Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Frederick Friend wrote:
> JISC in the UK is putting as much effort into supporting institutional
> repositories as it is into open access journals...
> The results of an author survey funded by JISC and OSI to be published
> on the JISC web-site next week show that a low percentage of authors
> have deposited pre-prints or post-prints in IRs, although a very high
> percentage would do so if required to do so by their funder or employer.
The low percentage was already known from the arithmetic on the number
of articles published annually
http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb
versus the number of articles self-archived annually
http://celestial.eprints.org/cgi-bin/eprints.org/graph
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0023.gif
although this low percentage must not be misinterpreted as being lower
than the far lower percentage of articles published annually that
are published in open access journals!
The stress on the lowness of the self-archiving figure is made because
the *ceiling* on the number of articles that can immediately be made
open-access via OA self-archiving today (100%) is so much higher than
the ceiling (5%) on the number of articles that can immediately be made
open-access via OA journal publishing today -- for the simple reason
that fewer than 5% of journals are OA journals today.
http://www.doaj.org/
The further finding of the JISC/OSI survey that "a very high percentage
would [self-archive] if required to do so by their funder or employer"
has also been anticipated for some time, and would seem to imply quite
strongly that the best way for JISC and OSI to support both OA journal
publishing and OA self-archiving is to direct their efforts now to
promoting mandatory OA-provision policies by research funders and
employers (via whichever of the two OA roads is suitable):
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
The Declaration of Institutional Commitment to implementing such policies
will soon be released (and is already open for pre-signing); it is
to be hoped that JISC and OSI will support it vigorously, so both of those
percentages can be helped to rise:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
> I am very concerned that the two branches of open access "do not go down
> separate tracks".
If both OA branches always explicitly promoted the unified OA Provision Policy,
they would not go down separate tracks. But Paul Gherman was not writing about
unifying BOAI-1 (OA self-archiving) and BOAI-2 (OA journal publishing)
(they are already unified, implicitly, if not always sufficiently
explicitly) but about unifying the OA movement and the Institutional
Archive ("Repository") movement.
I have replied to Paul's recommendation
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3597.html
trying to show how and why the 5 diverse and divergent means and ends
of Institutional Archives do *not* coalesce coherently in such a way
as to clarify or promote OA at this time; so it is in fact important
that they should *not* go down the same tracks. In particular, neither
the institutional agenda for the preservation of its digital holdings
(PRES) nor the institutional agenda for electronic publication (EPUB) --
2 of the 5 uses to which Institutional Archives could be put -- should
be conflated with the (unified) institutional agenda for mandated OA
provision for its researchers' journal article output (RES).
> [Separation of BOAI-1 and BOAI-2] has been happening because funding agencies
> do not perceive IRs to offer a sustainable high-quality service for the record
> of science.
Funding agencies had no perceptions about OA by either road, gold or green.
It was up to *us* to make the unified case for OA to them. Instead, there
has been a good deal of unilateral emphasis on BOAI-2 alone, and even the
little that was said about BOAI-1 was unclear and uninformed, hence misleading.
The relevant point to be made to research funding agencies is about
*research access provision* not about a "sustainable high-quality service
for the record of science"! The very phraseology -- sustainable high-quality
service for the record of science" -- is already massively tilted toward
BOAI-2 (OA publishing)! JISC and OSI should be promoting a unified, bilateral
perception of OA and not this one-sided and counterproductive one.
[We don't just *meet* perceptions: we unconsciously *make* them! Is it
not a coincidence that research funding agencies -- of all places --
should have come up with the librarians' characteristic "sustainability"
worry, when their concern with OA is and ought to be about how to increase
access to the research output they fund? It is not at all clear,
then, a priori, that it is the "record" t
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Paul M Gherman (Vanderbilt University) wrote: Re: PALS report and conference on Institutional Repositories http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3603.html > Institutional Repositories (IR's) are gaining good traction at many > research universities, and I think it is time for the Open Access > enthusiasts to take note and begin thinking about how both movements > might work together. Paul, Many of us in the open access movement are already working together on both open acess strategies identified in the Budapest Open Access Initiative. JISC in the UK is putting as much effort into supporting institutional repositories as it is into open access journals. I have to say, however, that the academic interest in IRs in the UK does not match the interest you describe at Vanderbilt. The results of an author survey funded by JISC and OSI to be published on the JISC web-site next week show that a low percentage of authors have deposited pre-prints or post-prints in IRs, although a very high percentage would do so if required to do so by their funder or employer. I am very concerned that the two branches of open access "do not go down separate tracks". This has been happening because funding agencies do not perceive IRs to offer a sustainable high-quality service for the record of science. The perception is that IRs will not hold the best version of a research article, that it will not be indexed as comprehensively as a traditional journal article, and that its long-term preservation is not secure. One leading researcher described IRs to me as "anarchic", whereas journals - whether subscription or OA - are perceived to be organised, reliable and secure. Whether these perceptions are true or not, we have to raise the status of IRs as part of the record of science. Fred x Frederick J. Friend OSI Open Access Advocate JISC Consultant Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL E-mail ucyl...@ucl.ac.uk Mail address: The Chimes, Cryers Hill Road, High Wycombe, England HP15 6JS Telephone +44 1494 563168 or +44 7747 627738 (mobile) xxx - Original Message - From: "Gherman, Paul M" To: Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: Re: PALS report and conference on Institutional Repositories > Institutional Repositories (IR's) are gaining good traction at many > research universities, and I think it is time for the Open Access > enthusiasts to take note and begin thinking about how both movements > might work together. There has been a lot of discussion about how Open > Access can support long-term preservation and access based on authors > fees. IR's such as DSpace are designed first as preservation mediums, > and it seems we ought to consider how we can use IR's as part of > the architecture of a system of Open Access. > > I find faculty at Vanderbilt are far more interested in IR's than > open access, and it may be a way to get their attention and buy-in > to open access if they see a link to their home institution. > > We need to make sure the two movements do not go down separate > tracks.
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
> While physicists, mathematicians and others were
> self-archiving their articles, libraries kept their subscriptions.
Why?
> In that case publishers did not object. Why should they? But what if
> libraries resume their cancellation policies (as they do) and compensate
> for the loss of access by profiting from the 'self-archives' of others?
If and when that should ever happen (it is pure speculation now)
the most likely outcome is cost-cutting, downsizing, and a transition
to OA publishing, with the windfall cancellation savings themselves
funding the new cost-recovery system:
The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3378.html
But this is all speculation. The facts are 14 years of cancellation free
self-archiving in physics/math/computer-science, even in 100% OA fields.
> Don't forget, in your self-archiving world publishers are still the
> owners of copyright.
Irrelevant, as OA can always be provided via the preprint + corrigenda
option: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#self-archiving-legal
> > What the research community needs now is OA, not more paralytic
> > speculation!
>
> I don't think anticipating some futures is paralytic speculation. I could
> easily argue the opposite!
What would you have thought it was 14 years ago, if the physicists had
done it instead of self-archiving?
> > OA itself will be the needed change, if we can stop waiting passively
> > for it, self-archiving instead of self-paralysing with counterfactual
> > speculations!
>
> Nobody is waiting passively. Dozens of OAI-MHP-repositories have been
> installed and their number grows weekly. They are either filled by
> self-archivers or by their libraries.
The growth of OA via self-archiving is still far too slow -- but only
relative to what it *could* be -- not relative to OA growth by other
means, which is much slower, and could not produce 100% OA virtually
overnight, as OA self-archiving could.
> In the same time, the number of
> OA-journals has more than doubled in 8 months. So, what's your point? The
> sun also rises if the cock does not crow!
No, the number of OA journals did not double in 8 months! The number
*reported* doubled in 8 months. Please have a look at the 774 OA
journals in DOAJ http://www.doaj.org/ to see when they began, or when
they converted to OA. You will find that most of it did not happen in
the last 8 months! And many of those OA journals are actually TA journals
for their paper version, with their OA version toll-free. That too
suggests that the speculations about catastrophic cancellations are
premature.
It will be important, however, to monitor the growth of OA by both
routes once all OA journals and archives are inventoried. I estimate
that the yearly number of articles being made OA via self-archiving is
at least 3 high as great as the number being made OA via OA journals,
and growing faster. That stands to reason, when there are 24,000
journals, only 1000 of them OA ("gold") but at least 50% more of them
"green" (i.e., formally endorsing self-archiving). With the preprint +
corrigenda strategy, that rises to 100% -- potentially. Now we have to
make that potentially into actually. For that, institutions must extend
their existing publish-or-perish policies to also mandate open-access
provision: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
To join the Forum:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Hypermail Archive:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Leo Waiijers wrote:
> > But, what if libraries cannot afford the subscriptions any longer,
> > break out of the Big Deals and have to resume their cancellation
> > policies (as happens in the US at the moment)? Do you think that
> > the commercial publishers will remain passive and accept that
> > their articles will stay accessible for these libraries via self
> > archiving activities of others?
Stevan Harnad wrote:
> This is pure speculation, not only not based on any evidence, but contrary
> to all existing evidence, which is that even in fields (such as certain
> areas of physics) where self-archiving has been pracised for 14 years,
> and has long reached 100%, there has been no cancellation pressure, and
> indeed JHEP, which started as an Open Access ("gold") journal, has since
> reverted to a toll-access ("green") journal cost-recovery model even
> though its contents always have been and still remain 100% OA through
> self-archiving.
You miss my point Stevan. While physicists, mathematicians and others were
self-archiving their articles, libraries kept their subscriptions. In that
case publishers did not object. Why should they? But what if libraries
resume their cancellation policies (as they do) and compensate for the loss
of access by profiting from the 'self-archives' of others? Don't forget, in
your self-archiving world publishers are still the owners of copyright.
> What the research community needs now is OA, not more paralytic
> speculation!
I don't think anticipating some futures is paralytic speculation. I could
easily argue the opposite!
> OA itself will be the needed change, if we can stop waiting passively
> for it, self-archiving instead of self-paralysing with counterfactual
> speculations!
Nobody is waiting passively. Dozens of OAI-MHP-repositories have been
installed and their number grows weekly. They are either filled by
self-archivers or by their libraries. In the same time, the number of
OA-journals has more than doubled in 8 months. So, what's your point? The
sun also rises if the cock does not crow!
Leo.
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, Waaijers, Leo wrote:
> As long as libraries keep paying incredible amounts for their subscriptions,
> publishers will allow self archiving of the published articles in return. In
> that case it is not necessary to change anything. You're quite right.
But what this leaves out is that far from enough authors are
self-archiving yet, whereas all could be, and we could already have 100%
open access. Paradoxically, Leo himself, though a friend of OA, then
goes on to repeat, yet again, one of the many (at least 31) groundless
and easily rebutted worries about self-archiving:
> But, what if libraries cannot afford the subscriptions any longer, break out
> of the Big Deals and have to resume their cancellation policies (as happens
> in the US at the moment)? Do you think that the commercial publishers will
> remain passive and accept that their articles will stay accessible for these
> libraries via self archiving activities of others?
