[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Richard Poynder]

I don't think it matters whether or not it is a rubbish argument. If that is
what politicians believe, or how they want to justify their decisions, then
the strength or weakness of the argument is not the key factor. And as
Andrew Odlyzko points out, it may be more a case of protecting jobs than tax
receipts. Certainly the UK has talked in terms of supporting the publishing
industry, and The Netherlands will (as you say) have that in mind. Both
these countries are in the vanguard of pushing for national deals with
publishers, and both are seeking to persuade other countries to do the same
- as was doubtless what the UK sought to do in 2013 when it had G8
Presidency:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement.

 

That said, this CNI presentation argues that the US and Europe could be
moving in different directions with OA:
https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update
-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project. But even if that is true today, for how
long will they drift apart?

 

The fact is that the OA movement has spent the last 13 years arguing with
itself. During that time it has convinced governments and research funders
that OA is desirable. What is has not done is shown how it can be achieved
effectively. In such situations, at some point governments inevitably step
in and make the decisions. And that is how Dutch Minister Sander Dekker
expressed it last year: "[W]hy are we not much farther advanced in open
access in 2014? The world has definitely not stood still in the last ten
years. How can it be that the scientific world - which has always been a
frontrunner in innovation - has made so little progress on this? Why are
most scientific journals still hidden away behind paywalls?"
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-goi
ng-for-gold

 

In the absence of unity in the OA movement, who better for governments to
work with in order to achieve OA than with publishers, either directly, or
by instructing national research funders to get on with it (as the UK did
with RCUK). 

 

This suggests to me that the OA is set to slip into closed mode, with
behind-closed-doors meetings and negotiations. As Andrew points out, "Secret
national-level negotiations with commercial entities about pricing are not
uncommon."

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Velterop
Sent: 30 December 2015 16:05
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

 

What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with a
disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector (that isn't
avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven). 

The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.

Jan Velterop

On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:

As Keith Jeffery puts it, "We all know why the BOAI principles have been
progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate
political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was greater
than the cost of research libraries." http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Velterop]

The mistake is to think of open access as a 'movement' with coherent and 
coordinated policies and providing solutions. It isn't and it won't. 
Individual advocates may propose (partial) solutions, propose 
compromises, propose different interpretations of the idea, et cetera, 
but they are individuals, not 'the OA movement'.


Open access is much more akin to an emerging zeigeist, detected and 
recognised early by some, who deemed it worth while to define, 
propagate, and advocate the idea, which is gradually, albeit slowly, 
finding wider support. Different OA enthusiasts have different ideas as 
to what it is, have different expectations, see different opportunities 
or purposes, even have different definitions. Some see it as a way to 
reduce costs, others as a way to change business model and even increase 
income, yet others as a way to reform the entire publishing system, and 
some even primarily as a way to increase the efficiency and 
effectiveness of scientific communication.


I myself see open access as the prelude to a much needed but much wider 
reform of the way scientific knowledge is recorded, published, 
promulgated and used, even including the way peer review is organised 
and carried out (I favour methods such as this one: 
http://about.scienceopen.com/peer-review-by-endorsement-pre/), in order 
to make the most, world-wide, in society at large and not just in 
academic circles, of the scientific knowledge that is generated and of 
insights that are gained. Open access is the first, necessary, step, but 
by no means the final goal.


"Some may think that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" as John 
Lennon famously sang. I hope I'm not the only one, anyway.


Jan Velterop

On 31/12/2015 08:16, Richard Poynder wrote:


I don’t think it matters whether or not it is a rubbish argument. If 
that is what politicians believe, or how they want to justify their 
decisions, then the strength or weakness of the argument is not the 
key factor. And asAndrew Odlyzko points out, it may be 
more a case of protecting jobs than tax receipts. Certainly the UK has 
talked in terms of supporting the publishing industry, and The 
Netherlands will (as you say) have that in mind. Both these countries 
are in the vanguard of pushing for national deals with publishers, and 
both are seeking to persuade other countries to do the same — as was 
doubtless what the UK sought to do in 2013 when it had G8 Presidency: 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g8-science-ministers-statement.


That said, this CNI presentation argues that the US and Europe could 
be moving in different directions with OA: 
https://www.cni.org/topics/e-journals/is-gold-open-access-sustainable-update-from-the-uc-pay-it-forward-project. 
But even if that is true today, for how long will they drift apart?


