The issue of books has always been a difficult terrain within the OA community. A narrow interpretation of Open Access tends to limit its reach to journal articles, and this choice has the obvious advantage of leaving the issue of royalties aside. However, it should be remembered that scholars who write scholarly monographs or contribute to scholarly anthologies do not generally do it for money, but for the same kind of goals that scholars do when they publish in articles. Consequently, drawing a red line around the royalty issue is really a moot point in the great majority of case and can be justified only on the ground of wanting to simplify matters to the extreme. At the same time, it must be remembered that books and even anthologies carry more weight in most SSH (social science and humanities) areas. leaving them aside would be like telling scientists that, for whatever reason, publishing in the most prestigious journals cannot be taken into account. And citation trackers, until very recently, have also systematically neglected books despite their obvious importance.
Now, let us look at the issues of books with regard to the ARC policy. Books do not have “less developed mechanisms for open access copyright clearance than journal articles”. They have better developed mechanisms for copyright transfer, and greater justification for closed access. There is no simple parallel between scholarly book publishing and scholarly journal publishing. The industries are very different, and convergence is slow in coming though we may be starting on that path. I believe this statement to be very poorly written. In this I agree with Arthur. But I am not sure that they have greater justification for closed access. And I do not understand why scholarly book publishing and scholarly journal publishing are so vastly different. Book publishing in general, yes; but scholarly book publishing works about the same way as journal publishing (with the minor difference of insignificant royalties). If there are so many justifications for closed access to books, why are some academic presses practising open access? Are they crazy? Unrealistic? Whatever? If the ARC policy extends to books, and according to the AOASG statement also to ibooks and ebooks, and to a lesser extent but still importantly book contributions (chapters), then it is easy to predict: > > 1. Very few books will be published as the outcomes of a > research project. Book publishers incur real costs (editorial, > printing, stock and distribution), especially research or > review books, and require closed access to recover costs over > much longer timeframes than articles. They will simply refuse > to publish books that are to be made open access, unless > heavily subsidized. > > 2. Very few ibooks will be published as outcomes of a > research project. Although the iTunes policy is that free > ibooks (ie open access) are accepted, most people wanting to > publish a research output as an ibook (.iba format for iPad) > will want to recover some of their development cost. This will > be less significant in the less interactive .pub format. > 1. It is true that book publishers incur real costs, but so do journal publishers, especially when they maintain a paper version, as is still the case in a majority of SSH journals. Then, even printing, stock and distribution issues are shared by both worlds. The life cycle of scholarly books (and articles within anthologies) may or may not be longer than those of journal articles: it all depends on the discipline, and the best proof of this is JSTOR which is a success. But Arthur is not really speaking about life cyles of articles; he is speaking about cost recovery of journals and articles. Actually, given the present price of many scholarly books - anyone looking at catalogues from Sage or similar publishers can confirm this point - few individuals buy them, which means that the scholarly book market depends on library demand as heavily as scholarly journals. Finally, in many countries (e.g. Canada, France, Italy, etc.), scholarly books are heavily subsidized to the point that, for these books, publishers really face a risk-free world. And not so long ago, most US university presses were in a position to work at a loss, which means that their books were subsidized locally. In fact, ever since Johns Hopkins U. Presss was founded, university presses original mandate was to publish books that could not succeed commercially but were important for the growth of knowledge. 2. Arthur makes a prediction that does not appear substantiated. If university presses that already practise OA decide to produce eBooks (why limit oneself to iBooks?), they will simply decrease many of their production, storage and distribution costs, and this will help them financially in their effort to promote book OA. One has to doubt whether the ARC intends such undesirable consequences, and if it has thought this through. I just mention newspaper articles, video recordings, music scores, film and play scripts, photographs, architectural designs, computer programs, patents, and silicon chip designs, without going into detail. I will not speculate on whether ARC has thought the issue through or not, but it is true that scholarly publishing will eventually move across the whole gamut of document types one can imagine, plus the data behind it. However, a scholarly video will maintain with a commercial video the same kind of relationship that a scholarly book maintains with a novel or a cookbook: although superfically alike, they enter entirely different economic circuits and should, therefore, be treated accordingly. Conflating all kinds of codices into one lump does not help thinking through the digital mutation we are experiencing. In fact, if we pushed the argument further, we could say that because scientists use writing in their work, it should be treated like any other form of writing, from a laundry bill to a D. Steele novel. Moving down that road will quickly lead us into absurdities. In conclusion, I am not saying that the ARC policy is perfect; but I am saying that policy formulations that do include scholarly books and anthologies make a lot of sense if one is interested in thinking about Open Access as an important tool for the great conversation of knowledge, be it in the STM disciplines, or in SSH. And, once and for all, let us forget about this artificial red line dealing with the royalty issue. In fact, all subsidized, scholarly, books should exclude the possibility of royalties. Incidentally, mandates for depositing research publications into institutional/central/thematic repositories should clearly extend to SSH publications in whatever form, codex, journals, etc.. Best, Jean-Claude Guédon Le vendredi 18 janvier 2013 à 00:41 -0500, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > Many thanks to Arthur Sale for posting this. When I saw these > (obvious) howlers in the ARC Policy I assumed the policy-makers (or > the policy-writers) had fallen asleep at the wheel (and I gave up). > > > > Let's hope that Arthur's firm and confident corrective will be noticed > and heeded. > > > The ARC gaffe is nothing compared to the UK's Finch/RCUK gaffe, which > was done -- and has since been defended -- with eyes wide shut... > > > Stevan Harnad > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Arthur Sale <a...