This is pure speculation, not only not based on any evidence, but contrary
to all existing evidence, which is that even in fields (such as certain
areas of physics) where self-archiving has been pracised for 14 years,
and has long reached 100%, there has been no cancellation pressure, and
indeed JHEP, which started as an Open Access ("gold") journal, has since
reverted to a toll-access ("green") journal cost-recovery model even
though its contents always have been and still remain 100% OA through
self-archiving.
See: http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#17.Publishers
What the research community needs now is OA, not more paralytic
speculation!
> I don't think so. At the end of the day we will encounter a bifurcation.
> Either self archiving of commercially published articles will be forbidden
> or commercial publishers have to convert to the Open Access model (in which
> case they must foresee serious troubles with their shareholders who expect
> profits of 40% and up).
But first, can we just go ahead and have 100% OA? Then we can watch
in a more leisurely way how things will evolve, with no more research
access continuing to be needlessly lost?
> Consequently, things have to change. And the sooner the bullet is bitten,
> the better.
OA itself will be the needed change, if we can stop waiting passively
for it, self-archiving instead of self-paralysing with counterfactual
speculations!
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
To join the Forum:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Hypermail Archive:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
-Original Message- From: Barbara Kirsop To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: 27-2-2004 10:58 Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access "We would like to call on all those commited to the OA movement to redress the balance in your promotional activities by explaining to all that with OAArch nothing else need change." Indeed Barbara, "nothing else need change". That's exactly my problem. As long as libraries keep paying incredible amounts for their subscriptions, publishers will allow self archiving of the published articles in return. In that case it is not necessary to change anything. You're quite right. But, what if libraries cannot afford the subscriptions any longer, break out of the Big Deals and have to resume their cancellation policies (as happens in the US at the moment)? Do you think that the commercial publishers will remain passive and accept that their articles will stay accessible for these libraries via self archiving activities of others? I don't think so. At the end of the day we will encounter a bifurcation. Either self archiving of commercially published articles will be forbidden or commercial publishers have to convert to the Open Access model (in which case they must foresee serious troubles with their shareholders who expect profits of 40% and up). Consequently, things have to change. And the sooner the bullet is bitten, the better. Leo Waaijers.
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
I fully support this attitude.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le 27 Février 2004 04:58, Barbara Kirsop a écrit :
> Working with ICT and development, and specifically with refereed
> research literature, we strongly support Stevan's message regarding the
> imbalance between OAPub ["gold"] and OAArch ["green"], both in the
> debates in this list and in the general media coverage of OA.
>
> [BOAI-2 ("OAPub" "gold"): Publish your article in a suitable
> open-access journal whenever one exists.
> BOAI-1 ("OAArch" "green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a
> suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it.]
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0027.gif
>
> Of course, ALL OA support is greatly welcomed, but OAPub will take some
> time to achieve. For those in the developing world who cannot wait, we
> are doing all we can to raise awareness about the opportunities offered
> by OAArch, by writing, talking, organising workshops for establishing
> archives Bioline International is doing sterling work showing the
> way by archiving all the 24 developing country journals it currently
> distributes -- http://bioline.utsc.utoronto.ca --. But more help is needed
> from the international scientific community.
>
> We would like to call on all those commited to the OA movement to
> redress the balance in your promotional activities by explaining to all
> that with OAArch nothing else need change. All organisations, including
> developing country institutes, can archive their refereed published
> research as soon as they have set up their own archives or, even easier,
> can use one of the other interoperable archives already established. At
> a stroke, the S to N, N to S and S to S knowledge gaps can begin to
> close. No need to worry about the fate of established journals, no need
> to worry about economic models, no need to worry about
> costs/workload/quality/ - no need to change anything else atall.
> Scholarly publishing continues in its well known and reliable path.
>
> Perhaps the other argument that will most pursuade researchers in the
> developed world is that the 'missing' research is essential for their
> own research too. They think they know it all, but search for 'gene',
> say, through the yet embryonic Bioline archive and the results will
> show that they do not. Search for 'malaria' in the main Bioline
> site -- http://www.bioline.org.br -- and a wealth of important data
> emerges. Developing country knowledge is essential for us all. The other
> most pursuasive argument to encourage archiving by scientists and their
> institutes in the developed world is the greatly increased impact of
> everyone's archived research -- http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php
> --.
>
> This is what all scientists, and every institute funding their work,
> most want. Why hide their achievements when institutional archiving is
> available to all?
>
> The OAPub route will progress and the economic debate will be resolved
> over time, but the OAArch can happen now and we owe it to our scientific
> colleagues in the less priviledged countries - and to ourselves - to
> 'just do it'. Ideas as to how to speed up this reform would be very
> welcome from subscribers to this list.
>
> Subbiah Arunachalam, Trustee EPT, MS Swaminathan Institute, Chennai
> Leslie Chan, Trustee EPT, University of Toronto
> Barbara Kirsop, Secretary EPT, UK
>
> Electronic Publishing Trust for Development
> <http://www.epublishingtrust.org>
>
> --
>
> Prior Threads:
>
> On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html
>
> The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3378.html
>
> The Green and Gold Roads to Open Access
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3147.html
--
Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur
Littérature comparée, Université de Montréal
Tél. : 1-514-343-6208
Fax : 1-514-343-2211
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Working with ICT and development, and specifically with refereed
research literature, we strongly support Stevan's message regarding the
imbalance between OAPub ["gold"] and OAArch ["green"], both in the
debates in this list and in the general media coverage of OA.
[BOAI-2 ("OAPub" "gold"): Publish your article in a suitable
open-access journal whenever one exists.
BOAI-1 ("OAArch" "green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a
suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it.]
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0026.gif
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0027.gif
Of course, ALL OA support is greatly welcomed, but OAPub will take some
time to achieve. For those in the developing world who cannot wait, we
are doing all we can to raise awareness about the opportunities offered
by OAArch, by writing, talking, organising workshops for establishing
archives Bioline International is doing sterling work showing the
way by archiving all the 24 developing country journals it currently
distributes -- http://bioline.utsc.utoronto.ca --. But more help is needed
from the international scientific community.
We would like to call on all those commited to the OA movement to
redress the balance in your promotional activities by explaining to all
that with OAArch nothing else need change. All organisations, including
developing country institutes, can archive their refereed published
research as soon as they have set up their own archives or, even easier,
can use one of the other interoperable archives already established. At
a stroke, the S to N, N to S and S to S knowledge gaps can begin to
close. No need to worry about the fate of established journals, no need
to worry about economic models, no need to worry about
costs/workload/quality/ - no need to change anything else atall.
Scholarly publishing continues in its well known and reliable path.
Perhaps the other argument that will most pursuade researchers in the
developed world is that the 'missing' research is essential for their
own research too. They think they know it all, but search for 'gene',
say, through the yet embryonic Bioline archive and the results will
show that they do not. Search for 'malaria' in the main Bioline
site -- http://www.bioline.org.br -- and a wealth of important data
emerges. Developing country knowledge is essential for us all. The other
most pursuasive argument to encourage archiving by scientists and their
institutes in the developed world is the greatly increased impact of
everyone's archived research -- http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php
--.
This is what all scientists, and every institute funding their work,
most want. Why hide their achievements when institutional archiving is
available to all?
The OAPub route will progress and the economic debate will be resolved
over time, but the OAArch can happen now and we owe it to our scientific
colleagues in the less priviledged countries - and to ourselves - to
'just do it'. Ideas as to how to speed up this reform would be very
welcome from subscribers to this list.
Subbiah Arunachalam, Trustee EPT, MS Swaminathan Institute, Chennai
Leslie Chan, Trustee EPT, University of Toronto
Barbara Kirsop, Secretary EPT, UK
Electronic Publishing Trust for Development
<http://www.epublishingtrust.org>
--
Prior Threads:
On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html
The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3378.html
The Green and Gold Roads to Open Access
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3147.html
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote:
> As a movement, open access could do worse than follow Stevan's strategy:
> publish in an open access journal when you can; if there is no open access
> journal for you, publish where you can and self-archive.
Amen!
"that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
-John Keats
> As a company, we have taken on the daunting task of delivering open
> access to the academic community...
Let us hope that in taking on this daunting task BMC will not do worse,
promoting only organic food and passing in silence over the part about
how to feed the starving: As long as BMC and PLoS have institututions'
and research funders' ears, they have a historic duty to tell them the
whole truth, and not just the part that is pertinent to the product they
are delivering.
> Stevan's been banging the drum for at least a decade now
Stay tuned! You ain't heard nothin' yet...