The fact is that the OA movement has spent the last 13 years arguing 
with itself. During that time it has convinced governments and 
research funders that OA is desirable. What is has not done is shown 
how it can be achieved effectively. In such situations, at some point 
governments inevitably step in and make the decisions. And that is how 
Dutch Minister Sander Dekker expressed it last year: “[W]hy are we not 
much farther advanced in open access in 2014? The world has definitely 
not stood still in the last ten years. How can it be that the 
scientific world – which has always been a frontrunner in innovation - 
has made so little progress on this? Why are most scientific journals 
still hidden away behind paywalls?” 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-going-for-gold


In the absence of unity in the OA movement, who better for governments 
to work with in order to achieve OA than with publishers, either 
directly, or by instructing national research funders to get on with 
it (as the UK did with RCUK).


This suggests to me that the OA is set to slip into closed mode, with 
behind-closed-doors meetings and negotiations. As Andrew points out, 
“Secret national-level negotiations with commercial entities about 
pricing are not uncommon.”


Richard Poynder

*From:*goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On 
Behalf Of *Velterop

*Sent:* 30 December 2015 16:05
*To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
*Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with 
a disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector 
(that isn't avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven).


The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.

Jan Velterop

On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:

As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles
have been progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at
an appropriate political level was that the tax-take from
commercial publishers was greater than the 

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Thank you, David.

Non disclosure agreements, closed meetings with political institutions
and individuals, and no one says anything. A small, benign, conference
with a few well-meaning researchers and librarians and anti-trust laws
as well as conspiracy theories are brandished (respectively by Esposito
and Poynder). Give me a break!

In the old, wonderful, John Ford Western, The Man who Shot Liberty
Valance, there is, toward the end, a very funny political talk by a
supporter of cattle rangers aiming to show that the hapless lawyer who
is (mistakenly) known as Valance's slayer was a murderer. The reality,
of course, was that Valance was about to finish off a man who could
hardly hold a gun and already had a bullet in his right arm. And it was
not he who killed Valance anyway. Now, in the case of Valance, we know
why the speech is made. The man doing it was hoping for political
favours. But in this case, why are Poynder and Esposito found riding
such strange hobby horses?

jcg
-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal



Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015 à 10:24 +, David Prosser a écrit :

> While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that
> the entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’,
> Elsevier is having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers
> of State.  Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of
> Information Act: 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.
> 
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and
> > 9th. ​The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of
> > subscription journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white
> > paper by the Max Planck Digital Library”.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass
> > “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd
> > because holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go
> > against the principles of openness and transparency that were
> > outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge
> > in the Sciences and Humanities.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies
> > openness and transparency in the decision making and processes
> > involved in making open access a reality, as well as of research
> > outputs?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary
> > means of achieving open access can we not expect to see
> > non-transparent and secret processes become the norm, with the costs
> > and details of the transition taking place outside the purview of
> > the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it matter?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Some thoughts here:
> > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Richard Poynder
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > GOAL mailing list
> > GOAL@eprints.org
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Heather Morrison]

nd make the decisions. And that is how Dutch Minister Sander Dekker expressed 
it last year: “[W]hy are we not much farther advanced in open access in 2014? 
The world has definitely not stood still in the last ten years. How can it be 
that the scientific world – which has always been a frontrunner in innovation - 
has made so little progress on this? Why are most scientific journals still 
hidden away behind paywalls?” 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/toespraken/2014/01/28/open-acess-going-for-gold

In the absence of unity in the OA movement, who better for governments to work 
with in order to achieve OA than with publishers, either directly, or by 
instructing national research funders to get on with it (as the UK did with 
RCUK).

This suggests to me that the OA is set to slip into closed mode, with 
behind-closed-doors meetings and negotiations. As Andrew points out, “Secret 
national-level negotiations with commercial entities about pricing are not 
uncommon.”

Richard Poynder




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Velterop
Sent: 30 December 2015 16:05
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org><mailto:goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with a 
disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector (that isn't 
avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven).

The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.

Jan Velterop
On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:
As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been 
progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate 
political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was greater 
than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.



