On 12 Dec 2004, at 19:10, Stevan Harnad wrote:
Now let me count the ways in which the reality of researchers' needs and journal publishing goes against the analogy with cell-phones (or diesel engines, or motorcars, or computers, or TVs, or the web, or whatever piece of technology you choose in your sanguine projections -- though there will be something more to say about the analogy with the web in a moment): (1) OA journals are not a new piece of either hardware or software: they are merely a different cost-recovery model, and one that has not yet been tested and shown to be viable, sustainable and scalable. (I am not saying it will not; I am saying it has not yet been shown.)
Economic viability, sustainability and scalability don't need to be shown. The only thing that needs to be shown is 'cultural' acceptance in the research community. Or even just in the funder community, which will do fine. Economic viability and sustainability will follow.
(2) Until the viability, sustainability and scalability of the OA journal cost-recovery model has been tested and confirmed, it represents an undeniable risk for publishers.
True, even when viability, sustainability and scalability are demonstrated, because the profits/surpluses that some have will be far less likely to be of the same magnitude of 40% plus. But self-archiving carries risks for those publishers, too. Even though your stock-in-trade answer is that such risk is 'counterfactual', given what happened so far in the high energy physics field. However, just as in investment banking, past performance is a poor indicator of future results.
(3) As a consequence of this risk, very few publishers have dared to adopt the OA journal cost-recovery model to date. (This is not to say that the brave new publishers like BMJ or PLoS were wrong to try, nor that they are bound to fail; just that few have tried, and it is clear why not.) (4) Now, because only about 5% of the total 24,000 peer-reviewed journals have taken the risk of trying the OA cost-recovery model today, it follows that only about 5% of articles can be published in an OA journal today, even if the author, undeterred by the author-institution publication cost (as, I agree, he should not be, if the journal is otherwise suitable) wishes to publish in an OA journal.
This is a logical flaw that presumes that paperflow is always static, from journal to journal, and that there can be no shift in submissions from one journal to another. It is plausible that not all articles at the moment can find an appropriate OA journal to be published in, but the implied proportionality to the number of journals in your argument is wrong.
(5) First pause: There is no counterpart for this in the growth of cell-phone manufacture and usage: Providers were quite happy to have a go, and users were quite willing to buy and use. There was no counterpart of the uncertainty and risk about the cost-recovery model (which was much the same as with the conventional phone): just ordinary innovation, competition, and market forces. (6) Now let's continue, with the "long-cord" story: Not only is there already a viable alternative to the untested and risky OA cost-recovery model (in which I believe, by the way -- but I also believe it is premature), but, unlike the far-fetched "long-cord" analogy, which clearly does not have even an infinitesimal portion of the functionality of cell-phones, the self-archiving alternative provides 100% of the functionality of OA, just as OA publishing does: If the author has any benefits from OA at all, the benefits are equal whether the OA is achieved via gold or green. Ditto for the user. (7) Nor does self-archiving have any of the "long-cord" disadvantages dictated by the analogy: Distributed institutional self-archiving is simple, easy,
If only. Plenty of institutions do not have a repository yet, unfortunately. Only a concerted central archiving in discipline-oriented archives (such as PubMed Central in medicine and biology), which you seem to abhor, could conceivably deliver the immediacy you're looking for.
and highly desirable in its own right, over and above its power to confer 100% OA. (It could even eventually take over both the access-provision and archiving burden from *all* journals, making them all "wireless" peer-review service-providers instead of tying them down with having to provide and distribute and store paper and PDF products! But here I speculate only in order to show how unapt the long-cord analogy is!) (8) Yes, the self-archiving option requires that a few extra keystrokes be performed (by the author or by some other designated party), but those are one-time keystrokes per article (hardly comparable to walking around with a mile-long cord!) and a lot cheaper (for somebody) than paying the OA journal costs.
I have compared self-archiving with a painkiller, as you know: it works to relieve the symptoms, but doesn't cure the underlying problem. This is not to say that painkillers are a bad thing. If you suffer, you should take them. They are most valuable and desirable and always good to have at hand. But you shouldn't confuse painkillers with a cure.
(9) The same is true of archive creation and maintenance. It costs a little (very little) to an institution, to provide OA archives for all its authors article output, but it costs incomparably less that creating and maintaining a new journal, and has none of the attendant risks.