Stevan Harnad
NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open
access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum:
To join the Forum:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Hypermail Archive:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy:
BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access
journal whenever one exists.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals
BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable
toll-access journal and also self-archive it.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Dear Jim, It seems that Open Access can mean many (well, at least two) different things, and perhaps in that respect the analogy with food is appropriate. With a dearth of food it's just anything edible one craves, even though it doesn't taste nice or has long-term undesirable effects; if there is an abundance, one doesn't have to be concerned about mere sustenance and the taste, quality, nutritiousness, and general effect on one's health becomes more important. So with Free Access and Open Access. Discussing the difference is only important in the sense that perceptions of what Open Access is may influence some expectations. The agenda -- or I should perhaps say the focus -- of the two principle strands of Open Access advocacy is somewhat different, but not in any way conflicting. The self-archiving strand, if I may call it that, aims to ensure free access to research articles as fast and as wide as possible. Period. And that's a very good thing, particularly for access-starved researchers and students in developing countries. "Free Access for the starving" if you wish. The more of it, the better, and I fully agree with that aim. Even some traditional publishers do (which I find puzzling at best and suspicious at worst; either they don't understand the consequences or they don't believe there will be any; it's not researchers that need to worry about that, but librarians, I guess). The other strand, Open Access publishing, aims to fundamentally transform scientific publishing so that sustainable free access (and more; hence the difference in terminology: Open Access - Free Access) becomes the norm. If successful, this delivers "Organic Open Access"; Open Access from inception; structural Open Access; for the starving and the well-fed alike. No support here from the traditional publishers, perhaps not very surprisingly. The two strands are related, of course, but not the same. Eventually, also the self-archiving strand will effect a transformation of scientific publishing. The benefit of a discussion like the one on this list is that we all gain understanding of what exactly is going on. Some of the confusion may be attributable to the two stands co-inciding. Were self-archiving successful already (no reason why that shouldn't have been possible; Stevan's been banging the drum for at least a decade now), the transformation of science publishing might have been seen as a completely natural and logical consequence. Conversely, had Open Access publishing been started earlier and be the norm by now, self-archiving would be pretty much redundant. But neither is the case, and it makes sense to keep pushing on both fronts. As a movement, open access could do worse than follow Stevan's strategy: publish in an open access journal when you can; if there is no open access journal for you, publish where you can and self-archive. As a company, we have taken on the daunting task of delivering open access to the academic community, as a service that is superior to the toll-access that traditional publishers offer and in head-on competition with them. With regard to preservation and your anecdote, in the short term preservation may not be all that important (if you're very hungry, the long-term effects of eating only carbohydrates doesn't worry you). But in the long term it is. Not for every article, you're right, and, as you say, probably only for a small minority. But as we cannot at this juncture know for which ones it will be important (the future 'paradigmatic' articles) and for which ones not, it is important for every article. Do you mind if I don't speculate with regard to the OA articles that may be judged as 'classical' in the future? I feel only safe speculating that it will be none of mine! Best regards, Jan > -Original Message- > From: Jim Till [mailto:t...@uhnres.utoronto.ca] > Sent: 10 January 2004 23:28 > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Subject: Re: Stable Self-Archiving Software > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Jan Velterop wrote: > > > The potential for instability you describe lends support > > to the necessity of inclusion in the definition of Open > > Access of this: "['open access' means that:] The article > > is universally and freely accessible via the Internet, in > > an easily readable format and deposited immediately upon > > publication, without embargo, in an agreed format - > > current preference is XML with a declared DTD - in at > > least one widely and internationally recognized open > > access repository (such as PubMed Central)" (from the > > BioMed Central definition: > > http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/charter). We > > deposit also in HTML and PDF, but both are of course based > > on the underlying XML. [remainder of message snipped] > > Dear Jan - > > Thanks for your response, and for your reference to the BMC definition > of open access. Although I do have some doubts about this particular > definition, I don't have similar doubts
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Dr.Vinod Scaria wrote: > It is... counterproductive to ignore the authors from the developing > world who have been always kept away from the mainstream. > I am not against the "author pays" model, but just against the lack of > flexibility in operation. Majority of researchers in developing countries > have never had the luxury of being funded. > > There could be other viable models- like paying a fixed percentage of > funds for publishing. This would sound more aesthetic to researchers too. > This would also mean publishers could easily subsidize for research from > developing countries as well as researchers from Developed countries who > are not funded. Agreed. And I am sure that both PLoS and BMC will do that. (And let us not forget the only option for the 95% of papers for which there is not yet a suitable open-access jouranl: Authors from developing countries too have and should use the self-archiving option.) But publishing an article in a journal is not the same as subscribing to a journal. Subscribing can be done as an institutional pre-commitment, annually. Publishing in a given journal cannot. An institution cannot commit itself to a certain quantity of articles in a given journal in advance (that must be each individual researcher's chboice, for each paper); nor can a journal guarantee their acceptance in advance. But a slush fund for unaffiliated authors or authors at universities that cannot afford the submission costs is definitely a good idea. "Access-Denial, Impact-Denial and the Developing and Developed World" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2171.html > The heavy start up support gives them a clear edge over new > and existing publishers... If it was > really interested in supporting open Access, it should have supported > Journal of Biology, an Open Access Journal from BMC. This seems to me a bit too prescriptive about the best way for PLoS to spend its money! (After all, no one really knows what's the best way to accelerate open access: all we know is that it's feasible and well overdue!) It is not clear that promoting existing open-access journals rather than creating more new ones is best for open access. And don't forget that BMC has money backing it too (and that BMC is commercial whereas PLoS is non-profit). Besides, from a strictly quantitative and probabilistic point of view, one could argue that money would be far better spent on promoting self-archiving rather than open-access publishing at this time! At least that judgment has an empirical basis, rather than merely being a hunch. But I am in no better a position to say how PLoS or OSI should spend their money than you are! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin_files/Slide0005.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin_files/Slide0006.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin_files/Slide0007.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin_files/Slide0008.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin_files/Slide0009.gif http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin_files/Slide0004.gif >sh> And the same can be said about volunteer-service-based journals: >sh> It is too early to say whether they can last on volunteerism alone, >sh> let alone whether volunteerism can scale up to all 24,000 refereed >sh> journals! > > Just imagine the scalability if the Internet was monopolised by > come company! The whole spectrum of resources we access with a > click was created by volunteerism, donations and public money. But journals, whether on-paper or on-line, were not. We are free to try to create and maintain 24,000 refereed journals on a volunteer basis, but the principle remains to be proved. > Does PubMed/PubMedCentral make any profit? No, nor does it seek to. BioMedDebtral does not yet make a profit either. But is there anything wrong with their hoping to, if/when open access prevails? >sh> Perhaps a far better choice would have been to require all your authors >sh> to (1) try to self-archive their articles at their own institutions, and >sh> only in those cases where that failed, (2) to self-archive them in >sh> CogPrints or another suitable OAI-compliant archive. Offloading the >sh> self-archiving task onto the distributed authorship instead of the >sh> journal staff would take some of the load off the volunteer efforts >sh> (hence costs) involved! >sh> That policy would also have the benefit of spreading the practise of >sh> self-archiving by authors, as well as archive-provision by their >sh> institutions. > > And yes! we actually plan to provide the authors with PDF reprints which > they could archive on their own. We did it ourselves just because we > need to see the whole thing gets started. We are also encouraging authors > to republish them on their institutional websites/repositories or their > own websites in addition to our existing archive at Cogprints. Bravo! But please don't call it "publishing" or "republishing" if you do
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Authors either don't want open access badly enough, or they are insufficiently au fait with the options, or it's just inertia that makes them so far fail to move more quickly to open access. The momentum is growing fast, I agree, but not yet fast enough, and I really think that the idea of 23,500 journals that would need to be converted for OA publishing to be successful is a red herring. All researchers in the life-sciences already have the option. We would happily face the challenge of a hundred-fold increase in submissions, even a thousand-fold one, as the BioMed Central system and technology is built to be eminently and vastly scalable. The funds for Article Processing Fees is seldom an insurmountable problem in our experience so far, at least in the OECD countries. Opportunities for self-archiving are not the problem either, I understand. So it's a question of the penny dropping that open access is indeed better for science, better for anyone interested in scientific research results, and with increasing numbers of funding bodies -- and prestigious ones at that -- in support of open access, better for researchers' funding prospects and careers as well. Our focus on persuading researchers that open access is in their interest is the only right one and the task we share. The *options* are wide open to them, be it OA journals or OA repositories for self-archiving. An old friend of mine used to say "The mind is like a parachute; it only works if it's open". The same could be said of scientific research literature and that's the message we're giving. I guess we agree enough to close this discussion and start a new thread in which we share 'strategies and methods to persuade authors of the benefits of open access' Jan Velterop BioMed Central
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Stevan, Option 1, publishing in open access journals, is open to virtually all disciplines of biology and medicine. It is not the number of open access journals that counts here, but the disciplines covered. Top papers in biology could go to PLoS Biology or JBiol, and all other papers could go to the 100 or so other journals BioMed Central publishes. Of course, in reality that won't happen and more OA journals and OA publishers are needed, not just to cover the disciplines of biology and medicine (that's done), but to cover 'soft' classifications, divisions and distinctions, such as schools of thought, national or regional interests, scholarly society interests, super-specialisms, real or perceived quality layers, prestige levels, et cetera. But to say that the *option* isn't currently open, at least to authors of the majority of life science papers (some 60% of the total science literature), is incorrect. Best wishes, Jan On Monday, Oct 27, 2003, at 18:03 Europe/London, Stevan Harnad wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote: > >> Our advice to authors should be: >> >> 1. Publish in open access journals when possible; >> >> 2. If not possible, self-archive in OAI-compliant repositories in a >> machine-readable format (such as XML); >> >> 3. Should that not be possible either, self-archive in other formats >> (such >> as pdf). >> >> However, in *any* case, make sure your articles are freely and >> publicly >> available! > > That's exactly the right advice, in exactly the right order. However: > > (1) It is an undeniable fact that option 1 is open to very few of the > yearly 2,500,000 papers published today (because the open-access -- > "golden" -- journals are far too few: >>5%). > > (2) Option 2 will be open only > to the papers in some of the Romeo "green" journals (those that allow > the self-archiving of the publisher's XML) plus the still infinitesmal > (though growing) number of authors who write their papers in XML. > > (3) So the overwhelming majority of papers today will only have option > 1 > (which includes PDF, HTML, TeX, etc.). > > If they *do* all do that, however, my own work in this domain will be > done and I will return to the ranks of the creators and users of this > literature (and your message box will have fewer and shorter emails!). > > But your 3-pronged advice is right, and I hope you will be giving it > to all > authors! > > Cheers, Stevan > > NOTE: Complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open > access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at > the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): > > http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html > Posted discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org > > Dual Open-Access Strategy: > BOAI-2: Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal > whenever one exists. > BOAI-1: Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access > journal and also self-archive it. > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml > http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