___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


--
C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW
United Kingdom
+44 1483 579525 (landline)
+44 7525 026991 (mobile)

Noordland 44
2548 WB Den Haag
The Netherlands
+31 707611166
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[brentier]

I am sure Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and the like are having great fun seeing 
membres of the Open Access community rip each other apart: 
1) those who have always tried to promote a healthy and moral alternative to 
what has become of the scholarly publication process in the 4 or 5 last decades;
2) those who are suspecting group (1) of trying to operate strange and secret 
maneuvers in ordre to take who-knows-which powers and to rule the world of 
research communication... 
Not just funny. Sad. 

As a member of group (1), I must admit that I don't see what kind of personal 
benefit I, or any of us could seek by defending the cause of OA. To me, there 
is  on l'y one giant potentially collective benefit : a more efficient, more 
fluid transmission of knowledge, free of charge and accessible for all and 
everywhere on the planet. 

Jumping at each others' throats is taking both our attention and energy away 
from the real combat, which must be focused on the mechanisms installed [indeed 
- with the agreement of many of our colleagues (I wouldn't say complicity, it 
is a false interpretation)] and organised in such a way that they generate 
enormous and nowadays disproportionate amounts of money at the expense of 
research funds.

Please, let's come back to our senses and let's unite. 

If we want to convince researchers, reviewers, finders, academic leaders and 
staff, etc. to develop new paradigms of knowledge transmission, sharing and 
interaction, let's work at it !

And please, let's gather and make public as many facts as possible.  A an 
example, see data and graph on my blog :
https://bernardrentier.wordpress.com/2015/12/31/denouncing-the-imposter-factor/
Data like these are needed to give corpus to our arguments.

On this, I wish you all an excellent 2016, which can only be better than 2015...
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Two points:

1. Confidentiality about who says what may be in order (on a case by
case basis) for frank discussions; confidentiality about financial
outcomes when public money is involved is simply unacceptable.

2. How people are selected, come forward, become leaders, etc. are
complex questions. But how do you deal with representing "millions of
authors" ? There is no parliament of science that I know of, and no
election process exists on a world scale.  And the OA community does not
coincide with the researcher community (alas).

-- 
Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015 à 17:07 +, Heather Morrison a écrit :
> Thank you for raising the issue of secrecy in approach. It strikes me
> that this is an appropriate critical question for the open access
> movement. 
> 
> 
> Some thoughts follow. I was not invited to the conference, but have
> mixed feelings. On the plus side, getting together those who pay for
> subscriptions to figure out how to flip journals to OA strikes me as a
> very healthy development, and having served as a consortial negotiator
> in the past I understand the importance of confidentiality to
> facilitate frank discussions. 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, if we agree on the principle of openness and
> transparency in government, eg govt representatives and staff have an
> obligation to publicly reveal their meetings, campaign contributions,
> etc., why would this principle not also apply to people who work for
> institutions involved in spending public money (presuming this applies
> to the organizers and attendees of this event)?
> 
> 
> From a strategic perspective, those who organize and/or attend an
> event like this might want to consider the impact on those not
> invited. If the attendance list was about 100 people, and there are
> over 10,000 fully OA journals, thousands of repositories and millions
> of authors who have chosen to make their work open access, as well as
> many individual OA advocates, one can conclude that well over 99% of
> the open access movement was excluded from this event. When my
> government behaves in this fashion (eg secretive trade treaty
> negotiations), I openly condemn such practices as un-democratic. I
> cannot speak for anyone else, but note that my immediate reaction is
> distrust, to assume that the reason for not allowing me to participate
> or even know what is going on is to force changes that my government
> knows I would oppose with a transparent approach. 
> 
> 
> Finally, limiting discussions to a few people seems highly likely to
> limit the ideas and perspectives considered. 
> 
> 
> In summary, while overall I am inclined to see this initiative as a
> positive step and sympathize with the need for confidentiality for
> frank discussions, I think this is an opportune moment for the OA
> movement to reconsider our commitment to open in the senses of
> transparency and inclusion.
> 
> 
> Happy holidays!
> 
> 
> Heather Morrison
> 
> On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:19 AM, "Richard Poynder"
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> > The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and
> > 9th. ​The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of
> > subscription journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white
> > paper by the Max Planck Digital Library”.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass
> > “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd
> > because holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go
> > against the principles of openness and transparency that were
> > outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge
> > in the Sciences and Humanities.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies
> > openness and transparency in the decision making and processes
> > involved in making open access a reality, as well as of research
> > outputs?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary
> > means of achieving open access can we not expect to see
> > non-transparent and secret processes become the norm, with the costs
> > and details of the transition taking place outside the purview of
> > the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it matter?
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Some thoughts here:
> > http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Richard Poynder
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > GOAL mailing list
> > GOAL@eprints.org
> > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> > 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___
GOAL mailing list

