Eric,
1. I still do not conflate the accessibility problem with the affordability problem. 2. If the whole world would and could “flip” from what they are paying now for their incoming subscriptions to paying the same total amount for their outgoing publications as over-priced Fool’s Gold in exchange for OA, I couldn’t care less, as long as they go ahead and do it. It is only the accessibility problem I am interested in solving. 3. But the whole world can’t and hence won’t “flip” to Fool’s Gold for OA because (as I’ve said — and said exactly why — many, many times <https://www.google.ca/search?num=20&site=&source=hp&q=site%3Aopenaccess.eprints.org+%28flip+OR+escher%29&oq=site%3Aopenaccess.eprints.org+%28flip+OR+escher%29&gs_l=hp.3...3441.20439.0.21057.45.45.0.0.0.0.119.3019.42j3.45.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.hp..40.5.422.0.zqeCy48P3TQ> across the years) there is no coherent path to *there* from *here*. It is an Escher impossible-figure, an evolutionarily *unstable* strategy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionarily_stable_strategy> (for multiple reasons) 4. Currently about 10,000 institutions are independently subscribing to various subsets of about 30,000 incoming journals (mostly independent), of which they themselves are providing tiny subsets of N outgoing articles each, all likewise independent. 5. You are contemplating a massive flip in which every author/institution agrees (overnight?) to pay their fraction of the equation in place of subscriptions. 6. Until and unless they all do (at once), any institution that cancels subscriptions loses access, and any institution that pays Fool’s Gold without cancelling subscriptions is double-paying (out of what money? and why?) And any partial "flip" is immediately vulnerable to defection. No, the only sure way to OA is to mandate Green OA. That solves the accessibility problem. But once Green OA is universal or near-universal, it will also make subscriptions unsustainable, forcing a global transition to Fair-Gold OA, thereby solving the affordability problem. That, at least is a coherent, credible scenario for getting there from here (and already underway). If you don’t have a coherent, credible scenario for the “flip,” I suggest there’s no point fantasizing about it. (Elsevier’s risk management -- i.e., embargoing Green OA and offering only Fool’s-Gold OA as the alternative -- is based precisely on trying to avoid this very transition scenario from subscriptions to Fair-Gold via mandatory Green. In feeding Elsevier’s fantasy by endorsing the (impossible) Escherian “flip” you are simply playing into Elsevier’s hands. They know full well that it’s incoherent -- and also that Fair Gold is inevitable -- but they are trying to delay the inevitable as long as possible. Their embargoes are nevertheless 100% defeasible, but not as quickly and easily as if they simply do the decent thing and drop them. Please don’t egg on their delay tactics…) And the reason I berate Fool's Gold is definitely not that I care about affordability rather than access: it is because the fantasy of "flips" and Fool's Gold" and Gold Fever in general is needlessly retarding progress along the Green Road to universal OA. The only road that will get us there from here. SH On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Éric Archambault < eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com> wrote: > Stevan > > > > The point you make is important. Elsevier HAS changed its policy and in > fact the difference is that the peer-review process, done for free by > academics, is now under embargo, whereas it wasn’t before. So you are right > to mention that Elsevier is backpedalling on OA. The pre-print, > pre-peer-reviewed was not embargoed before the latest policy, and it is not > with that policy either. In a way, Elsevier says the original contribution > to knowledge that academics and researchers submit for publication does not > belong to them, and so authors are free to make this available for free. > Fair enough, this is paid for by public money (the greatest majority of it > anyway). > > > > What Elsevier says now is that the peer-review process belongs exclusively > to Elsevier, at least during the embargo period. This is problematic as > most of the value-added in the peer-review process is paid for by the > public and income taxes. As Elsevier paid only between 6% of to 8% of its > revenues in income taxes in the last two years, it can’t pretend to > contribute highly to paying the salary of academics who do that job. We do > that, us the members of the middle-income earners as we are the most taxed > of all, all over the world (as % of income, and certainly even more as a % > of wealth as Thomas Piketty would notice). So basically, the peer-review > process as well as the papers submitted to that process are largely paid > for by the public, and should both remain public in the interest of > consistency and efficiency of economic and social policies. > > > > Coming to the discussion on “fair-gold”, I think it is not productive > given our most urging challenges. We don’t care