I've re-directed this thread from the closed Budapest list to the AmSci list as it has now become of more general interest. -- SH On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Jan Velterop wrote: > The trouble is, making the case for open access journals *implies* making > the case for open-archiving (indeed multiple archiving, as multiple as > possible; as you know, the BMC material is at the very least archived in > PubMed Central, INIST, Potsdam and the Royal Dutch Library; more to come). > Self-archiving doesn't imply open access publishing in the same way. Jan, I think there is a major misconstrual here: Open-access publishing does not imply open-access *self*-archiving, it merely implies (indeed requires) open-access *archiving*! There is a world of a difference there. And the fact that open-access publishing implies archiving is certainly no "dual-strategy" on the part of open-access publishing (BOAI-2) toward open-access self-archiving (BOAI-1)! (I have noticed -- and noted -- this somewhat erroneous implication in BMC promotional material before): An open-access journal *must* (by definition) provide open access to its articles. So that *necessarily* implies some form of online archiving for access provision -- but not necessarily self-archiving! On the contrary, surely the *one* kind of journal where the author need *not* perform those extra keystrokes it requires to self-archive, is an open-access journal! Having already *paid* for open-access publication, the author would understandably feel doubly put-upon if he himself also had to take the responsibility for providing the access and doing the archiving, just as if he was publishing in a toll-access journal (for free)! [But the case is actually more complicated; I will return to the above point in a moment in connection with (hypothetical) *future* open-access publishing, done slightly differently. I am referring only to present-day, BMC- and PLoS-style open-access journals right now.] So the kind of (presumably OAI-compliant) archiving that must be done with the articles in an open-access journal is *not* self-archiving, being surely the responsibility of the journal, not the author! So open-access publishing does *not* imply open-access self-archiving. Nor does open-access self-archiving imply open-access publishing, as you correctly note. So in that respect the two strategies are on a par. However, the dual open-access strategy, if promoted by both BOAI-1 and BOAI-2 as I have recommended: BOAI-2: publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists; BOAI-1: otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it would have the following benefits for BOAI-2 and its archiving burden: Today, as authors self-archive the majority of their articles (which are today 95% toll-access journal articles), it is quite natural for them to also go on to do those same extra keystrokes for the 5% of them that are open-access journal articles -- especially if the self-archiving is a systematic institutional or departmental policy along the lines of the policy model we have recommended: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html Insitutional research output will *all* be self-archived in the institutional archive, whether it is published in a toll-access or an open-access journal (if for no other reason then to facilitate research assessment: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ ). And now we can return to that hypothetical future form of open-access publishing, when it will no longer be the odd-man-out as it is now, but the form of publishing to which all of toll-access publishing all converts, because open-access self-archiving has become universal: In cost-cutting and down-sizing to open-access publishing, all toll-access publishers *then* will be able to offload all access and storage functions onto the network of existing institutional eprint archives of self-archived research output, allowing the journals to charge less for their sole remaining essential service (administering peer review). http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.htm Right now, you can really only ask your paying authors to self-archive for you as a favor. But if you adopt the dual strategy, it will seem a much smaller favor to ask. And it will promote self-archiving too. > Self-archiving is the cough mixture where open access publishing is the > vaccine. That's good and fine. And you are right, it's much more immediate, > too, and very soothing as a palliative, as long as you can convince the > patient to take it. I'm afraid I have to reject that metaphor! Let's talk about today's *absence* of open access for over 90% of researchers' output as lost potential impact. *That's* the disease. Today, open-access publishing is the cure for about 5% of that disease: Only self-archiving can cure all the rest (yes *all* the rest). Wait for open-access publishing? Wait for the creation
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Here are some comments on the October 6 Guardian article that usefully describes one of the two roads to open access -- open-access publishing -- but unfortunately omits the other, larger and faster road: open-access self-archiving. >Scientists take on the publishers in an experiment to make >research free to all > >New academics' journal launched in challenge to multinationals > >David Adam, science correspondent Monday October 6, 2003 The >Guardian >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1056608,00.html > >In the highly lucrative world of cutting-edge scientific research, >it is nothing short of a revolution. A group of leading scientists >are to mount an unprecedented challenge to the publishers >that lock away the valuable findings of research in expensive, >subscription-only electronic databases by launching their own >journal to give away results for free. The PLoS open-access journals are very important, welcome and useful. But they are certainly not the first open-access journals. There have been open-access journals since the late 1980's, and in many fields. Moreover the objective is not to challenge research publishers but to provide open access to published research. >The control of information on everything from new cancer >treatments to space exploration is at stake, while caught in the >crossfire are the world's publicly funded scientists, some of whom >will soon face a choice between their career and their conscience. It is not about control of information (for this information is all being published, in research journals that anyone whose institution can afford the access-tolls can read). It is about *access* to that information, which most potential users' institutions cannot afford. >On one side of the conflict stand the major multinational >publishing houses like Elsevier Science that package scientific >findings into hundreds of specialist journals and sell them for >thousands of pounds a year. On the other is a new publishing group >called the Public Library of Science (PLoS) that will distribute >its journals free of charge and is backed by top scientists, >including the British Nobel prize winners Paul Nurse and Sir >John Sulston. And also on the other side, along with the open-access publishers like PLoS and the Nobel Laureates are the hundreds of thousands of researchers who are making their own toll-access articles open-access by self-archiving them on their institutional websites. And on the same side with them are at least 55% of research journals which, though toll-access, support open-access self-archiving by their authors -- all Elsevier's journals being among them! (And many of the other journals will agree, if asked). http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm The reason 55% of research, at the very least, is not already open-access is hence not its publishers! It is that researchers and their institutions have not yet realized that self-archiving their own research in their own institutional open-access archives is what they should be doing. If half as much energy and enthusiasm were invested in promoting open-access self-archiving as is being invested in open-access publishing today, then not just the articles in today's c. 500 open-access journals would be open-access, but so would the articles in the remaining 23,500 toll-access journals. Even at its present paltry rate, at least three times as much annual research is made open-access by being self-archived as by being published in an open-access journal -- and in some areas of physics, *all* research is already open-access. Promoting open-access self-archiving instead of just open-access publishing would greatly accelerate that rate -- and it would accelerate the transition to open-access publishing too! http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.htm >"The publishers are making a lot of money out of our research and >it's not fair that lots of good, basic science isn't available >to everyone," said Julie Ahringer, a biologist at Cambridge >University. "Knowledge should be free." Not all knowledge, but all knowledge that the author chooses to give away (as all research journal article authors do). Unless we make this critical distinction, which is at the very heart of the open-access movement, we invite royalty-based book and textbook authors (for example) to oppose the open-access movement! All *author-give-away knowledge* should be free. >Dr Ahringer is on the editorial board of PLoS Biology, the >group's first journal that is due to be launched on October >13. With articles about the genetic origins of elephants and >molecular signalling in the fruit fly, it is unlikely to displace >
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
These are comments on two October 9 articles on open access in Nature by Declan Butler (plus an accompanying letter by John Ewing). > Who Will Pay for Open Access/DECLAN BUTLER > http://www.nature.com/cgi-bin/doifinder.pl?URL=/doifinder/10.1038/425554a > > Will scientists, their host institutions and those who fund their research > embrace the author-pays model? And if they do, is $1,500 per article enough > to cover the costs of producing a journal of the highest quality? The quality of a journal depends on the quality of its submissions and the rigor and selectivity of its peer review. Authors give their papers for free; referees referee for free. The only cost is administering the peer-review service. The highest-end estimate for the cost of implementing peer review alone has been $500 per paper: http://agenda.cern.ch/askArchive.php?a01193/a01193s5t11/transparencies > For most researchers in the physical sciences PLoS's campaign is a side > issue. They routinely make their papers freely available before formal > publication using online preprint archives such as arXiv org. Arxiv.org is a central archive, mainly for physics, but also for mathematics, computer science, and (as noted in Butler's other article, below), now for quantitative biology too. But neither Arxiv nor any of the growing number of institutional open-access eprint archives is or has ever been for unrefereed preprints alone, or even primarily. Open-access archives are for both the pre-refereeing preprint and the post-refereeing postprint. The preprint comes, logically and chronologically, before the postprint in the embryology of an article, but it is the refereed postprint that is the most important to self-archive and thereby make open-access. It is incorrect and misleading to equate open-access self-archiving with preprint-archiving. I think the reason opponents of self-archiving keep misrepresenting self-archiving as being only or mainly preprint self-archiving may be that they wish to sound a note of warning bout self-archiving that would simply make no sense if it were frankly admitted that both the preprint and postprint stage of research are being self-archived. Here is an example: > But for biologists who are not generally comfortable with prepublication > the answers to the questions thrown up by the launch of PLoS Biology > may define the future of scientific communication. Here is that usual wishful discouraging note again! The future of scientific communication will indeed be permanently altered by open access, but open access is not just open-access publication (and open-access self-archiving is not just preprint-archiving)! > PLoS's ... letter attracted more than 30,000 signatures although > few signatories seem to have followed through on their pledge to stop > submitting to and reviewing for journals that have not acceded to PLoS's > call for open access. These journals remain in the majority hence PLoS's > decision to launch its own publishing enterprise. It is certainly true that the many researchers who signed the toll-access journal boycott petition had no place to go when their petition failed to convert the 23,500 toll-access journals into open-access journals (of which there are still only around 500). That's why PLoS created its two new open-access journals. But waiting passively for the one-by-one conversion or replacement of the 23,500 toll-access journals is not the only road to open access, nor the fastest: There is also self-archiving, and each researcher can do that on his own, right now, with no need to wait for anything. In fact, 55% of journals sampled already officially support author self-archiving, and many others will agree if asked. Becoming a Romeo "green" (self-archiving-friendly) publisher is a way that publishers can provide their support to open access and its benefits to research and researchers without necessarily having to take the radical and risky step of converting to open-access publishing at this time: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1 > Some journals such as the American Physiological Society's Physiological > Genomics are allowing authors to pay for open online access for individual > papers while retaining a subscription model for the journal as a whole. Authors who can afford it are welcome to pay toll-access journals to do their self-archiving for them, but for those who cannot afford that, self-archiving for themselves, in their own institutional eprint archives, is surely the preferable option. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/.html > "I feel that PLoS's estimate is low by four to sixfold says cell biologist" > Ira Mellman of Yale University editor of the The Journal of Cell Biology. The true cost of the essentials has been a matter of much debate and speculation since at least 1998: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Thanks from me too to Stephen and Barbara. Concerning informing the research community: A colleague and I had a poster on this issue about 4 years ago at a scientific conference. The feedback at the conference was very encouraging and interstingly enough we still get emails now of people asking us about the developments. So I think this is one way to continue. Brigitte Stemmer Stevan Harnad wrote: On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Barbara Kirsop wrote: they DID print the letter - today (Oct 9th) http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1058838,00.html Bravo Stephen Pinfield, and Barbara Kirsop, and Bravo Guardian! Now back to the hard work of informing and activating the research community. (Some of the other letters show signs of the familiar misunderstandings: mixing up open access with selective developing-world toll-subsidies -- welcome, but not at all the same thing as open-access; mixing up open access with university-restricted institution-wide toll-access; imagining that open-access journal-costs are to paid from the author's pocket! and so on. We still have our work cut out for us!) Stevan Harnad PS I am preparing an extensive critique and corrective concerning the original Guardian article. Posting shortly. --- Stevan Harnad wrote: Dear Stephen [Pinfield], Your letter says exactly what needed to be said. It's a great pity the Guardian did not print it. But the press is extremely superficial and actually hasn't the faintest idea of what is afoot or at issue here: it only has an ear for sensation. But it is the research community, not the press or even the general public, that needs to be informed, and needs to come to understand this. With your permission I'd like to include your letter with a posting I am preparing concerning the Guardian article. Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:04:51 +0100 From: Stephen Pinfield Subject: Re: Letter to the Guardian Letter to the Guardian. Sent Monday 6th October at 4.56 pm. Not printed. "Setting up new open-access journals is one way of trying to ensure that scientific research is free to all (Scientists take on the publishers, October 6). The problem is that new journals take at least five years to establish themselves in their research community. Another way of improving scientific communication is for authors to deposit their own papers in open-access repositories run by their university or subject community. Papers can be 'self archived' in this way at the same time (or before) they are published in conventional journals. This can happen now. Around the world many universities are currently setting up such repositories. One such initiative, SHERPA, involving several UK research-led universities is already underway (www.sherpa.ac.uk). Stephen Pinfield Assistant Director of Information Services University of Nottingham Web http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~uazsjp/