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

I agree with Stevan Harnad's message where the following statement was
included:

(3) if funders and institutions simply "leave it to us" [publishers] to
manage a "gradual transition" (certainly not a "flip." which publishers
know full well would be highly unstable and impermanent, and would
quickly transform into a "flop" because of institutional, funder and
national defections)

Imagine, back in 1475 or so, a bunch of scriptoria saying: leave this
move to print to us... And then imagine the result!

:-)

"Kind regards"

jcg

Jean-Claude Guédon 

Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal




Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015 à 08:34 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

> (3) if funders and institutions simply "leave it to us" [publishers]
> to manage a "gradual transition" (certainly not a "flip." which
> publishers know full well would be highly unstable and impermanent,
> and would quickly transform into a "flop" because of institutional,
> funder and national defections)

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Andrew Odlyzko]

Jan is surely right.  Large commercial publishers are pretty sophisticated
about avoiding taxes, and so I doubt they pay much.  (Even the numbers that
are listed in their shareholder reports have to be treated with extreme
caution, as often they represent money that might possibly be due at some
very distant time, but is not actually being paid right now.)

But even aside from corporate taxes (which, I am pretty sure, are outweighed
in politicians' minds by the effect of substantial employment of educated
people at decent salaries, and the taxes those folks pay), there is the
very basic factor that publisher revenues are small relatively to the cost
of running libraries.  What is going on is that publishers are squeezing out
librarians.  What may be under consideration in those secret UK discussions 
is a deal in which Elsevier will provide free access to everybody in the UK in 
return for slightly more than they are collecting right now from all the UK 
universities and university consortia.  And in the next round of budget
allocations to academic institutions, those institutions will be told they 
should shave their library expenditures to pay for the deal.

I am not claiming this is the optimal solution.  But given how slow librarians
and especially scholars have been to embrace Open Access and to set up 
alternative
journal systems, politicians may see this as attractive, as it will deliver 
improved service to their constituents.  It does entrench the large commercial 
publishers and perpetuates their high profit margins, but it does provide
much better access to scholarly information for the whole nation, and reduces
the costs of the entire system by eliminating the high internal costs of 
university libraries.  

A recent paper of mine on these developments is "Open Access, library and 
publisher 
competition, and the evolution of general commerce," Evaluation Review, vol. 
39, 
no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 130-163,

 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13514751

with preprint (for those without subscriptions) at

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/libpubcomp.pdf

An earlier paper that predicted such developments is "Competition and 
cooperation: 
Libraries and publishers in the transition to electronic scholarly journals,"
Journal of Electronic Publishing 4(4) (June 1999)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0004.411

Andrew Odlyzko

P.S.  Secret national-level negotiations with commercial entities about pricing
are not uncommon.  That is what pharmaceutical industry economics are based on.








Velterop  wrote:

> What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with a 
> disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector (that 
> isn't avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven).
>
> The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
> On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:
> > As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have 
> > been progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an 
> > appropriate political level was that the tax-take from commercial 
> > publishers was greater than the cost of research libraries.” 
> > http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Heather Morrison]

Thank you for raising the issue of secrecy in approach. It strikes me that this 
is an appropriate critical question for the open access movement.

Some thoughts follow. I was not invited to the conference, but have mixed 
feelings. On the plus side, getting together those who pay for subscriptions to 
figure out how to flip journals to OA strikes me as a very healthy development, 
and having served as a consortial negotiator in the past I understand the 
importance of confidentiality to facilitate frank discussions.

On the other hand, if we agree on the principle of openness and transparency in 
government, eg govt representatives and staff have an obligation to publicly 
reveal their meetings, campaign contributions, etc., why would this principle 
not also apply to people who work for institutions involved in spending public 
money (presuming this applies to the organizers and attendees of this event)?

