This is a nettle that OA organisations like SPARC, OASPA and COPE should be
grasping.
There are things they could be doing, and things they could be saying. And for
so long as
the OA movement continues to ignore the problem, Open Access is in danger of
being discredited.
People are beginning to conclude that OA is about dubious marketing practices
and vanity
publishing, not about freeing the refereed literature.
To tie this up with the recent commentary on Eric Van de Velde's post:
Personally I think I see a
new strand in the discussion about OA in Eric's post.
I say this because until now most of the debate appears to have taken
place in the speculative realm. Those against it have focused on arguing why
OA will not/cannot work - be it Green, Gold, or the whole shebang. Â Those
who support it have responded that that is all speculation, and then add that a
more
likely scenario is xxxx.
What I think we are beginning to see is a strand that says, "Ok, we've tried
OA, and here are the consequences and the problems". And some of
Eric's questions reveal the sort of conclusions that people are reaching:
"What if we could significantly reduce cost by implementing pay walls
differently?" "Are Open-Access Journals a Form of Vanity Publishing?" These
questions may not entirely reflect Eric's conclusion, but they
are I think indicative of where the debate is moving.
Stevan may be right to say that some of the arguments used are as
flawed and wrong-headed as they always were, and frequently presented from the
perspective of the wrong people. But if one considers how a debate is framed and
develops - even if the thinking behind it is wrong-headed - once ideas gain
mindshare they tend to take on a life of their own, as the history of OA
demonstrates.
I also understand Stevan's point about conflating access with affordability,
but at one time many in the OA movement argued that OA would solve both
problems, and it was for that reason perhaps that people like Eric (and
many others too) supported the movement in the first place. Indeed, the
roots of SPARC lie in the affordability problem, not the access problem. Â
Personally, I believe that affordability is just as important as access, and
while one can argue that the two problems should be tackled one at a time, with
access addressed first, what we are actually witnessing is publishers
co-opting OA in a way that embeds the affordability problem into an OA
environment, so I don't think these are problems that can be tackled
separately. Stevan is right to argue that Green is a better option, not
just in terms of speed, but also for its potential to solve both problems
(by forcing publishers to downsize while also providing access), but the problem
is that Gold is winning the race to the finish line, not Green.
Add to this the vanity publishing issue and the situation becomes even more
perilous. As people will no doubt recall, Elsevier predicted what we are seeing
in its evidence to the Science & Technology Committee in 2004 (for self-serving
purposes perhaps, but so what), and indeed the claim had been made by others
before.
The problem is that many now see that prediction coming true. And if Gold OA
is
tainted,
then Green OA will be viewed as guilty by association (and of course accused,
however inaccurately, of not being all the things that Eric believes it ought to
be).
Richard
On Oct 30, 2011, at 05:03 PM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
They just keep coming, almost daily, pre-emptively spamming all the
people we had been hoping to win over to Open Access.
Not only is it regrettable that OA is so unthinkingly identified in
most people's minds exclusively with gold OA publishing, but this
growing spate of relentless fool's-gold junk-OA spamming is now
coalescing with that misconception -- and at the same time more and
more universities and funders are reaching into their scarce funds
to
pay for this kind of thing, thinking this is the way to provide OA.
(Meanwhile, green OA mandates, the real solution, are still hovering
at about 200 out of about 10,000 (2%!) -- and mostly needlessly
watered-down mandates. I wish I could figure out a way to turn this
liability -- fool's-gold spam and scam -- into an asset for
spreading
green mandates, but I'm afraid that even Richard Poynder's critical
articles are being perceived mostly as critical of OA itself rather
than just of fool's-gold OA.)
The real culprits are not the ones trying to make a buck out of this
current spike in pay-to-publish-or-perish/gold-fever co-morbidity,
but
the researchers themselves, who can't put 2+2 together and provide
green OA on their own, cost-free; and their institutions and
funders,
who can't put 2+2 together and mandate that they do it.
Instead of thinking, it's easier to shell out for fool's gold...
Richard's exposés are helpful, but I think they are not enough to
open
people's eyes.
So all we can do is hope that the spamming itself will become so
blatant and intrusive that it will wake people up to the fact that
this is not the way to provide OA...