@ozemail.com.au> > wrote: > > Danny > > > > I believe this AOASG statement contains an error. It states > that the ARC policy applies to all research outputs of an ARC > project, including books. While this can be inferred from the > text, it is an extraordinary claim which will be ineffective > and cannot have been intended by the ARC. > > > > Books do not have “less developed mechanisms for open access > copyright clearance than journal articles”. They have better > developed mechanisms for copyright transfer, and greater > justification for closed access. There is no simple parallel > between scholarly book publishing and scholarly journal > publishing. The industries are very different, and convergence > is slow in coming though we may be starting on that path. > > > > If the ARC policy extends to books, and according to the AOASG > statement also to ibooks and ebooks, and to a lesser extent > but still importantly book contributions (chapters), then it > is easy to predict: > > 1. Very few books will be published as the outcomes of a > research project. Book publishers incur real costs (editorial, > printing, stock and distribution), especially research or > review books, and require closed access to recover costs over > much longer timeframes than articles. They will simply refuse > to publish books that are to be made open access, unless > heavily subsidized. > > 2. Very few ibooks will be published as outcomes of a > research project. Although the iTunes policy is that free > ibooks (ie open access) are accepted, most people wanting to > publish a research output as an ibook (.iba format for iPad) > will want to recover some of their development cost. This will > be less significant in the less interactive .pub format. > > One has to doubt whether the ARC intends such undesirable > consequences, and if it has thought this through. I just > mention newspaper articles, video recordings, music scores, > film and play scripts, photographs, architectural designs, > computer programs, patents, and silicon chip designs, without > going into detail. > > > > The statement that “The AOASG particularly commends the ARC > for requiring publications to be made available through > institutional repositories” is also incorrect, or rather > overstated. The ARC policy makes it clear that deposit in a > repository is not necessary, if the research output is already > available elsewhere on the Internet in an open access form > (for example in a subject repository, on a website, in iTunes, > in an open access journal, or as an OA article in a hybrid > journal). The policy does not mandate open access journals and > similar routes (good), but it does not inhibit their natural > growth either (also good). It sets institutional repositories > as the OA mechanism of ultimate resort, and as a compulsory > location for a metadata record and a pointer to an OA > full-text. > > > > One could improve on the ARC policy, of course, in order to > improve global discoverability and shorten the excessive > embargo delay. The guidelines that will back up the policy > will be especially valuable, as these will be more influential > on grant recipients than reading between the lines. Just > imagine the effect if the policy had stated: > > “the ARC requires that any article publications arising from > an ARC supported research project must be open access and > globally discoverable within a six (6) month period from the > date of publication. Discoverability of the full-text of the > publication through Google Scholar is regarded as proof of > meeting this requirement.” > > Arthur Sale > > University of Tasmania > > > > > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org > [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Danny Kingsley > Sent: Monday, 14 January 2013 7:38 AM > To: goal@eprints.org; cai...@googlegroups.com; > ao...@mailman.anu.edu.au > Subject: [GOAL] Statement: Australian Open Access Support > Group applauds new ARC open access policy > > > > > > > STATEMENT > > Australian Open Access Support Group applauds new ARC open > access policy > > > > The Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG) applauds the > Australian Research Council (ARC) in their implementation of a > new open access policy. > > > > The ARC posted their open access policy on their website on > Monday 7 January. The ARC Open Access Policy > http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/open_access.htm states: > > the ARC requires that any publications arising from an ARC > supported research project must be deposited into an open > access institutional repository within a twelve (12) month > period from the date of publication. > > > > The AOASG particularly commends the ARC for requiring > publications to be made available through institutional > repositories. This method of making work open access uses the > substantial institutional repository network in place across > Australian institutions. It also avoids the potentially costly > result of a mandate that requires publication in open access > journals through the payment of article processing charges. > > > > This policy differs from the “NHMRC revised policy on the > dissemination of research findings” > http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/policy/dissemination-research-findings > (introduced on 1 July 2012) in two important ways. > > > > 1. Unlike the NHMRC policy which only relates to journal > articles resulting from funded research, the ARC policy will > apply to all publication outputs resulting from funded > research. This will include books and book chapters which > currently have less developed mechanisms for open access > copyright clearance than journal articles. > > > > 2. The NHMRC policy took effect from 1 July 2012, and all > journal articles from any funded research (regardless of the > grant under which it was funded) published after that date are > required to be submitted within 12 months of publication to an > institutional repository. The ARC policy is not retrospective, > and relates specifically to publications resulting from the > Funding Rules and Agreements released after 1 January 2013. > This means there will be a period of some time between the > funding allocation and publication of the work. This longer > implementation period presents an opportunity to address some > of the issues facing researchers who publish in outlets other > than journal articles. > > > > The AOASG is a consortium of six Australian universities which > supports Australian institutions and researchers by providing > information about, and support for, the development and > implementation of open access policies. The particular issues > facing the humanities and social sciences in the open access > debate will be an early focus for the Group. > > > > Still in early implementation phase, the AOASG will have a web > presence available shortly. > > > > > > Dated: 14 January 2013 > > > > > > Further information: > > Dr Danny Kingsley, Executive Officer AOASG > > e: danny.kings...@anu.edu.au p: 02 6125 6839 > > > > Australian National University, Charles Sturt University, > Macquarie University, Newcastle University, Queensland > University of Technology and Victoria University > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