From a strategic perspective, those who organize and/or attend an event like 
this might want to consider the impact on those not invited. If the attendance 
list was about 100 people, and there are over 10,000 fully OA journals, 
thousands of repositories and millions of authors who have chosen to make their 
work open access, as well as many individual OA advocates, one can conclude 
that well over 99% of the open access movement was excluded from this event. 
When my government behaves in this fashion (eg secretive trade treaty 
negotiations), I openly condemn such practices as un-democratic. I cannot speak 
for anyone else, but note that my immediate reaction is distrust, to assume 
that the reason for not allowing me to participate or even know what is going 
on is to force changes that my government knows I would oppose with a 
transparent approach.

Finally, limiting discussions to a few people seems highly likely to limit the 
ideas and perspectives considered.

In summary, while overall I am inclined to see this initiative as a positive 
step and sympathize with the need for confidentiality for frank discussions, I 
think this is an opportune moment for the OA movement to reconsider our 
commitment to open in the senses of transparency and inclusion.

Happy holidays!

Heather Morrison

On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:19 AM, "Richard Poynder" 
> wrote:

The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. ​The 
focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to 
Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital 
Library”.

In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of 
subscription-based journals to open access models.

Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding 
OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of 
openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on 
Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.

Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and 
transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open 
access a reality, as well as of research outputs?

Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means of 
achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and secret 
processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the transition taking 
place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it 
matter?

Some thoughts here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html

Richard Poynder

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[David Prosser]

Richard

I linked to the text of the FOI question, but repeat it here:


I would like information regarding any/all meetings between BIS officials 
and/or the Minister for Universities and Science (Jo Johnson, MP) with 
representatives from Elsevier (part of RELX Group, formerly Reed Elsevier) 
and/or Thomson Reuters, from 5 June 2015 to date, to include:

- dates of meetings
- agendas / topics for discussion
- names of ministers/senior officials present (as per 40(2)(a)(iii) and section 
40(3)(a)(i) of FOI act)
- minutes / notes / records of the meetings

All that we know is in a two week period the UK Minister for Universities and 
senior Departmental staff met with Elsevier three times.  We do not know what 
was discussed - on two occasions no notes were taken (and so, conveniently, the 
topics of discussion need not be reported) and on the other the UK Government 
is refusing to say what was discussed.

But let’s assume for a moment that the main topic was not open access.  I think 
that few of us (especially those who have watched Yes Minister) are naive 
enough to believe that if you have senior Departmental staff and a Minister on 
hand professionals such at Elsevier wouldn’t slip in a ‘by the way, Minister’ 
and lobby for their position on open access .  But we will never know.

Compare with Berlin12 for which there is a public agenda (with list of 
speakers), a public link to the white paper which formed the starting point for 
discussions, public tweets (although not many) from the event, and a public 
write-up about the event.  Which of these is more secretive?

But even if it were true that Berlin12 was organised by the illuminati with all 
participants taking a vow of omertà, how can we possible extrapolate from that 
to the whole of the open access movement?  It really is a step too far.

But I do agree with you on one issue.  There will be continued pressure from 
some publishers to ensure that details of flipped deals and big deals remain 
confidential.  We need to resist that pressure (as we have in the UK for most 
big deals).

David

On 30 Dec 2015, at 12:25, Richard Poynder 
<richard.poyn...@gmail.com<mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I am not sure that this FOI request was about open access was it David? 
http://bit.ly/1midAyu.

However, the way I see it is that as research funders (like Max Planck and 
RCUK), governments and publishers increasingly come to accept the inevitability 
of open access so the way in which it is achieved, and the way in which the 
details (and costs) are negotiated, are likely to become increasingly 
non-transparent (much as Big Deals have always been). And to me the invite-only 
nature of Berlin 12 foreshadows this development.

I also anticipate that the OA big deals being put in place, and the various 
journal “flipping” arrangements being proposed, will be more to the benefit of 
publishers than to the research community.

As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been 
progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate 
political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was greater 
than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.

The question is: how could the open access have avoided this? What can it do 
right now to mitigate the effects of these developments?

Richard Poynder


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 30 December 2015 10:24
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
<goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the 
entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is having 
confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.  Meetings that are 
apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf

I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.

David

On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder 
<richard.poyn...@cantab.net<mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net>> wrote:


The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. ​The 
focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to 
Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital 
Library”.

In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of 
subscription-based journals to open access models.

Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding 
OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of 
openness and transparen

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Velterop]

What a rubbish argument! This can only be true of a small country with a 
disproportionally massive commercial scholarly publishing sector (that 
isn't avoiding taxes via some small island tax haven).