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Michael Eisen wrote: > > Stevan Harnad wrote: > > > > Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made openly > > accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being > > published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an > > open-access archive is irrelevant: Either way, the data reported in it > > are available to be used computationally. Don't confuse the use and > > re-use of data with the use of the *text* to generate other text (other > > than by quoting it): Any other re-use of text is plagiarism (i.e., if it > > is not quotation). Text, unlike data and software code, cannot be > > reprocessed and made one's own: It can only be cited and quoted. > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html > > What do you mean "don't confuse the re-use of data with the use of text"? > These are exactly the same thing. There are two goals for open access > publishing. The first is free access for all to the scientific publications. > The second is the ability to treat text as data - something that you deride. Let me explain as clearly as I can: If I put a data-table into my text: "1 3 7 2 4 6 5" and publish the text as a (copyrighted) article of mine on paper (only), the reader/user is free to copy down my data (by pencil, or typing it on a computer) and then do some computations to re-order it and publish the results in an article (on paper) to the effect that "the (cited) author generated the wrong data-ordering. It should have been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7" or even that "the extension of the (cited) authors finding is: 8 10 14 9 11 13 12" etc. Now if you can do that on paper, you can do it even more easily if the full-text, including the data, is freely accessible online -- either as the result of having been published in an open-access journal or as the result of having been published in a toll-access journal and also self-archived by the author in an open-access archive. It saves the user the trouble of having to re-pencil or retype it. The only thing the user may not do (if copyright protection is retained, as it *should* be, rather than putting the text into the public domain, as recommended by the Sabo Bill) is to republish my own words of text (rather than the data I report), on-paper or online. That protection means (1) you may not print or distribute paper copies of my text other than for your own use, (2) you may not include my text in your own text as your own published text (though you may quote it in your own published text if you attribute authorship), and (3) you may not include my text in your own text, even with authorship attribution, if you alter or corrupt my text. But -- and this is absolutely critical if we are to understand free online full-text access in the PostGutenberg Age correctly: My making my own full-text freely accessible online means *anyone* worldwide who has access to the web may (i) retrieve my full-text online, (ii) read it on-screen, (iii) download it, (iv) save it, (v) print it off, (vi) do online or offline computations on it. In addition, the software agents (e.g. google) that I choose to empower to do so (and, by default, this could be all of them) can, like individuals, (vii) harvest my text, invert it, index it, perhaps perform further computations on it. This is not even a legal fact, it is a practical, technological and inevitable fact about free, full-text web access and the nature of computers and the internet (and of files that are not fire-walled by a password or encryption or agent-blocker). If a law allows us to walk inside a building, a separate law is not needed to say we may breathe the air in the building; nor is a law that says we may walk but not breathe enforceable -- except in a sci-fi scenario that is not worth our wasting our time even contemplating, either in the case of walk-but-don't-breathe or read-but-don't-download-or-compute. If I choose to make my full-text open access, all of the above goes with the territory. If I instead choose to put my text behind a password-protected firewall, or to encrypt it to block certain uses, then I am not making it open-access. The crucial thing to understand, though, is that I can make my text open-access in two ways: either by publishing it in an open-access journal (which will then presumably go on to make my full-text openly accessible on my behalf) or by publishing it in a toll-access journal, and self-archiving it in my own institutional open-access archive, thereby making it open-access on my own behalf. There is no need to put the text in the public domain, in either case (open-access publishing or open-access self-archiving). That would be a completely unnecessary sacrifice and risk to both my authorship and the integrity of my text (as discussed extensively on the thread "Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ). And the copyright issue is much simpl
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Barbara Kirsop wrote: > they DID print the letter - today (Oct 9th) http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1058838,00.html Bravo Stephen Pinfield, and Barbara Kirsop, and Bravo Guardian! Now back to the hard work of informing and activating the research community. (Some of the other letters show signs of the familiar misunderstandings: mixing up open access with selective developing-world toll-subsidies -- welcome, but not at all the same thing as open-access; mixing up open access with university-restricted institution-wide toll-access; imagining that open-access journal-costs are to paid from the author's pocket! and so on. We still have our work cut out for us!) Stevan Harnad PS I am preparing an extensive critique and corrective concerning the original Guardian article. Posting shortly. --- > Stevan Harnad wrote: > > >Dear Stephen [Pinfield], > > > >Your letter says exactly what needed to be said. It's a great pity the > >Guardian did not print it. But the press is extremely superficial and > >actually hasn't the faintest idea of what is afoot or at issue here: it > >only has an ear for sensation. But it is the research community, not the > >press or even the general public, that needs to be informed, and needs > >to come to understand this. With your permission I'd like to include > >your letter with a posting I am preparing concerning the Guardian article. > > > >>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:04:51 +0100 > >>From: Stephen Pinfield > >>Subject: Re: Letter to the Guardian > >> > >>Letter to the Guardian. > >>Sent Monday 6th October at 4.56 pm. > >>Not printed. > >> > >>"Setting up new open-access journals is one way of trying to ensure that > >>scientific research is free to all (Scientists take on the publishers, > >>October 6). The problem is that new journals take at least five years > >>to establish themselves in their research community. Another way of > >>improving scientific communication is for authors to deposit their own > >>papers in open-access repositories run by their university or subject > >>community. Papers can be 'self archived' in this way at the same time > >>(or before) they are published in conventional journals. This can > >>happen now. Around the world many universities are currently setting > >>up such repositories. One such initiative, SHERPA, involving several > >>UK research-led universities is already underway (www.sherpa.ac.uk). > >> > >>Stephen Pinfield > >>Assistant Director of Information Services > >>University of Nottingham > >>Web http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~uazsjp/
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Thank you! - Original Message - From: "Richard Durbin" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access > I have been watching this mailing list for some time. > > Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access > publishing is what is needed in the long run. > > This is because the key property is not that everyone can get at a copy > of a publication, but rather that people can use information in it > computationally, producing extracts, syntheses, new indexes etc. This > is now possible. > > I come from the community that led open release of data in genomics: the > C.elegans genome mapping then sequencing project, followed by the human > genome project. The real value of the way that genome data such as the > human genome sequence is available is that people can use it and build > on it. Building on publications used to be open, because the only way > to do it was to read and then write something else (e.g. a review or a > new paper with a new idea). And a subscription cost was reasonable > historically because most of the costs were in printing and > distribution. Now, at least in biological science, a lot of valuable > data are published in papers in tables and figures, and people are > developing computational tools that can use this information, and even > the free text. (See www.textpresso.org for an example of the latter.) > So there are ways to use the information in papers for new science, but > to do this we need much more open access to the literature. > > Research funding is provided to generate outputs that others can build > on. Funders, and the rest of the system, want publication to be as > unconstrained as possible, and the only reasons that we haven't yet > taken advantage of electronic publishing to make things less constrained > are historical inertia and the commercial interests of some publishers > (see last week's Wellcome Trust report). > > So, for me, Open Archiving is just a tactical move to keep the > publishers moving to the larger goal of changing scientific publishing > to a better and more natural model, which is possible now with the > network and electronic publishing. > > Richard Durbin > Head of Informatics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute > > Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Scotomata in the Open Access Movement > > > > A blind spot seems to be growing at the *center* (not the edges) > > of the Open-Access-Publishing (OApub) road to Open Access (OA). OApub is a > > valid and welcome road to OA, but in the minds of many of its proponents > > the idea seems to have grown that OApub *is* OA, and that *only* OApub > > is OA. > > > > As a result, because OApub also seems to be a much easier concept > > for researchers to understand than Open-Access Self-Archiving (OAarch), > > and because this easier concept has now also trickled through to some > > research funding bodies, legislators, and even the popular press -- > > Open Access (OA) itself, despite the superficial signs of its growth > > and progress, is now again at risk of being detoured into yet another > > decade of needless delay. > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt > > > > Part of the problem is that OApub has at least three substantial hurdles > > to surmount: > > > > (OApub-1) OA journals have to be created/converted > > http://www.doaj.org/ > > > > (OApub-2) Funding sources must be found for paying the author charges > > for publishing in those OA journals (hence the "Bethesda Statement" > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html ), and > > > > (OApub-3) Authors must be persuaded to publish in those OA journals > > (hence the Sabo Bill > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ). > > > > This would all be fine and as it should be were it anywhere near the > > truth that OApub was indeed the only, or easiest, or most direct, > > or surest road to OA. But none of that is the case! Not only > > is there another road, but that other road is easier, more direct, > > and surer. It calls for only one step, not three or more, namely: > > > > (OAarch-1) Authors must be persuaded to self-archive. > > > > The archives are already there (but near-empty) for the making or > > taking. At least 55% of publishers already support OAarch, and no further > > funding or journal-creation, -conversion, or -renunciation is needed. > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt > > > > But if one is
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Hi Richard: Nice to hear about what you think about all this. I'm building quite a few citeseer like systems. smealsearch.psu.edu citeseer.ist.psu.edu www.ebizsearch.org Can any of this be of help? Best Lee
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
> > Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made openly > accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being > published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an > open-access archive is irrelevant: Either way, the data reported in it > are available to be used computationally. Don't confuse the use and > re-use of data with the use of the *text* to generate other text (other > than by quoting it): Any other re-use of text is plagiarism (i.e., if it > is not quotation). Text, unlike data and software code, cannot be > reprocessed and made one's own: It can only be cited and quoted. > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html Stevan- What do you mean "don't confuse the re-use of data with the use of text"? These are exactly the same thing. There are two goals for open access publishing. The first is free access for all to the scientific publications. The second is the ability to treat text as data - something that you deride. If you think that the only possible use of text is to cite and quote than you have completely missed the potential of open access publishing. If all we accomplish is to let people read any paper they want, we will have accomplished a lot, but we will still have failed. The true potential of open access publishing is the ways in which we can go beyond simply being able to read papers for free online. Searching the full-text of articles is an obvious example of a use of text that goes beyond citing and quoting. And searching is only a trivial example of a use of the content of scientific publications. Scientific publications are not just words - thet contain knowledge, and the type of use Richard is referring to deals not with the data described in a paper, but with the knowledge contained in the paper itself- ideas, methods, results and insights. The open archives movement is focussed on making it possible for people to read individual works for free. Open access publishing is focussed on this task, as well as the more important goal of ensuring that the contents - data as well as text - of all scientific publication are available not only for people to access, but for them to use. So long as self-archiving focusses only on access, it will not realize the full potential of electronic publishing to transform how we use the scientific literature. -Michael Michael Eisen, Ph.D. (mbei...@lbl.gov) Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California at Berkeley http://rana.lbl.gov Lead the Next Scientific Revolution Publish Your Best Work in PLoS Biology www.plos.org
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Richard Durbin wrote:
> Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access
> publishing is what is needed in the long run.
Unfortunately, I was unable to discern from your message *what* it is
that open-access publishing is needed for that open-access
self-archiving does not provide identically. (I assume that by "open
archiving" you mean open-access self-archiving, for otherwise "open
archives" just means archives with OAI-compliant metadata.)
The capabilities you think one provides that the other does not seem to
be connected with data-archiving, and your argument seems to be based
on (1) an analogy with the data-sharing in genomics as well as the
increasing amount of (2) data that are now included in some journal
articles.