if companies make profit > (well, I do as an entrepreneur as I try to produce it, and as a citizen, > just like you, I do care about social justice and am bothered with the > profits of Apple and Google and the fact that they barely pay taxes, but > this is beside the current debate). The core problem with access is when > companies take public goods and appropriate them exclusively. This is the > problem with the current publishing system. If we switch to gold, Elsevier > and others could continue to earn their $10-15 billion per year, and > provided everything becomes widely available we will have tackled a huge > problem of private appropriation of a public good, one that means that $450 > billion is locked behind paywalls to generate a comparatively paltry $10-15 > billion in revenues (a large part of it being profit admittedly, it’s a > great business model they have). The present situation is akin to people > taking down power lines from public utilities to sell the copper in the > wires for melting – the private rewards to social cost ratio is firmly > against the public interest. If we switch to gold for the same social cost > ($10-15 billion per year), we will have sorted the problem. If you then > feel that Elsevier continues to earn exorbitant profits, you will be free > to quit your job and compete with them by publishing honest-gold journals, > Beall will be happy, and everyone will celebrate. > > > > Yet, though your quest about unfair-embargoing important, there is one > important aspect you nearly always omit as part of your exercise in > vigilante. It is currently close to impossible for the public to monitor > the “à la pièce gold”, also frequently called “hybrid OA” that appears in > subscription-based journals. For example, Elsevier maintains robots.txt > files that preclude academics and companies alike from crawling its web > sites to discover the gold articles for which the public has paid. > > For example, if you do, in your browser: > > > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/robots.txt > > > > You discover that Elsevier mentions: > > > > User-agent: * > > Disallow: / > > > > which means if your crawler is not on the list, you should be polite > enough to not crawl the site. There are currently only 15 welcome > crawlers, mostly from large firms such as Google and Microsoft. > > > > Elsevier is not the only one to do that, Wiley does the same, Springer > also does it even on Springer Open and BMC. As these companies are > frequently suspected of “double dipping” (charging for à la pièce gold, aka > “hybrid OA”, in subscription journals, and then also charging full price > for subscription), then something is wrong especially as, as you are well > aware, some governments mandate this type of solution to increase access. > The double charging of fees is more of a serious problem than the fact that > publishers earn profit as again we obtain a socially misfiring policy, > short-circuited by undue private appropriation. Either publishers do allow > robots to crawl their site so that people can monitor whether there is some > “double dipping”, or all OA is made available and crawlable, and generally > publicly discoverable by being consolidated in one place. For these single > OA papers to become useful, they have to be discovered easily, and be easy > to consolidate by services such as Paperity, Core, [beginning of the > commercial self-promotion] and our forthcoming 1science product which aims > to make all forms of peer-reviewed OA articles searchable in a > user-friendly, highly streamlined system [end of the commercial > self-promotion]. > > > > Don’t get me wrong, I consider your work as extremely important. Yet, you > once told me in an email that I was conflating the high price paid for > subscription with the access issue. You were right to note that, and I saw > the light thanks to you. I don’t care about the money so much as I care > about access – I’m putting my money where my mouth is and developing > solutions to increase access to peer-reviewed scientific publications. With > the fool-gold discourse, you conflate profits and access. For the sake of > switching to a more socially optimal position, it would be better if we did > not trap publishers and bare them for doing a honorable exit from the > currently social un-optimal model towards one everyone can see is clearly > better for everyone, provided publishers can survive. We all need > publishers to make the transition in their business model. Your suggestions > amount to the near-annihilation of the publishers, if I were them, I > wouldn’t be too tempted to follow that path, and this is what they do at > the moment, and for this I cannot blame them. We have to partners with the > thousands of middle-income highly taxed individuals in these companies to > ease the transition of their employers. Let’s keep the pressure for green, > support the intelligent non-doubled-dipped use of gold, support monitoring > and more transparency. If we keep all the jobs in the publishing industry, > then just as well, they’ll be more taxpayers to pay the tab for