The Netherlands? Perhaps Britain? That's it.

Jan Velterop

On 30/12/2015 12:25, Richard Poynder wrote:
As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have 
been progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an 
appropriate political level was that the tax-take from commercial 
publishers was greater than the cost of research libraries.” 
http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[David Prosser]

While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the 
entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is having 
confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.  Meetings that are 
apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf

I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.

David


On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder  wrote:

The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. ​The 
focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to 
Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital 
Library”.

In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of 
subscription-based journals to open access models.

Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding 
OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of 
openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on 
Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.

Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and 
transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open 
access a reality, as well as of research outputs?

Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means of 
achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and secret 
processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the transition taking 
place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it 
matter?

Some thoughts here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html

Richard Poynder

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:24 AM, David Prosser 
wrote:

> While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the
> entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is
> having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.
> Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:
>
>
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf
>
> I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning. -- David
>

Spot-on, David.

Elsevier's "confidential" lobbying and deal-making

-- especially
with the UK's gullible government that led to the infamous Finch fiasco

(not
yet over, but damage-limited now by the HEFCE/REF2020 immediate-deposit
mandate
)
-- is where the real action (and damage) is.

The endless, empty Berlin/Max-Planck performance series is of no interest
or consequence.

The silly sniping at EOS by PM-R & RA are just light entertainment at a
time when there is no substantive OA news to report.

*Ceterum censeo*,* if effective immediate-deposit mandates are adopted by
all funders and institutions, the Elsevier lobbying will be completely
unavailing and ineffectual. *

Of course Elsevier knows this, and hence the thrust of their "confidential"
lobbying is transparent to anyone who has been paying attention:

(1) Show "confidential" financial data that make it look as if OA can be
had at no extra cost over current expenditures,

(2) in the form of paid Gold OA,

(3) if funders and institutions simply "leave it to us
"
[publishers] to manage a "gradual transition" (certainly not a "flip."
which publishers know full well would be highly unstable and impermanent,
and would quickly transform into a "flop" because of institutional, funder
and national defections)

*(4) and, most important, desist from mandating  immediate Green OA, which
would -- they never cease to bray -- destroy the entireêer-reviewed
research journal publication system.*


That's about it. It's all bogus, and easily shown to be bogus, but as long
as the publishing lobby can make its pitch behind closed doors, with no one
to provide the evidence that it's bogus, they can keep retarding progress.

But I can't say it enough:

If all funders and institutions just go ahead and mandate immediate-deposit
(not even necessarily immediate-OA, thanks to the Button) *then there is
absolutely nothing publishers and the publishing lobby can do to stop all
the dominoes from falling* -- all the way from universal OA to the phasing
out of everything except peer review to the conversion to Fair Gold with
all the re-use rights the open data people are seeking.

And that's not "destroying the entire peer-reviewed research journal
publication system" but updating it to what is possible today, but
prevented by the publishers' strangle-hold on the obsolete status quo.

Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions
unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access

. *LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog **4/28 *


 SH


>
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder 
> wrote:
>
> The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th.
> ​The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription
> journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max
> Planck Digital Library”.
>
>
>
> In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass
> “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models.
>
>
>
> Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because
> holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the
> principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003
> Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
> Humanities.
>
>
>
> Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and
> transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open
> access a reality, as well as of research outputs?
>
>
>
> Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means
> of achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and
> secret processes become the norm, with the 

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com>
wrote:


>  However, the way I see it is that as research funders (like Max Planck
> and RCUK), governments and publishers increasingly come to accept the
> inevitability of open access so the way in which it is achieved, and the
> way in which the details (and costs) are negotiated, are likely to become
> increasingly non-transparent (much as Big Deals have always been). And to
> me the invite-only nature of Berlin 12 foreshadows this development.
>

But none of this need happen if funders and institutions simply mandate
immediate-deposit (effectively and enforceably, as Liege/HEFCE/REF2020
does).

I don't think you are on the right track, Richard, when you object to
deposit mandates as coercive, or contrary to academic freedom -- especially
when the alternative is just a vague "don't make secret deals with
Elsevier."

 I also anticipate that the OA big deals being put in place, and the
> various journal “flipping” arrangements being proposed, will be more to the
> benefit of publishers than to the research community.
>

You're certainly right about that. And so...?


