestige gradually over time. Instead of taking up a lot more bandwidth here with a rehash of my concerns in this regard, let me refer you to the new issue of Serials Review that David Goodman mentioned in his recent posting; my article in that issue treats the three areas that I believe are going to pose problems (at least in the short term) for new OA journals in an author-competitive marketplace. Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition University of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
Re: How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research
Stevan Harnad wrote: But peer-reviewed journals are a completely different story: The authors *are* the advertisers. They don't want to be paid for their articles; they want to maximise users; and they don't want any potential users lost because they cannot afford to pay for access. Moreover, it is mostly not the users who pay, but their institutions (if they can afford it). And the authors (like advertisers) are paid off in research impact -- which translates into research funding and salary increases. I'm not so sure that authors just want to maximize users. It seems to me that number of readers and research impact are not the same thing, nor does the former always lead to the latter. Given the choice between a journal that has many subscribers but relatively low prestige and a journal that has fewer readers but higher prestige, a rationally self-interested author may well choose the latter. This is not an abstract or merely theoretical consideration. One hurdle for OA right now is the fact that most OA venues, whatever their readership, don't confer as much prestige on their authors as available non-OA venues do. This is going to make it relatively hard for OA venues to compete for authors. (The problem is, of course, compounded where authors are required to secure additional funding to subsidize OA dissemination, and have free options in the non-OA realm.) One possible solution to this problem would be to strip authors of the right to choose how they distribute their articles. As we all know, there are ongoing efforts in that direction -- but they're meeting with mixed success so far. --- Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition Univ. of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
Re: How to compare research impact of toll- vs. open-access research
Stevan, I don't disagree with your points about post-publication self-archiving and OA publishing. What I was disagreeing with was the argument to which I was actually responding -- your assertion that authors want to maximize users... and don't want any users lost because they cannot afford to pay for access. Instead of defending that dubious assertion, you've changed the subject. The fact is, scholarly authors don't necessarily mind losing users if by doing so they can gain prestige. Again, this is something for OA providers to keep in mind. No, it's not so much an issue for authors when they have the option of publishing in a non-OA forum and then self-archiving later. But as I said before, it's a big issue for OA publishers. Since you keep saying that this list is a place for the discussion of practical issues related to the promotion and implementation of OA, it seems to me that points like this are worth bringing up here. Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition University of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
Re: Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ
(1) I guess that would mean that self-archiving one's already published journal article is publishing a published article. It depends. If you self-archive the article on your hard disk, then no, you're not publishing it -- you're just archiving it. On the other hand, if you self-archive it in an OA archive, then yes -- you're re-publishing it. In the former case, you're putting the article away in storage. In the latter case, you're distributing it (again) to the public. (2) Try listing unpublished papers as published articles on your CV on the strength of having posted them on the Web (and let us know how that's received)... Publishing an article myself, on a Web site, is almost certainly not going to help me get tenure. But then, the music reviews I write each week for the All-Music Guide won't help me get tenure, either (which is why I leave them off my CV). Does that mean they haven't been published? Look, obviously we're proceeding from a different set of definitions here. My point is simply that the word publish has a real-world definition that is far different from the artificially narrow one created by the OA establishment. If using the Berlin Declaration definition helps you do your work, fine. But don't yell at (or condescend to) the rest of the world when it insists on using the real-world definition. --- Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition Univ. of Nevada, Reno Libraries rick...@unr.edu
Re: Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ
--- Moderator's Note: This posting is redirected from AmSci Topic thread: Drubbing Peter to Pay Paul (2004) http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind04L=american-scientist-open-access-forumD=1O=DF=lP=99000 Prior AmSci Threads: Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ (2000) http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0500.html http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3249.html --- Stevan Harnad wrote: The only major recommendation of the UK Select Committee was to mandate OA self-archiving. Yet no one (MPs, press, publishers or librarians) can stop going on and on about OA publishing, which was *not* what was being mandated! This is a distinction without a difference. Whether you place your article in an OA journal or deposit it in an OA archive, the result is publication either way. In both cases, the article is being distributed to the public (i.e., published) on an OA basis. In other words, to mandate OA self-archiving is to mandate OA publishing -- by the author, in cooperation with whoever manages the archive. Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition Univ. of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
Re: Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies On Self-Archiving
I do not wish to be uncharitable, but I really don't think this Forum (or my time) is or should be devoted to meeting David's challenges or satisfying his interests. It seems to me that if David's challenges bear on the legality of a particular OA strategy or practice, especially a strategy or practice that you, Stevan, are specifically encouraging others in this forum to take, then this forum is in fact an excellent place for you to answer those challenges. Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition University of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