It has the risk that the journals whose articles are being self-archived disappear for lack of subscription income. Not a bad thing, perhaps, but surely a risk. If they don't disappear, then the institution pays two bills: first for the subscriptions, and then for the maintenance of the repository. So where does the idea come from that it's cheaper? For a handful of very well endowed and research-intensive institutions subscriptions may be (not *are*; just *maybe*) cheaper than paying for dissemination, as in the OA journals that charge article processing fees. For the majority OA is cheaper. A simple calculation tells us that the average price of an article paid by Academia is in the order of $3000-4000 at least. No OA publisher charges that, and certainly for the bulk of scientific articles the fees necessary for OA publishing to be sustainable, viable and scalable, are nowhere near such amounts. But even if they were; or even if they were higher; OA publishing would still be the better system, as for that amount all scientific research results could be freed up. Why would that be the case? Because "no achievement in science is exclusively the product of one brain" (John Waller, in 'Leaps in the Dark'). With OA, there can be more and faster 'interconnectivity' with more brains, so to speak.
(10) Now back to innovative technology and the web. For if you really want an apt analogy with cell-phone uptake, it is probably web uptake: They both happened so fast, and conferred such huge benefits. Are OA journals their counterparts here, or is it rather online self-archiving itself? (11) I would say that if anything is analogous to scepticism about the functionality and desirability of cell-phones in 1983, and preference for just making the conventional telephone line longer, it is authors' failure to self-archive and reach 100% OA already a decade ago. (12) Since then, OAI-interoperability has come along to sweeten the package. So have free OAI-compliant software, citation-counting research engines, green lights from publishers, and growing empirical evidence of the impact-enhancing power of OA. (13) Yet it still looks as if it will require stronger incentives from researchers' employers and funders (in the form of requiring OA provision as a condition of funding and advancement, by way of an extension of publish-or-perish, in the interest of maximizing the research impact of those publications) in order to get them to take advantage of the new medium at last. (14) OA-provision mandates from employers and funders cannot and will not dictate where researchers may publish. (So they cannot be mandates for publishing in OA journals.) (15) But OA self-archiving can be mandated it. And that will bring 100% OA (wireless) with 100% probability.
Of course. As it is beginning to happen. But to think that that means that traditional publishing is *not* moribund if it were take up even to 50%, is not understanding the business of publishing. If OA archiving is mandated immediately upon publication, traditional publishing is dead. If it is with a 6-months delay, subscriptions pay for no more than a brief time advantage, and for that, current price levels may just prove far too high, so cancellations are pretty sure to follow. I know you call this speculation, but I prefer calling it 'looking ahead' or 'anticipation' and would like to plan for that future which I regard as inevitable (though it's anybody's guess how long it will actually take).
(16) It may or may not also eventually usher in the era of OA publishing.
OA publishing is already here, albeit still small. To use Robin Cook's (a UK Member of Parliament) metaphor when talking about climate change: the pressure (that this small amount of OA exerts) is like the pressure on a light switch: small, but making a major sudden change when the switch is flipped.
(17) But that is not something that authors are or should be concerned about. Nor does it matter remotely as much as reaching 100% itself. (18) For 100% OA (wireless) will already satisfy all authors' needs -- at least all those needs that would have inclined them toward OA at all, in either its gold or its green varieties! Stevan Harnad P.S. A much more interesting critique of my argument that you can't squeeze 95% of the current literature into 5% of its current journals would be something along the lines of the Parmenides Paradox or the Ship of Theseus (by way of a critique of my induction on 1, 2, 2%, 5%,...). But the answer to this has been given already: We need to create/convert roughly 23,000 more OA journals to scale up to 100% OA whereas we could already do so virtually overnight via OA self-archiving.
This presumes the absurd notion that we actually *need* 23,000 journals. We may have them, and OA publishing may result in 50,000 or 100,000 journals, but we only *need* enough journals to have an appropriate outlet for each paper.
But alas it is easier to squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle than to get most publishers to adopt the OA cost-recovery model today. It is hence incomparably easier and more sensible to squeeze researchers just a little, so they self-archive: After all, the OA is all for their benefit anyway!
(Is this Bible quote one of those things that give the OA 'movement' a religious aura?). Some authors do realize he benefits, but some don't. Just like with paying tax. It's for your benefit (at least theoretically and if you live in a democracy). Yet lowering taxes (even just promises of the 'read my lips' kind) are great vote winners. And how many would pay less if only they could?
And researchers have already *told* us what they will and will not do: They will not self-archive if they are not required to do so -- but if they *are* required to do so, the vast majority say they *will* do so, and do so *willingly* (just as they already comply willingly with the requirement to "publish or perish"). So if OA is worthwhile at all, it is worthwhile mandating that researchers do their part to make it happen.
Couldn't agree more. Jan Velterop
Swan, A. & Brown, S.N. (2004a) JISC/OSI Journal Authors Survey Report. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/JISCOAreport1.pdf Swan, A. & Brown, S.N. (2004b) Authors and open access publishing. Learned Publishing 2004:17(3) 219-224. http://www.ingentaselect.com/rpsv/cw/alpsp/09531513/v17n3/s7/