Both cases have been discussed in this Forum already. See the discussion
thread:
"Free Access vs. Open Access"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html
To take the second case first: If data are included in the journal article
(2), then they are included in the open-access version of the article,
whether that version is made open access through open-access publishing
or through open-access self-archiving. Either way, whatever is in the
published article is freely accessible online. Data that are *not*
included in the published article (1) can and should be self-archived
too -- http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/data-archiving.htm -- but
this has nothing to do with the problem of open access to journal
articles!
> This is because the key property is not that everyone can get at a copy
> of a publication, but rather that people can use information in it
> computationally, producing extracts, syntheses, new indexes etc. This
> is now possible.
Whether the digital text (including data) of an article is made openly
accessible by being published in an open-access journal or by being
published in a toll-access journal but being self-archived in an
open-access archive is irrelevant: Either way, the data reported in it
are available to be used computationally. Don't confuse the use and
re-use of data with the use of the *text* to generate other text (other
than by quoting it): Any other re-use of text is plagiarism (i.e., if it
is not quotation). Text, unlike data and software code, cannot be
reprocessed and made one's own: It can only be cited and quoted.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2967.html
> I come from the community that led open release of data in genomics: the
> C.elegans genome mapping then sequencing project, followed by the human
> genome project. The real value of the way that genome data such as the
> human genome sequence is available is that people can use it and build
> on it.
Any genome data that is included in an article that is openly accessible
online can be used and built upon in exactly the same way, regardless of
whether it has been made openly accessible by being published in an
open-access journal or by being published in a toll-access journal and
self-archived.
> Building on publications used to be open, because the only way
> to do it was to read and then write something else (e.g. a review or a
> new paper with a new idea). And a subscription cost was reasonable
> historically because most of the costs were in printing and
> distribution. Now, at least in biological science, a lot of valuable
> data are published in papers in tables and figures, and people are
> developing computational tools that can use this information, and even
> the free text. (See www.textpresso.org for an example of the latter.)
> So there are ways to use the information in papers for new science, but
> to do this we need much more open access to the literature.
How much more-open access do you need than open access (i.e., free,
full-text, online access)? And how does open-access publishing provide
it and open-access self-archiving not?
(We agree about the obsolescence of toll-costs, but that's neither here
nor there. Both open-access publishing and open-access self-archiving
free the online text from those toll-barriers.)
> Research funding is provided to generate outputs that others can build
> on. Funders, and the rest of the system, want publication to be as
> unconstrained as possible, and the only reasons that we haven't yet
> taken advantage of electronic publishing to make things less constrained
> are historical inertia and the commercial interests of some publishers
> (see last week's Wellcome Trust report).
Unfortunately I cannot discern the point you are making here: We agree
that toll-barriers are bad and obsolescent, that research is written to
be used and built upon ("research impact"), that online publication is
preferable to paper, and that open-access online publication is
preferable to toll-access online publication. But what has this to do
with open-access via open-access publication vs. open access via
open-access self-archiving? The Wellcome Trust repor
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Richard, At 11:40 PM 10/8/2003 +0100, Richard Durbin wrote: I have been watching this mailing list for some time. Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access publishing is what is needed in the long run. This is because the key property is not that everyone can get at a copy of a publication, but rather that people can use information in it computationally, producing extracts, syntheses, new indexes etc. This is now possible. [...] I agree with this point completely, and have said so in print. But you seem to draw the conclusion that OA journals are more useful for this purpose than OA archives. But either they are equally valuable for this purpose (they are equally open for crawling by intelligent bots for indexing and analysis) or archives are even more valuable (because journals don't publish data sets). If I didn't misread you, could you say more about why OA journals will serve this purpose better than OA archives? Thanks, Peter -- Peter Suber Research Professor of Philosophy, Earlham College Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Author, SPARC Open Access Newsletter Editor, Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/ peter.su...@earlham.edu
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
I have been watching this mailing list for some time. Although I applaud open archiving, from my point of view open access publishing is what is needed in the long run. This is because the key property is not that everyone can get at a copy of a publication, but rather that people can use information in it computationally, producing extracts, syntheses, new indexes etc. This is now possible. I come from the community that led open release of data in genomics: the C.elegans genome mapping then sequencing project, followed by the human genome project. The real value of the way that genome data such as the human genome sequence is available is that people can use it and build on it. Building on publications used to be open, because the only way to do it was to read and then write something else (e.g. a review or a new paper with a new idea). And a subscription cost was reasonable historically because most of the costs were in printing and distribution. Now, at least in biological science, a lot of valuable data are published in papers in tables and figures, and people are developing computational tools that can use this information, and even the free text. (See www.textpresso.org for an example of the latter.) So there are ways to use the information in papers for new science, but to do this we need much more open access to the literature. Research funding is provided to generate outputs that others can build on. Funders, and the rest of the system, want publication to be as unconstrained as possible, and the only reasons that we haven't yet taken advantage of electronic publishing to make things less constrained are historical inertia and the commercial interests of some publishers (see last week's Wellcome Trust report). So, for me, Open Archiving is just a tactical move to keep the publishers moving to the larger goal of changing scientific publishing to a better and more natural model, which is possible now with the network and electronic publishing. Richard Durbin Head of Informatics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Stevan Harnad wrote: Scotomata in the Open Access Movement A blind spot seems to be growing at the *center* (not the edges) of the Open-Access-Publishing (OApub) road to Open Access (OA). OApub is a valid and welcome road to OA, but in the minds of many of its proponents the idea seems to have grown that OApub *is* OA, and that *only* OApub is OA. As a result, because OApub also seems to be a much easier concept for researchers to understand than Open-Access Self-Archiving (OAarch), and because this easier concept has now also trickled through to some research funding bodies, legislators, and even the popular press -- Open Access (OA) itself, despite the superficial signs of its growth and progress, is now again at risk of being detoured into yet another decade of needless delay. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt Part of the problem is that OApub has at least three substantial hurdles to surmount: (OApub-1) OA journals have to be created/converted http://www.doaj.org/ (OApub-2) Funding sources must be found for paying the author charges for publishing in those OA journals (hence the "Bethesda Statement" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html ), and (OApub-3) Authors must be persuaded to publish in those OA journals (hence the Sabo Bill http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ). This would all be fine and as it should be were it anywhere near the truth that OApub was indeed the only, or easiest, or most direct, or surest road to OA. But none of that is the case! Not only is there another road, but that other road is easier, more direct, and surer. It calls for only one step, not three or more, namely: (OAarch-1) Authors must be persuaded to self-archive. The archives are already there (but near-empty) for the making or taking. At least 55% of publishers already support OAarch, and no further funding or journal-creation, -conversion, or -renunciation is needed. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt But if one is strongly committed to OApub as the *only* road to achieve OA, or the main one, one will not have any inclination to stress the *other* road to OA, let alone that it is faster, easier, more direct or surer! Worse, OAarch may not be just a blind spot for OApub: it may even be perceived as an obstacle by some OApub advocates: For unless OAarch can somehow be minimized or dismissed as an unstable, anarchic, impractical, even *illegal* non-starter, there is a chance that OApub advocates may have to face the possibility that putting all or even most of the emphasis on OApub would be premature, and that OAarch, apart from being the surer road to immediate OA, might even be the surer road to eventual OApub! I think the dual OA algorithm (1) publish your articles in an open-access journal wherever available (<5%) and (2) self
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
Scotomata in the Open Access Movement A blind spot seems to be growing at the *center* (not the edges) of the Open-Access-Publishing (OApub) road to Open Access (OA). OApub is a valid and welcome road to OA, but in the minds of many of its proponents the idea seems to have grown that OApub *is* OA, and that *only* OApub is OA. As a result, because OApub also seems to be a much easier concept for researchers to understand than Open-Access Self-Archiving (OAarch), and because this easier concept has now also trickled through to some research funding bodies, legislators, and even the popular press -- Open Access (OA) itself, despite the superficial signs of its growth and progress, is now again at risk of being detoured into yet another decade of needless delay. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt Part of the problem is that OApub has at least three substantial hurdles to surmount: (OApub-1) OA journals have to be created/converted http://www.doaj.org/ (OApub-2) Funding sources must be found for paying the author charges for publishing in those OA journals (hence the "Bethesda Statement" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2878.html ), and (OApub-3) Authors must be persuaded to publish in those OA journals (hence the Sabo Bill http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html ). This would all be fine and as it should be were it anywhere near the truth that OApub was indeed the only, or easiest, or most direct, or surest road to OA. But none of that is the case! Not only is there another road, but that other road is easier, more direct, and surer. It calls for only one step, not three or more, namely: (OAarch-1) Authors must be persuaded to self-archive. The archives are already there (but near-empty) for the making or taking. At least 55% of publishers already support OAarch, and no further funding or journal-creation, -conversion, or -renunciation is needed. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt But if one is strongly committed to OApub as the *only* road to achieve OA, or the main one, one will not have any inclination to stress the *other* road to OA, let alone that it is faster, easier, more direct or surer! Worse, OAarch may not be just a blind spot for OApub: it may even be perceived as an obstacle by some OApub advocates: For unless OAarch can somehow be minimized or dismissed as an unstable, anarchic, impractical, even *illegal* non-starter, there is a chance that OApub advocates may have to face the possibility that putting all or even most of the emphasis on OApub would be premature, and that OAarch, apart from being the surer road to immediate OA, might even be the surer road to eventual OApub! I think the dual OA algorithm (1) publish your articles in an open-access journal wherever available (<5%) and (2) self-archive the rest of your articles (>95%) captures the true realities and possibilities and probabilities, and in their true proportions. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt But OApub leaves OAarch entirely out of its unilateral strategies and desiderata -- or, worse, OApub portrays OAarch merely as a way to offload the archiving and access burdens of OApub journals! I have been on the OA circuit a long time. I have a good sense by now of the maddeningly slow and slow-witted pace of progress toward OA, and how Zeno's Paralysis, mutating in a Protean way with every apparent step forward, keeps conspiring to side-track our progress toward this long overdue and long accessible goal. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#8 It is accordingly important that all open-eyed open-access advocates now try to do everything we can to make sure that the 95% solution is *understood* to be the 95% solution that it is, and is given 95% of the open-access-seeking community's attention and efforts. The money is not with us -- I don't have the PLoS's $9 million, nor even the BOAI's 3 -- but fortunately OAarch does not depend on money but only on understanding, and the action flowing naturally from that understanding. Now to comments. > [Re. Butler's article on the authorship row at NEJM] > https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/157.html > >anon> [The authors] could have published the paper >anon> in NEJM and still achieved open access to the paper through >anon> self-archiving. One of the great virtues >anon> of self-archiving is the way it gives authors the freedom to >anon> publish in any journal without sacrificing the benefits of >anon> open access. This may be a blind spot. This is indeed the OApub blind spot, and one immediately thinks of King Solomon: Do OApub authors seek immediate OA (for their own work and everyone else's) or are they merely doing public posturing for OApub? But, as I said, anosognosia dictates that this must remain a blind spot, for illuminating it would amount to recognizing that it is
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
There will be an Open Access conference October 20-22 in Berlin. Below
is a URL for the conference, followed by the abstract of my own paper
(to be given in session 4.3):
OPEN ACCESS TO KNOWLEDGE IN THE SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
(organized by the Max Planck Society in association with ECHO)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/berlin1.htm
http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/index.htm
October 20 - 22, 2003, Berlin
-
My own paper will be entitled:
On the Need to Support Both Open-Access Strategies:
Open-Access Publishing (P) and Open-Access Self-Archiving (S)
Stevan Harnad
ABSTRACT: It has taken a very long time for the research community
to at last awaken to the importance of, the need for, and the
attainability of toll-free online access to the full text of all
peer-reviewed research articles for all researchers ("open
access"). There are two roads to open access: (P) Open-Access
Publishing and (S) Open-Access Self-Archiving. It would be a great
pity, and a great loss for open-access and research impact, if
today's long-overdue open-access initiatives were now to be focused
exclusively, or even primarily, on Open-Access Publishing (P), which
may be the easier concept to understand, but is the slower, more
indirect and more uncertain of the two means of attaining open access
today. Open-access publishing requires 3 steps:
(P1) creating or converting 23,500 open-access journals (there
are only 500 open-access journals today, and 23,500 toll-access
journals),
(P2) finding a means of covering open-access publication costs
(varying from <$500 to >$1500 per article), and
(P3) persuading the authors of each of the 2,500,000 refereed
research articles published annually to publish them in these
23,500 new open-access journals instead of in the 23,500
established toll-access journals.
Open-access self-archiving requires only one step:
(S1) persuading the authors of each of the annual 2,500,000
refereed research articles to self-archive them in addition to
publishing them in the established 23,500 toll-access journals.
As 55% of the established journals already support self-archiving
(and many more will agree if asked),
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm
and as at least three times as many articles are open-access today
because their authors have self-archived them than because they
have been published in an open-access journal,
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/dual-strategy.ppt
it is undeniable that self-archiving is the faster, more direct,
and more certain of the two means of attaining open-access
today. Moreover, self-archiving is probably also the single most
powerful means of hastening us all toward the era of universal
open-access publishing! The optimal joint open-access strategy that
the Berlin Declaration should accordingly support and promote is
that all researchers should:
(P) publish in an open-access journal today wherever a suitable
open-access journal is available today;
and
(S) wherever a suitable open-access journal is not available
today, publish in a toll-access journal but also self-archive
the article in your institutional open-access archive today.
Fully support both open-access publishing (P) and open-access
self-archiving (S).
Harnad, S. (2003) Electronic Preprints and Postprints. Encyclopedia of
Library and Information Science Marcel Dekker, Inc.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/eprints.htm
Harnad, S. (2003) Online Archives for Peer-Reviewed Journal
Publications. International Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Science. John Feather & Paul Sturges (eds). Routledge.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archives.htm
Harnad, S. (2003) Self-Archive Unto Others as Ye Would Have Them
Self-Archive Unto You.
The Australian Higher Education Supplement.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html
Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online
RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives:
Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper
and easier. Ariadne.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Ariadne-RAE.htm
Harnad, S. (2003) Maximising Research Impact Through Self-Archiving.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/che.htm
Stevan Harnad
Chaire de Recherche du Canada
Centre de Neuroscience de la Cognition (CNC)
Universite du Quebec a Montreal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3P8
tel: 1-514-987-3000 2461#
fax: 1-514-987-8952
har...@uqam.ca
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
[Identity deleted] wrote: > I agree with you completely that we need to persuade many more academic > authors to self-archive, and... we have been working to achieve this. I know and appreciate that some funding and advocacy support has been given to self-archiving worldwide: Yet though it may seem churlish, I feel that -- relative to what is already within reach today -- *far* more support needs to be given to self-archiving. If you asked for it in percentage terms, I would say that of the support (both funding and promotion) that funders and supporters are investing in open access, something closer to 95% should be devoted to the 95% solution (self-archiving) and something closer to 5% to the 5% solution (open access publishing), if we are hoping for anything like proportionate overall returns on our investment in open access to research. To invest more in a lower-yield stock makes no sense (though I am sure there are ways to divert my stock-market simile to make it appear otherwise!). > From your messages, you do not seem to allow for the benefit to the > campaign for self-archiving from work with publishers and funding > agencies. As far as I am aware, the work with publishers and funding agencies is currently all being directed at the 5% solution, open-access publishing: Considerable effort is being invested in trying to persuade and help publishers to become open-access publishers, and to persuade funding agencies to support open-access publishing. That is all fine, and welcome, but as a benefit to the campaign for *self-archiving* this is rather like the benefit to a campaign for universal vegetarianism that arises from trying to persuade beef producers to produce broccoli instead: Yes, to the extent you succeed, you indirectly benefit the campaign for universal vegetarianism, but not nearly as much as you would if you also addressed the consumers directly, rather than just the producers! In fact, if anything, it is concertedly pursuing the 95% strategy now (self-archiving) that will also benefit the open-access publishing strategy in the long run, hastening and facilitating the transition. http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1 Researchers and their institutions need to be persuaded to self-archive, directly, and not just as a side-effect or spin-off of a campaign for open-access publishing. The reason this is the 95% solution is that every self-archived article is immediately eo ipso open-access -- and the 95% of authors who have no suitable open-access journals to publish in today can immediately self-archive their toll-access journal articles, today, rather than wait for more open-access journals to be created, or toll-access journals to be converted. In other words, self-archivers can bring about immediate, 100% open access overnight, without waiting passively for the 5% of journals that are open-access http://www.doaj.org/ to inch their way toward 100%, just as consumers could immediately bring about universal vegetarianism by switching from beef to broccoli without waiting passively for producers to do it for them. Yes, there is one concrete thing that addressing publishers and funding agencies instead of addressing researchers can do to benefit the self-archiving route to open access, and that is to help persuade journals to support self-archiving -- as 55% of them already do! But, as has been pointed out repeatedly, even without that extra 45% support, 55% already trumps 5% -- so that card needs to be played at least in proportion to its strength! http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm Yet persuading publishers and research funders to support self-archiving is *not* what is actually being done. The primary target in the current ongoing campaign is open-access publishing, the 5% solution. The self-archiving is only dangling there, as a vague afterthought. Its logical and causal role is not clearly explained by open-access publishing advocates. It is merely being mentioned as another "good thing" one might want to do, for some reason or other! This is why the true 5%/95% proportion needs to be brought out in the open now: To make it clear that far from being just *another good thing* one might do, alongside open-access publishing, self-archiving is by far the fastest and most direct route to open access itself, and needs to be promoted directly, alongside open-access publishing, and in proportion to its potential power, rather than just as a vague spin-off of the campaign for open-access publishing. > We are not only persuading publishers to move to open access for the > publication opportunities but also to make open access (including > self-archiving) more acceptable to the academic community. > You know as well as any of us how academics cite the attitude of publishers > as a reason for not risking self-archiving. The problem insofar as self-archiving is concerned is not one of publisher "attitude
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Sally Morris wrote: > In my opinion, you definitely should not do it without the author's > permission - and in each case checking whether the publisher allows the > author to deposit the peer-reviewed, published version or not > > Sally Morris, Secretary-General > Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers As I have already indicated, an official, agreed-upon university self-archiving policy would include a blanket permission to do proxy self-archiving for all of its authors. So universities asking individual authors for permission article by article would be a pointless waste of time. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html I think Sally has also misunderstood the strategy that is under discussion here. The query from the (identity-deleted) Ivy League University Librarian was about institutional proxy self-archiving -- of articles written by their own institutional authors -- that have been published in the 55% of journals that Romeo lists as already supporting self-archiving (the "blue" and "green" journals). The query was *not* about articles published in the 45% of journals that still need to be asked individually on an article-by-article basis (the "white" journals in the Romeo list): http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm Sally is quite right to point out, however, that the 55% figure refers to a combination of "blue" journals (supporting either preprint self-archiving *only* [36%], postprint self-archiving *only* [2%], but not both) and "green" journals (supporting the self-archiving of both preprints and postprints [17%]). A fully detailed 4-step procedure covering all possible contingencies would accordingly be the following (but see discussion that comes after these 4 points!): (1) Get one blanket confirmation (not an article-by-article confirmation!) of the journal publisher's blue or green policy. This is merely a one-time request for confirmation of the publisher's policy as communicated to Romeo, and it need not even be confirmed at the individual journal level, but only at the publisher level. (2) With the "green" publishers, also clarify (again on a one-time, blanket basis) whether what they mean by the self-archivable "postprint" is the publisher's PDF or only the author's own refereed final draft. (More about this below.) (3) With the preprint-only "blue" publishers, clarify whether by "preprint" they really mean the unrefereed draft, or just something other than the publisher's PDF. (4) Where the replies to (1)-(3) indicate that the publisher's PDF can be self-archived, self-archive that (if you prefer). Where it cannot, self-archive the author's final refereed draft (where appropriate). In the remainder of cases, self-archive the unrefereed draft, and append the corrigenda (exactly as with "white" journals that refuse even when asked on a per article basis -- except that the unrefereed preprint need not be self-archived *before* submission to the journal). http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publisher-forbids These publisher queries will show that what the publisher really means in most cases by both "preprint" and "postprint" is the "vanilla" draft: the author's version of the refereed final draft, but not the publisher's PDF (and hence all publishers mean by "pre" vs."post" is timing). Hence the proxy self-archiving policy can be simplified considerably if all efforts are simply focused on the vanilla draft, forgetting about the publisher's PDF altogether. Remember that the purpose of self-archiving is to provide immediate open access to all would-be users worldwide whose institutions cannot afford access to the publisher's toll-access version. The vanilla draft is definitely enough to stanch this daily needless research impact loss, *completely*, and it will assuredly usher in the open-access era. Fussing about the PDF would be a complete waste of time, and would only delay open access still longer. What researchers need, urgently, is the research content, not the canonical page-layout. (Please don't let these worthy efforts become paralysed, yet again, by pointless pedantry!) Even the above 4-point procedure is in reality a waste of time, despite covering all conceivable contingencies. (The physicists, self-archiving since 1991, never bothered with it! They just went ahead, sensibly, and self-archived, both preprints and postprints.) If there are any publishers who think an article from their journals should not be self-archived, let them show cause and request removal, on an article-by-article basis. (The Physics Arxiv -- approaching 200,000 articles -- has had no publisher removal-requests or removals, as far as I know, in its entire 12-year existence!) "The 'Los Alamos Lemma'" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0469.html Stevan Harna
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
In my opinion, you definitely should not do it without the author's permission - and in each case checking whether the publisher allows the author to deposit the peer-reviewed, published version or not Sally Sally Morris, Secretary-General Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Phone: 01903 871686 Fax: 01903 871457 E-mail: sec-...@alpsp.org ALPSP Website http://www.alpsp.org - Original Message - From: "Kathleen Shearer" To: Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:32 PM Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access > We have also discussed this option as one strategy for accumulating a > baseline of content in our repositories. However, it was assumed that > one would have to seek permission first from each author, and this could > become very time consuming... > > Does anyone know whether author permission would be required for this? > > It does seem like a good way to get some content into the repository in > the initial stages. The idea being that one could then showcase a > "working" repository to the faculty members when encouraging them to > begin self-archiving. > > Kathleen > > Kathleen Shearer > Research Associate > Canadian Association of Research Libraries > mkshea...@sprint.ca > > - Original Message - > From: Stevan Harnad > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:05 PM > Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access Status: R > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote: > > > Stevan, > > > > [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was > inspired by > > your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we > don't > > just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University > archive. > > [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ] > > > > I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to > establish > > such an archive. I thought it was a great idea to get a collection > of > > content immediately. Do you know of other Universities that are > doing > > this and if not, why not? > > Thanks for your message. > > (1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of > which 55% already officially support author/institution > self-archiving. > (Many more journals will agree if asked.) > > http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher= > %20Policies.htm > > (2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective > legacy > literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many > more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an > interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication > date. > > (3) Although making a university's past research output openly > accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be > strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly > accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly > to be encouraged!). > > (4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of > *current* research output that universities can already self-archive > immediately, without the need to make any further request of the > publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing > agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 > > (5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy > research > output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright. > Publishers > will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship. > http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html > > (6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional > self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy self-archiving of > research output. The library can help > http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do > especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service > e.g. http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html > but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly > encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html > their policy backed up by the research funding agencies > http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ > > But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope > universities that have been implementing this will reply and share > their > experience. > > Stevan Harnad > > NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing op