the $450 > billion we spend collectively on research, and on paying the salaries of > university staff and free though conflating thinkers such as yourself. > > > > Éric Archambault > > President and CEO, Science-Metrix Inc. > > President and CEO, 1science Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* May-25-15 2:24 PM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Elsevier: Trying to squeeze the virtual genie back into > the physical bottle > > > > *Alicia Wise wrote* > <http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record#comment-2037996108> > : > > > > *Dear Stevan,* > > > > *I admire your vision and passion for green open access – in fact we all > do here at Elsevier - and for your tenacity as your definitions and > concepts of green open access have remain unchanged for more than 15 years. > We also recognize that the open access landscape has changed dramatically > over the last few years, for example with the emergence of Social > Collaboration Networks. This refresh of our policy, the first since 2004, > reflects what we are hearing from researchers and research institutions > about how we can support their changing needs. We look forward to > continuing input from and collaboration with the research community, and > will continue to review and refine our policy.* > > > > *Let me state clearly that we support both green and gold OA. Embargo > periods have been used by us – and other publishers – for a very long time > and are not new. The only thing that’s changed about IRs is our old policy > said you had to have an agreement which included embargos, and the new > policy is you don’t need to do an agreement provided you and your authors > comply with the embargo period policy. It might be most constructive for > people to just judge us based on reading through the policy and considering > what we have said and are saying.* > > > > *With kind wishes and good night,* > > *Alicia Wise, Elsevier* > > > > > > Dear Alicia, > > > > You wrote: > > > > *"This refresh of our policy [is| the first since 2004... Embargo periods > have been used by us... for a very long time and are not new. The only > thing that’s changed about IRs is our old policy said you had to have an > agreement which included embargos..."* > > > > Is this the old policy that hasn't changed changed since 2004 (when > Elsevier was still on the "side of the angels <http://j.mp/OAngelS>" > insofar as Green OA was concerned) until the "refresh"? (I don't see any > mention of embargoes in it...): > > > > *Date:** Thu, 27 May 2004 03:09:39 +0100 * > > *From:** "Hunter, Karen (ELS-US)" * > > *To:** "'harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk <http://harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>'" * > > *Cc:** "Karssen, Zeger (ELS)" , "Bolman, Pieter (ELS)" , "Seeley, Mark > (ELS)" * > > *Subject:** Re: Elsevier journal list * > > > > *Stevan, * > > > > *[H]ere is what we have decided on post-"prints" (i.e. published articles, > whether published electronically or in print): * > > > > *An author may post his version of the final paper on his personal web > site and on his institution's web site (including its institutional > respository). Each posting should include the article's citation and a link > to the journal's home page (or the article's DOI). The author does not need > our permission to do this, but any other posting (e.g. to a repository > elsewhere) would require our permission. By "his version" we are referring > to his Word or Tex file, not a PDF or HTML downloaded from ScienceDirect - > but the author can update his version to reflect changes made during the > refereeing and editing process. Elsevier will continue to be the single, > definitive archive for the formal published version. * > > > > *We will be gradually updating any public information on our policies > (including our copyright forms and all information on our web site) to get > it all consistent. * > > > > *Karen Hunter * > > *Senior Vice President, Strategy * > > *Elsevier * > > *+1-212-633-3787 <%2B1-212-633-3787> * > > *k.hunter_at_elsevier.com <http://k.hunter_at_elsevier.com>* > > > > Yes, the definition of authors providing free, immediate online access > (Green OA self-archiving) has not changed since the online medium first > made it possible. Neither has researchers’ need for it changed, nor its > benefits to research. > > > > What has changed is Elsevier policy -- in the direction of trying to > embargo Green OA to ensure that it does not Elsevier's current revenue > levels at any risk. > > > > Elsevier did not try to embargo Green OA from 2004-2012 — but apparently > only because they did not believe that authors would ever really bother to > provide much Green OA, nor that their institutions and funders would ever > bother to require them to provide it (for its benefits to research). > > > > But for some reason *Elsevier is not ready to admit that Elsevier has now > decided to embargo Green OA purely to ensure that it does put Elsevier's > current subscription revenue levels at any risk. * > > > > Instead, Elsevier wants to hold OA hostage to its current revenue levels > -- by embargoing Green OA, with the payment of Fools-Gold OA > <https://www.google.ca/search?num=20&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org+%22fools+gold%22&oq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org+%22fools+gold%22&gs_l=serp.3...339136.344145.0.345749.12.12.0.0.0.0.217.856.11j0j1.12.