Stevan: My proposal goes farther and has much greater payoff. It is much more far-reaching than just adopting Gold OA, and I would certainly not fund the hybrid Gold model, which is ridiculous. My proposal is to make many more resources available for OA by shifting funds out of inefficient uses. What you call wishful thinking is based on years of being an observer of and participant in the system. I also apply a modicum of established free-market principles.
Here are the key insights. Insight 1: Site licenses are bad for researchers. Universities and libraries are not doing any favors to researchers by buying access to journals on their behalf. Site licenses are merely an extension of paper-era thinking. If subsidized directly, researchers would be able to assemble their own customized library far more effectively than the library can. In the current system, researchers are forced to use a digital library put together for the typical user of their campus. When they change universities, their digital library changes. This non-individualized product is a relic of the paper era. Because researcher information needs are subsidized through libraries, there is no incentive for publishers to develop an ITunes-like environment for scholarly articles. Insight 2: Site licenses are bad for universities. Every site license requires months of negotiations: library committees, consortium meetings, publisher negotiations, etc. Then, to make the site licenses accessible to the community, there are OpenURL servers, proxy servers, and various databases to maintain. This library overhead significantly adds to the total cost of site licenses. This would be justifiable if by "buying in bulk", there are economies to be had. In fact, it is just the opposite. Site licenses are an inherently anti-competitive product that has led to the price hikes of the past twenty years. Letting researchers be in charge of their own subscriptions would create a more competitive market, because each researcher is able to make the price/value judgement for each journal. Insight 3: Site licenses are bad for libraries. Site licenses let libraries pretend they are running a digital library. With site licenses, libraries are merely middlemen in digital-lending transactions, to which they do not contribute any value. In fact, they detract value, as they make the transactions more complicated. Libraries cannot remain relevant institutions if this is the core of their services. Insight 4: Site licenses are bad for publishers. Publishers are currently able to extract quite a lot of value out of their holdings. However, their costs are also very high. Every license negotiation requires sales staff, back-office support, and executive attention. Authentication and user-centered services are difficult because libraries stand in between the publisher and the user. Insight 5: Consider the current TOTAL cost of site licenses (the acquisition cost plus all of the overhead). Use some of these funds to subsidize researchers directly for their information needs. Use the rest to acquire and manage OA information. This would pump significant resources into OA and build permanent digital information infrastructure. The long version can be found in the following posts: http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-if-libraries-were-problem.html http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/08/libraries-paper-tigers-in-digital-world.html http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/08/fourth-branch.html http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/09/publishers-dilemma.html http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/04/annealing-library.html --Eric. http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 Telephone: (626) 376-5415 Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote: > Let's be honest with ourselves, because OA will not come > through fantasy or wishful thinking: > > It is undeniable that OA is desirable, beneficial, inspires > a lot of enthusiasm (even in those who don't do a thing about > it, which is most people, including most researchers) and is > probably inevitable. > > But it is also undeniable that despite the desirability, > benefits, enthusiasm and inevitability, and a good deal of > euphoria it periodically inspires, OA is extremely slow in > coming, it has been hovering around 20% for years, and its > growth rate is minimal. > > Enthusiasts who deny or are oblivious to this reality are > fooling themselves and not doing OA a favor either. > > So the realistic question is: what is a credible, viable way > to accelerate the growth of OA to 100% before this generation > of OA advocates reaches its dotage? > > 100% OA will not be reached within our lifetimes via a > concerted strategy by institutions to phase out subscription > journals in favor of OA journals. Publishers already have a > strategy for countering that, and it's called hybrid gold OA: > > Those institutions who want to pay subscriptions pay > subscriptions; those who want to pay for Gold OA pay for Gold > OA. No money is saved by universities, because journals can > and do adjust the price of hybrid Gold OA however they wish, > to preserve their revenue streams. Hence there's no incentive > for institutions to join or stick to the concerted strategy. > > What the non-subscribing institutions get is a patchwork of > Gold OA articles, missing the non-Gold articles. (This is a > classic example of what is called an "evolutionarily unstable > strategy." It looks good in theory; it crumbles in practice.) > > I won't say much about the variant strategy of institutions > trying to force ("mandate") that their researchers publish > only in pure Gold OA journals. Enthusiasm there may be, for > OA, among researchers, be they ever so passive. But if any > institution starts telling them that they may no longer > publish in the journals they choose based on their > appropriateness for their work, but must choose journals > based on their cost-recovery model, and I predict these > passive authors will break into active revolt. Another > evolutionarily unstable strategy. > > I'll say even less about the Elsevier boycott threat -- > 10,000 strong. The biomedical researcher boycott > threat in 2000 was 34,000 strong, but they all had > their fingers crossed (and so do the Elsevier authors). > Like all gestures from authors who are fervent > enough about OA to threaten boycotts for it, but > not fervent enough to provide themselves, by > self-archiving their published articles -- yet another > evolutionarily unstable strategy. > > What does that leave (besides waiting for the current > sluggish course of events to continue slogging on till we > expire)? > > If FRPAA mandates *institutional* green OA self-archiving for > all