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Kathleen Shearer wrote: > We have also discussed this option as one strategy for accumulating a > baseline of content in our repositories. However, it was assumed that > one would have to seek permission first from each author, and this could > become very time consuming... The proposal here is for the author's own institutional library to self-archive (by proxy) the author's articles published in the 55% of refereed journals that already officially support self-archiving. A splendid idea, both for past and present articles. Yes, it would of course require the authors' permission (this is *self*-archiving, after all, even if by proxy) but authors will certainly be happy to give the permission for the sake of the enhanced visibility and impact, and it should be possible to set it up on a blanket institutional basis, based on university and departmental policy. > Does anyone know whether author permission would be required for this? It would not be time-consuming at all if set up as a blanket university policy and agreement: "We will archive for you all of the articles you publish in the 55% of journals that already officially support self-archiving." In most cases, however, the easiest way to do this will be to get the digital file from the author. (Note that not all the publishers that support self-archiving agree to let their own PDF be used: The author's version may need to be used in some cases.) > It does seem like a good way to get some content into the repository in > the initial stages. The idea being that one could then showcase a > "working" repository to the faculty members when encouraging them to > begin self-archiving. Indeed. But there's no reason for this proxy self-archiving to be limited to old articles: The 55% applies as much to articles appearing now, or to appear. It will also be easy to get the digital versions of the more recent articles from the authors. (This should be part of the blanket institutional self-archiving policy.) Stevan Harnad > Kathleen Shearer > Research Associate > Canadian Association of Research Libraries > mkshea...@sprint.ca > > - Original Message - > From: Stevan Harnad > To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org > Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:05 PM > Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access Status: R > > On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote: > > > Stevan, > > > > [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was > inspired by > > your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we > don't > > just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University > archive. > > [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ] > > > > I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to > establish > > such an archive. I thought it was a great idea to get a collection > of > > content immediately. Do you know of other Universities that are > doing > > this and if not, why not? > > Thanks for your message. > > (1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of > which 55% already officially support author/institution > self-archiving. > (Many more journals will agree if asked.) > > http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher= > %20Policies.htm > > (2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective > legacy > literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many > more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an > interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication > date. > > (3) Although making a university's past research output openly > accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be > strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly > accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly > to be encouraged!). > > (4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of > *current* research output that universities can already self-archive > immediately, without the need to make any further request of the > publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing > agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 > > (5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy > research > output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright. > Publishers > will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship. > http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html > > (6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional > self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
We have also discussed this option as one strategy for accumulating a baseline of content in our repositories. However, it was assumed that one would have to seek permission first from each author, and this could become very time consuming... Does anyone know whether author permission would be required for this? It does seem like a good way to get some content into the repository in the initial stages. The idea being that one could then showcase a "working" repository to the faculty members when encouraging them to begin self-archiving. Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Research Associate Canadian Association of Research Libraries mkshea...@sprint.ca - Original Message - From: Stevan Harnad To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:05 PM Subject: Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access Status: R On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote: > Stevan, > > [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was inspired by > your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we don't > just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University archive. > [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ] > > I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to establish > such an archive. I thought it was a great idea to get a collection of > content immediately. Do you know of other Universities that are doing > this and if not, why not? Thanks for your message. (1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of which 55% already officially support author/institution self-archiving. (Many more journals will agree if asked.) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher= %20Policies.htm (2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective legacy literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication date. (3) Although making a university's past research output openly accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly to be encouraged!). (4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of *current* research output that universities can already self-archive immediately, without the need to make any further request of the publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 (5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy research output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright. Publishers will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship. http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html (6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy self-archiving of research output. The library can help http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service e.g. http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html their policy backed up by the research funding agencies http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope universities that have been implementing this will reply and share their experience. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html or http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
Re: On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, [Identity Deleted] wrote: > Stevan, > > [Identity Deleted], our electronic resources coordinator, was inspired by > your quote of 55% of journals allowing self-archiving to ask why we don't > just go back and retrospectively add that 55% to a University archive. > [ http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2995.html ] > > I have been pushing [Ivy League University, identity deleted] to establish > such an archive. I thought it was a great idea to get a collection of > content immediately. Do you know of other Universities that are doing > this and if not, why not? Thanks for your message. (1) The 55% figure comes from the Romeo sample of 7000+ journals, of which 55% already officially support author/institution self-archiving. (Many more journals will agree if asked.) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm (2) In most cases the support probably extends to the retrospective legacy literature as this is not a great source of potential revenue and many more journals (e.g., Science) already support self-archiving after an interval -- from 6 months to three years -- after the publication date. (3) Although making a university's past research output openly accessible is very valuable and desirable (and doing it is to be strongly encouraged), making its *current* research output openly accessible is even more valuable and desirable (and even more strongly to be encouraged!). (4) The 55% figure is actually an estimate of the *minimum* amount of *current* research output that universities can already self-archive immediately, without the need to make any further request of the publisher, or any change in the copyright transfer of licensing agreement. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#copyright1 (5) The challenge with self-archiving (whether current or legacy research output) is not, and has never been, publishers or copyright. Publishers will cooperate, in the interests of science and scholarship. http://www.stm-assoc.org/infosharing/springconference-prog.html (6) The real challenge is establishing a systematic institutional self-archiving policy that will ensure the speedy self-archiving of research output. The library can help http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#libraries-do especially by offering a proxy self-archiving service e.g. http://eprints.st-andrews.ac.uk/proxy_archive.html but it is the university and its departments that need to strongly encourage or even mandate self-archiving by its researchers http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/archpolnew.html their policy backed up by the research funding agencies http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue35/harnad/ But going after retrospective research is a good idea too. I hope universities that have been implementing this will reply and share their experience. Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online is available at the American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01 & 02 & 03): http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html or http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Discussion can be posted to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access
On the Need to Take Both Roads to Open Access Stevan Harnad As something of a veteran in the crusade for open access, I feel that I have to point out to the growing number of open-access advocates that we have lately been getting a little carried away with open-access publishing -- as if it were the *only* way to attain open access, rather than just one of two complementary ways (open-access self-archiving being the other way). This one-sided impression (that open-access = open-access publishing) is all over the public press at the moment, in the US and Europe. This is a (gentle) irony that historians will eventually have some fun sorting out: How did it happen that when at long last we finally began to awaken to the need for open access to research we first went on to risk losing yet *another* decade waiting passively for open-access publishing to prevail, when we could in the meanwhile already have had open access too? Waiting passively for what? For the 24,000 existing toll-access journals http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/ to either convert to open-access of their own accord or to go belly-up in the face of new open-access competitors (24,000 of them?) that would capture their authorship. This, at a time when in reality there existed only about 500 open-access journals http://www.doaj.org/ -- which is less than 5% of the refereed research literature even if we double the estimate. The crux of the matter is this: 24,000 journals (or even ISI's hard-core 8,000) are unlikely to be induced to convert to open-access on the strength of a press flurry, petitions, declarations, threats to boycott, promises of government subsidy for open-access author-costs, US congressional bills, and songs of praise for open access by the research community and the media worldwide. For there is one glaring omission in all of this: It is all based on passivity on the part of the research community. (It is not even clear what percentage of researchers would actually be willing to switch from publishing in their currently preferred journals to open-access journals even if 24,000, rather than just 500, open-access journals already existed for them to switch *to*!) Why would publishers take the research community's much publicized yearning for open access seriously as long as that yearning is expressed only in this passive way, with the expectation that all the effort should be made on their behalf by journal publishers, for the sake of this open access that the researchers purport to need and want so much? Who would not question the depth of the research community's desire for open access as long as that desire keeps being voiced only vicariously, rather than through self-help efforts, as if all possibility and responsibility for action lay exclusively with publishers? What will make publishers take the research community's expressed wishes seriously will be *action* on the part of researchers, taking the powerful self-help step that is actually within their own power to take right *now*, in the interest of immediate open access: self-archiving their own published research output. This will be the only credible (and indeed irresistible) proof of the research community's desire for open access. Moreover, it is guaranteed to provide immediate open access for the research of every author who actually does self-archive. The only reason the research community is not yet taking this simple self-help step in sufficient numbers -- they *are* taking it in increasing numbers, but those numbers are as yet far from sufficient http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt -- is that the research community does not yet *understand* that this more direct means of gaining immediate open access for their own research output (through institutional self-archiving) is already within their reach. The one-sided emphasis that the research community is currently placing on the 5% solution (open-access publishing), instead of also promoting -- at least as vigorously -- the complementary 95% solution (open-access self-archiving of the remaining 95% of their refereed-research publications) is now becoming part of the problem instead of the solution, leaving researchers and their institutions and funders both inactive and unaware about what they could already be doing in order to provide open access right now, rather than just waiting passively and hoping that the 500 figure will somehow climb to 24,000 just on the strength of polemics and wishful thinking alone! It will take a long time and a lot of effort to spawn or convert 24,000 journals, but their current full-text contents could already be made openly accessible in no time, if researchers would only take the action that is already open to them: immediate self-archiving. The most common brake on researchers' taking this immediate action is an inchoate worry about copyright. But the proof that copyright cannot b
