On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:58 AM, "FrederickFriend" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Progress to OA is slower than it could be but Stevan's description of a mere > 8 years since BOAI as "glacially slow" is rather exaggerated! Well, everyone has a different inner clock. Mine starts not from BOAI in 2001 but from the Web in 1990. The means for making every single refereed journal article OA from the moment it is accepted for publication have been there ever since then -- and the proof is that some authors (about 10% then, about 20% now) have indeed been making their articles OA. But I do find 20% glacially slow for two decades -- especially considering the benefits of OA, and that it is only a few keystrokes that stand between here and there... > And my > experience is that the small amounts of money currently going into OA > publication charges have not hindered repository deposit. Spending scarce institutional or research funds on Gold OA (when Green OA can be had for free) does not in itself go "against" Green OA. It simply adds, if you like, "insult" to "injury"! It is injurious to research not to make it OA. So not providing or mandating OA is injurious. But since Green OA can be provided today for *all* of an institution's research output at no extra cost (sic, see below), it adds "insult" to "injury" to spend money on providing (Gold) OA for *some fraction* of an institution's research output while failing to provide it (for free) to *all* of an institution's research output -- by mandating Green OA. And, to boot, I'll warrant that many of the universities that triumphantly proclaim having supported OA by committing funds to pay for Gold OA (without mandating Green OA) today will feel they've now done their bit for OA, and will settle down for perhaps another glacial decade of not doing the optimal, inevitable, obvious and already long overdue: mandating Green OA. But (to use a phrase now growing fashionable in the US) "make no mistake about it": once an institution has indeed mandated Green OA, they are of course more than welcome to do whatever they wish with their spare funds, without insult or injury! > If the speed of > progress were a matter of money, "green OA" would already be racing ahead, > as (certainly in the UK) much more money has been committed to repositories > than to OA publication charges. Quite right. Which again confirms that the the speed of OA progress is *not* dependent on money but on keystrokes, and institutional (and funder) policy... But I would like to challenge the notion that the money spent on IRs per se has been money spent on OA! As you know, there are many uses for IRs. Moreover, most IRs are 80-90% of their OA target content. So the money spent on IRs can hardly be counted as money spent on OA. (Yet coupling IRs with Green OA mandates would do the trick!) > The OA movement has always allowed for both > "green" and "gold" OA, and there is no evidence that one is slowing down > progress on the other. "Allowing for" is not quite the same as concertedly advocating. Nor does it take into account the contingencies mentioned above. The OA movement has indeed been promoting both Green and Gold OA (which is fine), but it has not made the strategic and practical priorities and contingencies clear, and has played into a "gold rush" that is getting us next to nowhere fast. If the advocates of OA made it crystal clear why Green OA mandates need to be given priority (mandate Green OA first, then spend what money is available on Gold OA), I think things would move ahead much more quickly. > Most mandates, funders' policies and potential > national legislation tend to favour some form of repository deposit, and if > they do support the payment of OA publication charges, it is not at the > expense of repositories. I am not concerned about the institutions and funders that already mandate Green OA. I am concerned about the many that don't! > So what are the reasons for the slow transition to OA? The time taken to > influence university presidents and provosts is certainly a major factor It is, and if their attention could be focussed by OA advocates on the feasibility, benefits, and cost-freeness of mandating Green OA (before spending money on Gold OA) the transition would be a good deal faster and more focussed. > but they are now becoming convinced about the value of OA and are > introducing mandates, not least because of national policies on research > assessment which look for the impact of research publications on the economy > and society. University leaders need their institution's research to have a > high impact value and they are seeing that OA will give them that result. > Government are also coming to understand that OA results in higher value > from research expenditure. Quite true. And even I, impatient as I am, have to admit that the tempo of Green OA adoption among institutions and funders is beginning to pick up, and no small thanks to OA usage and impact metrics. (But I think it would accelerate even faster if not distracted by Gold Fever !) > Institutions are still reluctant to enforce > mandates, which would certainly be a fast way to grow OA, but could embroil > OA in unnecessary disputes about academic freedom. But Fred, shouldn't OA advocates be busy debunking such nonsense, rather than just repeating it as a fact of life? If our universities can tell us where, when and in what format we should deposit our marks after examining our students without infringing on our "academic freedom," why can they not tell us where, when and in what format to deposit our refereed publications (e.g., for performance evaluation)? The "academic freedom" canard is usually raised by authors who imagine that a Green OA mandate is telling them where and what to publish -- rather than just that they need to deposit their (refereed) publications in their IRs! (The canard is also encouraged by conflations between Green OA and Gold OA, where the author might rightly imagine that constraints are being placed on his freedom to choose what journal to publish in. Anti-OA publishers are the ones who love to exploit this canard. But OA advocates should be debunking it.) (If the universal "publish or perish" mandate does not go against academic freedom, surely extending that mandate to depositing the publication in an IR to maximise its usage and impact does not either.) > A more effective route > could be through authors noticing - or having it drawn to their attention - > that repository copies of their peers' articles are receiving much heavier > use than their own articles in conventional journals. Academic rivalry both > at an institutional and at a personal level has the potential to speed up > the progress towards OA. That was what I too thought (or dreamt) nearly a decade ago, Fred: that knowing and showing the OA Advantage in usage and impact will be enough to induce researchers to provide Green OA. But it isn't. And Alma Swan's surveys have shown why: Because researchers need a mandate from their institutions and funders to provide OA, otherwise most just won't do it. So I don't think OA advocates should be counselling another patient decade of waiting for the OA Advantage to convince authors to deposit: What we need is Green OA deposit mandates, globally, now. Once we have them, Gold OA can go on its merry way. The future belongs to Gold OA. But, please, let's deal with the present first, by ushering in universal Green OA, at long last! Stevan Harnad ========== This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to The SPARC Open Access Forum. To post, send your message to <[email protected]>. To unsubscribe, email to <[email protected]>. To switch to digest mode, email to <[email protected]>. To switch to index mode, email to <[email protected]>. Send administrative queries to <[email protected]>.