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.serp..12.0.0._lRkTp5SLmk> > publication fees the only alternative for immediate OA. This ensures that > Elsevier's current revenue levels either remain unchanged, or increase. > > > > But, for public-relations reasons, Elsevier prefers to try to portray this > as all being done out of “fairness,” and to facilitate “sharing” (in the > spirit of OA). > > > > The “fairness” is to ensure that no institution is exempt from Elsevier’s > Green OA embargoes. > > > > And the “sharing” is the social sharing services like Mendeley > <http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/mendeley> (which Elsevier owns), > about which Elsevier now believes (for the time being) that authors would > not bother to use enough to put their current revenue levels at risk (and > their institutions and funders cannot mandate that they use them) -- hence > that that they would not pose a risk to Elsevier's current subscription > revenue levels. > > > > Yet another one of the “changes” with which Elsevier seems to be trying to > promote sharing seems to be by trying to find a way to outlaw the > institutional repositories’ "share button > <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting#non-commercial-platforms>" > (otherwise known as the “Fair-Dealing” Button > <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>). > > > > So just as Elsevier is trying to claim credit for “allowing” authors to do > “dark” (i.e., embargoed, non-OA) deposits, for which no publisher > permission whatsoever is or ever was required, Elsevier now has its lawyers > scrambling to find a formalizable way to make it appear as if Elsevier can > forbid its authors to provide individual reprints to one another, as > authors have been doing for six decades, under yet another new bogus formal > pretext to make it appear sufficiently confusing and threatening to ensure > that the responses to Elsevier author surveys (for its "evidence-based > policy") continue to be sufficiently perplexed and meek to justify any > double-talk in either Elsevier policy or Elsevier PR. > > > > The one change in Elsevier policy that one can applaud, however (though > here too the underlying intentions were far from benign), is the CC-BY-NC-ND > license > <http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy#accepted-manuscript> > (unless Elsevier one day decides to back-pedal on that too too). That > license is now not only allowed but required for any accepted paper that an > author elects to self-archive. > > > > Let me close by mentioning a few more of the howlers that keep making > Elsevier's unending series of arbitrary contractual bug-fixes logically > incoherent (i.e., self-contradictory) and technically nonsensical, hence > moot, unenforceable, and eminently ignorable for anyone who takes a few > moments to think instead of cringe. *Elsevier is trying to use > pseudo-legal words to squeeze the virtual genie (the Web) back into the > physical bottle (the old, land-based, print-on-paper world):* > > > > *Locus of deposit:* Elsevier tries to make legal distinctions on "where" > the author may make their papers (Green) OA on the Web: "You may post it > here but not there." "Here" might be an institutional website, "there" may > be a central website. "Here" might be an institutional author's homepage, > "there" might be an institutional repository. > > > > But do Elsevier's legal beagles ever stop to ask themselves what this all > means, in the online medium? *If you make your paper openly accessible > anywhere at all on the web, it is openly accessible (and linkable and > harvestable) from and to anywhere else on the Web.* Google and google > scholar will pick up the link, and so will a host of other harvesters and > indexers. And users never go to the deposit site to seek a paper: They seek > and find and link to it via the link harvesters and indexers. So locus > restrictions are silly and completely empty in the virtual world. > > > > The silliest of all is the injunction that "you may post it on your > institutional home page but not your institutional repository." What > nonsense! The institutional home page and the institutional repository are > just tagged disk sectors and software functions, of the self-same > institution. They are virtual entities, created by definition; one can be > renamed as the other at any time. And their functionalities are completely > swappable or integrable too. That too is a feature of the virtual world. > > > > So all Elsevier is doing by treating these virtual entities as if they > were physical ones (besides confusing and misleading their authors) is > creating terminological nuisances, forcing system administrators to keep > re-naming and re-assigning sectors and