>  As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been
> progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate
> political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was
> greater than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.
>

That's probably simplistic. Which country's tax revenues? OA is a global
matter.

But certainly some bogus financial reckoning and deal is being
confidentially offered by the publisher lobby, and credulously swallowed by
uninformed government reps (e.g., the Finch fiasco in the UK and -- in the
other country with a substantial publisher presence: the Netherlands) whose
only sense is that OA would be a "good thing," but no realistic idea of how
or why..

 The question is: how could the open access have avoided this? What can it
> do right now to mitigate the effects of these developments?
>

Researchers could have avoided it by providing immediate Green OA.

Absent that, institutions and funders could have avoided it by mandating
Green OA.

And it can still by avoided by institutions and funders mandating Green OA.

Vincent-Lamarre, Philippe, Boivin, Jade, Gargouri, Yassine, Larivière,
Vincent and Harnad, Stevan (2016, in press) Estimating Open Access Mandate
Effectiveness:  The MELIBEA Score.
<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/> *Journal
of the  Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST)* (in
press) http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/

Swan, Alma; Gargouri, Yassine; Hunt, Megan; & Harnad, Stevan (2015) *Open
Access Policy: Numbers, Analysis, Effectiveness*. *Pasteur4OA Workpackage 3
Report.*http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/375854/

Harnad, Stevan (2015) Open Access: What, Where, When, How and Why. In: *Ethics,
Science, Technology, and Engineering: An International Resource* eds. J.
Britt Holbrook & Carl Mitcham, (2nd edition of* Encyclopedia of Science,
Technology, and Ethics*, Farmington Hills MI: MacMillan Reference)
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/361704/

Harnad, Stevan (2015) Optimizing Open Access Policy. *The Serials Librarian*,
69(2), 133-141 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/
<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/381526/>

S.H.


> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *David Prosser
> *Sent:* 30 December 2015 10:24
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode
>
>
>
> While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the
> entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is
> having confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.
> Meetings that are apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act:
>
>
>
>
> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf
>
>
>
> I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th.
> ​The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription
> journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max
> Planck Digital Library”.
>
>
>
> In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass
> “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models.
>
>
>
> Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation onl

[GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

[Richard Poynder]

I am not sure that this FOI request was about open access was it David? 
http://bit.ly/1midAyu.

 

However, the way I see it is that as research funders (like Max Planck and 
RCUK), governments and publishers increasingly come to accept the inevitability 
of open access so the way in which it is achieved, and the way in which the 
details (and costs) are negotiated, are likely to become increasingly 
non-transparent (much as Big Deals have always been). And to me the invite-only 
nature of Berlin 12 foreshadows this development.

 

I also anticipate that the OA big deals being put in place, and the various 
journal “flipping” arrangements being proposed, will be more to the benefit of 
publishers than to the research community.

 

As Keith Jeffery puts it, “We all know why the BOAI principles have been 
progressively de-railed. One explanation given to me at an appropriate 
political level was that the tax-take from commercial publishers was greater 
than the cost of research libraries.” http://bit.ly/1OslVFW.

 

The question is: how could the open access have avoided this? What can it do 
right now to mitigate the effects of these developments?

 

Richard Poynder

 

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
David Prosser
Sent: 30 December 2015 10:24
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The open access movement slips into closed mode

 

While we huff and puff about Berlin 12 and ridiculous suggestions that the 
entire open access movement is slipping ‘into closed mode’, Elsevier is having 
confidential meetings with UK Government Ministers of State.  Meetings that are 
apparently not covered by the Freedom of Information Act: 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/302242/response/745563/attach/3/FOI%20Request%20ref%20FOI2015%2025797%20Meetings%20between%20BIS%20officials%20ministers%20and%20Elsevier%20Thompson%20Reuters.pdf

 

I know which of these cases of ‘secrecy’ I find more concerning.

 

David

 

On 21 Dec 2015, at 10:06, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net 
<mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > wrote:





The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. ​The 
focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to 
Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital 
Library”.

 

In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of 
subscription-based journals to open access models.

 

Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding 
OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of 
openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on 
Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.

 

Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and 
transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open 
access a reality, as well as of research outputs?

 

Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means of 
achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and secret 
processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the transition taking 
place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it 
matter?

 

Some thoughts here: 
http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html

 

Richard Poynder

 

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org <mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> 
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

 

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal