My take on point I, "Call for disruption" would place a full stop after "evolve" and leave the whole statement at that. But disruption we certainly need, and both the Gold and Green roads can provide a fair bit of it.
The gold road assumes that journals will always be needed. I hope they will not, and I doubt they will. But temporarily, both the Green and Gold (not the author-pay model) roads are needed As for II, we all know that that "fear" has never been properly documented by anyone. The PEER project in Europe appears (no pun intended) to have left large commercial publishers most unsatisfied. Jean-Claude Guédon Le vendredi 13 septembre 2013 à 11:38 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, cilip): "In the interest of > making research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or > no embargo periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers… have > argued that short embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions > to their journals… The BIS report finds no evidence to support this > distinction." > ______________________________________________________________________ > > I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps > being voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike: > > I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and > unaffordable; publisher profits are excessive; the > subscription (license) model is unsustainable: the > subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force it > to evolve toward Gold OA. > > II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened > by (Green) OA, which risks making the subscription model > unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be protected in > order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA. > > Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all > who cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the > subscription model. > > Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who > cannot afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the > subscription model from disruption. > > Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide > immediate OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel > beholden to promise (d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from > disruption)? > > University of Liège and FRSN Belgium have adopted -- > and HEFCE and BIS have both proposed adopting -- the compromise > resolution to this contradiction: > > Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft > of all articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if > the author wishes to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do > not require access to the deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the > deposit be made Closed Access during the allowable embargo period and > let the repository's automated eprint-request Button tide over the > needs of research and researchers by making it easy for users to > request and authors to provide a copy for research purposes with one > click each. > > This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still > disrupts serials publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable, > chances are that it's time for publishers to phase out the products > and services for which there is no longer a market in the online era > and evolve instead toward something more in line with the real needs > of the PostGutenberg research community. > > Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive) > pressure of necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal > publishing industry from evolutionary pressure, at the expense of > research progress? > > Stevan Harnad > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