functions, needlessly, and > vacuously, just to accommodate vacuous nuisance terminological stipulations. > > > > (The same thing applies to "systematicity" and "aggregation," which I > notice that Elsevier has since dropped as futile: The attempt had been to > outlaw posting where the contents of a journal were being systematically > aggregated, by analogy with a rival free-riding publisher systematically > gathering together all the disparate papers in a journal so as to re-sell > them at a cut-rate. Well not only is an institution no free-rising > aggregator: all it is gathering* its own paper output*, published in > multiple disparate journals. But, because of the virtual nature of the > medium, it is in fact the Web itself that is systematically gathering all > disparate papers together, wherever they happen to be hosted, using their > metadata tags: author, title, journal, date, URL. The rest is all just > software functionality. And if the full-text is out there, somewhere, > anywhere, and it is OA, then there is no way to stop the rest of this very > welcome and useful functionality.) > > > > *The Arxiv exception.* In prior iterations of the policy, Elsevier tried > (foolishly) to outlaw central deposit. They essentially tried to tell > authors who had been making their papers OA in Arxiv since 1991 that they > may no longer do that. Well, that did not go down very well, so those > "legal" restrictions have now been replaced by the "Arxiv exception": > Authors making their papers OA there (or in RePeC) are now officially > exempt from the Elsevier OA embargo. > > > > Well here we are again: an arbitrary Elsevier restriction on immediate-OA, > based on locus of deposit. The Pandora's box that this immediately opens is > that all a mandating institution need do in order to detoxify Elsevier's OA > embargo completely is to mandate immediate (dark) deposit of all > institutional output in the institutional repository *alongside remote > deposit in Arxiv* (which is already automated through the SWORD software > <http://arxiv.org/help/submit_sword>). That completely moots all Elsevier > OA embargoes. Yet another example of Elsevier's ineffectual nuisance > stipulations consisting of ad-hoc, pseudo-legal epicycles, all having one > sole objective: to try to scare authors of doing anything that might > possibly pose a risk to Elsevier's current revenue streams, using any words > that will do the trick, even if only for a while, and even if they make no > sense. > > > > What's next, Elsevier? "You may use *this* software but not *this* > software"? > > > > *The Share Button.* Although it never defines what it means by "Share > Button" (nor why it is trying to outlaw it), if what Elsevier means is the > Institutional Repository's copy-request Button > <https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy>, intended to > provide individual copies to individual copy-requestors, then this too is > just a software-facilitated eprint request. > > > > Whenever a user seeks an embargoed deposit, they can click the Button to > send an email to the author to request a copy. The author need merely click > a link in the email to authorize the software to send the copy. > > > > So does Elsevier now want to make yet another nuisance stipulation, so the > Button cannot be called a "Share Button," so instead the name of the author > of the embargoed paper has to be made into an email link that notifies the > author that the requestor seeks a copy, with the requestor's email alive, > and clickable, so that inserting the embargoed paper's URL will attach one > copy to the email? > > > > Elsevier is not going to make many friends by trying to force its authors > to do jump through gratuitous hoops in order to accommodate Elsevier's ever > more arbitrary and absurd attempts to contain the virtual ether with > arbitrary verbal hacks. > > > > *There are more.* There are further nuisance tactics in the current > iteration of Elsevier's charm initiative, in which self-serving > restrictions keep being portrayed as Elsevier's honest attempts to > facilitate rather than hamper sharing. One particularly interesting one > that I have not yet deconstructed (but that the attentive reader of the > latest Elsevier documentation will have detected) likewise moots all > Elsevier OA embargoes even more conveniently than depositing all papers in > Arxiv -- but I leave that as an exercise to the reader. > > > > So Alicia, if Elsevier "admires [my] vision," let me invite you to consult > with me about present and future OA policy conditions. I'll be happy to > share with you which ones are logically incoherent and technically empty in > today's virtual world. It could save Elsevier a lot of futile effort and > save Elsevier authors from a lot of useless and increasingly arbitrary and > annoying nuisance-rules. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > *Stevan Harnad* > ------------------------------ > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2015.0.5941 / Virus Database: 4347/9832 - Release Date: 05/21/15 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