Stevan
PS Not only do I not work on anything faintly resembling
"proteomics/bioinformatics" but I have no "relationship with OMICS
Group" (except possibly prior complaints about spam)! These spam
disclaimers are a lark. They seem to be using professional spam
services that try to appear respectable.
From: "JPB"<editor....@omicsgroup.co>
Date: October 28, 2011 4:29:28 AM EDT
To: "Stevan Harnad"
Subject: Invitation for Special Issue: Journal of Proteomics &
Bioinformatics
Reply-To: editor....@omicsgroup.co
You are receiving this email because of your relationship with OMICS
Group. Please reconfirm your interest in receiving email from us. If
you do not wish to receive any more emails, you can unsubscribe here
Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics - Open Access
Dear Dr. Stevan Harnad,
We are glad to announce the success of Journal of Proteomics &
Bioinformatics (JPB) an Open Access platform for proteomics,
bioinformatics research and updates.
To provide a rapid turn-around time regarding reviewing, publishing
and to disseminate the articles freely for research, teaching and
reference purposes we are releasing following special issues.
Upcoming Special Issues Handling Editor(s)
Domain-Domain Interactions Dr. Chittibabu (Babu) Guda, University of
Nebraska Medical Center, USA
Microarray Proteomics Dr. Qiangwei Xia, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Canonical approach: Moleculomics Dr. Lifeng Peng, Victoria
University, China
Shifts and deepens : Biomarkers Dr. Kazuyuki Nakamura, Yamaguchi
University, Japan
Membrane Protein Transporters Dr. Mobeen Raja, University of
Alberta, Canada
Structural and Functional Biology Dr. Viola Calabró, University of
Naples "Federico II", ITALY
HLA-based vaccines Dr. Mario Hugo Genero, Universidad Austral,
Republica Argentina
Insulin Signaling & Insulin Resistance Dr. Zhengping Yi, Arizona
State
University, USA
Proteomics for Cancer chemoprevention Dr. Imtiaz Siddiqui,
University
of Wisconsin, USA
Membrane Proteomics Dr. Yurong Lai, Groton Laboratory, Pfizer, Inc,
UK
We would like to request a contribution from you for any of these
special issues or regular issues of the Journal to improve the Open
Access motto in this field.
For more details PS : http://www.omicsonline.com/SpecialissueJPB.php
Why to submit and benefits :
http://www.omicsonline.org/special-features.php
Submit your article online at :
http://www.editorialmanager.com/proteomics/
(Or)
As e-mail attachment to the Editorial Office
:editor....@omicsgroup.co
We shall look forward to hear from you.
Sincerely,
Editors, Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics
Dr. Chittibabu (Babu) Guda, University of Nebraska Medical Center,
USA
Dr. Qiangwei Xia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Dr. Lifeng Peng, Victoria University, China
Dr. Kazuyuki Nakamura, Yamaguchi University, Japan
Dr. Mobeen Raja, University of Alberta, Canada
Dr. Viola Calabró, University of Naples "Federico II", ITALY
Dr. Mario Hugo Genero, Universidad Austral, Republica Argentina
Dr. Zhengping Yi, Arizona State University, USA
Dr. Imtiaz Siddiqui, University of Wisconsin, USA
Dr. Yurong Lai, Groton Laboratory, Pfizer, Inc, UK
Editorial office
OMICS Publishing Group
5716 Corsa Ave., Suite 110
Westlake, Los Angeles
CA 91362-7354, USA
E-mail:editor....@omicsgroup.co
Ph: +1-650-268-9744
Fax: +1-650-618-1414
Toll free: +1-800-216-6499
Unique features:
⢠User friendly/feasible website-translation of your paper to 50
worldâs leading languages
⢠Audio version of published paper
⢠Digital articles to share and explore
⢠200 Open Access Journals
⢠10,000 Editorial team
⢠21 days rapid review process
⢠Indexing at PubMed (partial), Scopus, Chemical Abstracts, Scholar,
DOAJ, EBSCO, Index Copernicus and Google Scholar etc
⢠Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled
⢠Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientific
Credits
This message was sent... by editor....@omicsgroup.co
Unsubscribe from all mailings
Manage Subscription | Forward Email | Report Abuse