funded research, not only will this make the huge tranche > of FRPAA-funded research OA, but it will oblige institutions > to monitor and ensure fulfillment of the funder conditions, in > their own institutional repositories -- for which the natural > mechanism is for all institutions to adopt complementary > green OA self-archiving mandates as well, making > self-archiving part of routine academic procedure. > > FRPAA is just US funders. But it reaches into virtually all > US research institutions. And it will be emulated worldwide. > (The EU may even beat them to it, if Alma Swan has her way!) > > That is an evolutionarily stable strategy. > > Now I am ready for the usual welter of nay-sayers. But I > urge the uncommitted reader to be attentive to the grounds > for the objections. I suggest being suspicious of those that > are based on ideology or on speculation. Mandates have been tried > and tested; and where properly implemented (e.g., at Southampton > ECS, QUT, Minho and Liege), they work. What has not yet been > tested is funder mandates designating *institutional* deposit. > But that's only because the funders have only been listening to the > nay-sayers. I recommend a little p[en-mindedness and empiricism. > > Stevan Harnad > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde > <eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com> wrote: > > Jan: > > > > I thought for a long time that conflating the two was wrong, but I have > > changed my view on that. On Michael Eisen's blog, two comments, one by > John > > C and one by JJ, illustrate the point. > > > > Let's start with JJ, a grad student looking for a postdoc or assistant > prof > > position, but it could also be someone up for tenure. These junior > > researchers need to know that their personal open-access initiatives > will be > > valued. Universities must show real commitment on their part. If they > > communicate that library subscriptions will disappear in three years, > > promotion and tenure committees will be on notice, all faculty will be on > > notice that the university is serious about the change. > > > > John C is a researcher who paid gold open access out of his research > grants. > > The overhead on his grants sponsors his library subscriptions AND he pays > > the full freight of gold open access. That is not sustainable. > > > > Three years is plenty long enough for faculty, libraries, and publishers > to > > adapt to a new reality, and it is short enough for the transition not to > > impact junior researchers adversely. > > > > Stevan will say that gold open access is not necessary. And he is right, > but > > green open access has been moving too slowly and it requires mandates > that > > will be difficult to enforce in the long term. The quality of > institutional > > repositories is sufficient for access to research, but it is not at the > > level necessary for long-term archiving. For institutions participating > in > > green open access, all the costs of open access are additive to > subscription > > costs. If IRs are the answer, their quality have to improve and that > means > > more resources are required. > > > > I don't know what the end result will be. No one can plan a disruptive > > change. However, I have come to the view that site licenses cause the > > stasis. Phasing out of paid subscriptions is the disruption that will set > > everything else in motion. Then, let faculty, students, publishers, > > libraries, and startups figure it out. The money saved on subscriptions > can > > help smooth the transitory effects and can be invested in open access. > > > > --Eric. > > > > http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com > > > > Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 > > Telephone: (626) 376-5415 > > Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde > > E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Eric, > >> > >> Why the second sentence? As long as they require OA, do we care how they > >> spend ? or waste ? their money? (Except as tax payers, perhaps, but the > >> access issue isn't the financial issue. Conflation of the two has > stymied > >> progress in my view. Just as dirigiste solutions have.) > >> > >> Jan > >> > >> > >> On 1 May 2012, at 19:16, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote: > >> > >> How about the following: > >> > >> "Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and progress, > >> funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA to > >> their published research results. Institutions and their libraries will > >> phase out all electronic journal subscriptions by May 1st, 2015 and > invest > >> in OA initiatives instead." > >> > >> --Eric. > >> > >> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com > >> > >> Google Voice: (626) 898-5415 > >> Telephone: (626) 376-5415 > >> Skype chat, voice, or web-video: efvandevelde > >> E-mail: eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Jan Velterop <velterop at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I would simplify it further: > >>>> > >>>> "Because Open Access (OA) maximises research usage, impact and > progress, > >>>> funders and institutions must require that all researchers provide OA > to > >>>> their published research results." > >>>> > >>>> Any form of dirigisme as to how this is to be achieved is best > avoided. > >>>> Avoiding prescriptions for the means helps keep the focus on the goal > and > >>>> also leaves the door open for imaginative ways of convincing > researchers, > >>>> funders and institutions, and even of achieving more OA in possibly > more > >>>> effective ways. > >>>> > >>> I support this. A simple sentence powerful and this probably has what > we > >>> want - like all sentences this may need slight crafting. > >>> > >>> The reality of the present situation is that we seem to need a mix of > >>> strategies. What works for one discipline may not work for another. > Things > >>> have changed over the last 10 years and we need to look for changing > >>> methods, changing finances and changing allies. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Peter Murray-Rust > >>> Reader in Molecular Informatics > >>> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > >>> University of Cambridge > >>> CB2 1EW, UK > >>> +44-1223-763069 > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> GOAL mailing list > >>> GOAL at eprints.org > >>> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> GOAL mailing list > >> GOAL at eprints.org > >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> GOAL mailing list > >> GOAL at eprints.org > >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GOAL mailing list > > GOAL at eprints.org > > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120502/caebf0ba/attachment-0001.html
