Wouter, Yes, of course I knew that you were only the messenger, and doing the calculation! It is the pressure from Sander Dekker (or, rather, from those who are putting the pressure on Sander Dekker!) that is behind the foolish idea of increasing the already overstretched Dutch research publication budget by 30% from 34M euros for subscriptions to 43M by adding payment for pre-emptive, over-priced, double-paid Fool's Gold OA!
But there is a solution for green OA embargoes: In the case of Elsevier, they're no problem, because Elsevier does not have a green OA embargo -- just a lot of empty, non-binding pseudo-legalistic double-talk<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=elsevier+double+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>about authors retaining the right to self-archive unembargoed "except if they are required [mandated] to *exercise* that retained right." That is of course patent nonsense. But for those timid authors who don't realize it, they can still be mandated to deposit the final refereed draft of their articles in their IR immediately<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=%22immediate+deposit%22+blogurl:http:%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>, but to keep it under "Closed Access" if they wish to comply with an embargo. The author can then provide individual access on a case-by-case basis: Users click the IR's eprint-request Button<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=button+blogurl:http:%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>to request an individual copy, and the author can then comply with the request with one click. Needless extra clicks for the (timid) author, but extra access too, and extra usage, uptake, and impact. (And a lot better than paying a needless extra 10M!) And of course the result after a few years of mandatory immediate deposit, providing 60% immediate OA for the unembargoed deposits and 40% Button-mediated access will be that embargoes will quietly dies their inevitable, well-deserved deaths, as more and more authors provide immediate OA. Green OA embargoes, in other words, are illusory impediments, bits of FUD to confound timid authors. No sensible person on the planet believes they have any chance of actually holding back the Green OA dam (something the citizens of the Netherlands should understand!). Best wishes, Stevan On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Gerritsma, Wouter <wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl>wrote: > Stevan, > > > > Yes we could have green with the current subscription models and > repository infrastructure. But still some important players don't allow > green (Wiley, Nature and ACS to mention a few) > > > > But all I wanted to do, and was requested to do, to make a calculation to > see what it would cost if our junior minister Sander Dekker would get what > he wanted. Complete Gold OA for the Netherlands. > > > > It would cost us 43 instead of 34 million euro. > > Currently we are spending already 34 (subscriptions) plus 4 million (OA > APC). So we are rapidly falling into a trap of paying twice > http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/30/paying-twice-or-paying-thrice-brienza/ > > > > Wouter > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* woensdag 5 maart 2014 14:20 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Dutch Echoes of Finch > > > > On Mar 4, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter <wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl> > wrote: > > > > For two working groups of the Dutch University libraries I > > was asked to make a calculation for the costs of a 100% Gold open access > model. > > It will only costs 10.5 million euro extra was my conclusion. > > Blogged at http://wowter.net/2014/03/05/costs-going-gold-netherlands/ > > > > Unless I have misunderstand, this "10.5 million euro extra" for Dutch > University Libraries > > means 10.5 million euro extra *over and above what Dutch University > Libraries* > > *are paying for subscriptions*. > > > > In other words, for a surcharge of 10.5 million dollars Dutch University > libraries > > can purchase gold OA for Dutch research *output *(assuming that suitable > gold > > OA journals exist for all Dutch research output, and that all Dutch > researchers > > are willing to publish in them). > > > > But at the same time Dutch University libraries also have to continue to > pay to > > subscribe to the research *input* from all other universities and > research institutions > > worldwide, as long as they publish in subscription-based journals rather > than gold OA > > journals (or are unwilling or unable to pay for gold OA). > > > > This pre-emptive double-payment for gold OA I have come to call "*Fool's > Gold*." > > > > What is being left out of this calculation, of course, is that the > Netherlands, like all > > countries, can have OA at no extra cost by mandating green OA > self-archiving of > > all of its research output in Dutch universities' institutional > repositories. > > > > In other words, this sounds like the Dutch echo of the UK Finch > recommendations > > to pay fextra for gold OA instead of just mandating green OA. This > recommendation > > issues, not coincidentally, from the two countries with the heaviest > concentration > > of the journal publishing industry, and hence journal publishing industry > lobbyists, > > as repeatedly voiced by Sander Dekker, Netherlands State Secretary for > the Ministry > > of Education, Culture and Science: > > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1073-.html > > > > All the published objections to the Finch recommendations would apply to > > Dekker's Dutch recommendations if they were ever to become a policy > > (mandate). Fortunately they are not mandatory and can and should be > > ignored in favor or mmandating green OA, as the European Commission > > has done. The UK mandate will also (it is to be hopes) shortly shored with > > an immediate-deposit requirement from HEFCE. > > http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349893/ > > > > To understand why green OA needs to be mandated first, and how it will > > first provide OA, and then make subscriptions unsustainable, inducing > > publishers to cut costs and convert to *Fair Gold* OA at an affordable, > > sustanainable price by offloading all archiving and access provision onto > > the worldwide network of mandatory green OA institutional repositories, > > see: > > > > Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity > Need > > Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8). > > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/ > > > > Houghton, J. & Swan, A. (2013) Planting the Green Seeds for a Golden > Harvest: > > Comments and Clarifications on "Going for Gold". D-Lib Magazine 19 (1/2). > > http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january13/houghton/01houghton.html > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
