Re: Against Squandering Scarce Research Funds on Pre-Emptive Gold OA Without First Mandating Green OA
[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
This is an interesting and important summary of Stevan Harnad's main
theses. It calls for a few comments.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le vendredi 15 mai 2009 à 18:21 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
*** Apologies for Cross-Posting ***
Pre-Emptive Gold OA.
[snip]
the conflation of Gold OA with OA itself, wrongly
supposing that OA or "full OA" means Gold OA --
Harnad is right here. OA is both green and gold.
instead of concentrating all efforts on universalizing
Green OA mandates.
Harnad is wrong here. If he were right, this would be conflating OA
with Green OA and the error would be symmetricla of the one he points
out.
Conflating the Journal Affordability Problem with the
Research Accessibility Problem. Although the journal
affordability problem ("serials crisis") was historically
one of the most important factors in drawing attention to
the need for OA, and although there is definitely a
causal link between the journal affordability problem and
the research accessibility problem (namely, that if all
journals were affordable to all institutions, there would
be no research access problem!), affordability and
accessibility are nevertheless not the same problem, and
the conflation of the two, and especially the tendency to
portray affordability as the primary or ultimate problem,
is today causing great confusion and even greater delay
in achieving OA itself, despite the fact the universal OA
is already fully within reach.
Distinguishing affordability from accessibility is important and it
is correct in my view.
The reason is as simple to state as it is (paradoxically)
hard to get people to pay attention to, take into
account, and act accordingly:
Just as it is true that there would be no research
accessibility problem if the the journal affordability
problem were solved (because all institutions, and all
their researchers, would then have affordable access to
all journals), it is also true that the journal
affordability problem would cease to be a real problem if
the research accessibility problem were solved: If all
researchers (indeed everyone) could access all journal
articles for free online, then it would no longer matter
how much journals cost, and which institutions were
willing and able to pay for which journals. After
universal Green OA, journals may or may not eventually
become more affordable, or convert to Gold OA: It would
no longer matter either way, for we would already have OA
-- full OA -- itself. And surely access is what Open
Access is and always was about.
Formally, this is perfectly correct. There are many issue that remain
open, however. Harnad would call them speculative because they lie
beyond the corner, beyond direct empirical view and verification. No
one can predict with certainty what will happen to journals in a
world where OA materials constitute the vast majority of scientific
documentation. Scientifically speaking, this is entirely correct.
Looking at the same situation from a strategic perspective, this
clarity of vision is more apparent than real. When Harnad says that
solving accessibility would mean that affordability would cease, he
leaves in the background the issue of the survival of the journals.
Yet, in his view, they remain crucial: they form the basis for peer
review; they provide the version that can be cited, etc.
Some stake holders cannot act as if the corner and what lies beyond
does not matter and rely only on what is short range, but also
observable and verifiable. Now, the task of OA supporters is to
convince the greatest number possible of stakeholders to make OA
move. Getting mandates does not depend on researchers only in most
cases (although the recent developments at Harvard, Stanford & alii
offer some hope in this regard). Journal editors, administrators,
granting agencies all have their take on this issue, as do librarians
who are crucial partners. With some of them, Harnad's argument will
work and have worked. With others, they don't, at least not yet. With
yet others, they look scary (e.g. some journal editors who also
happen to be researchers).
Harnad might respond that only researchers interest him. Fair enough.
However, researcher are not exactly as Harnad portrays them. Most
researchers are not stellar enough to disregard other dimensions of
their environment. On the contrary, they spend a great deal of time
trying to manipulate this environment to their advantage. Their very
fragility will make them look at Open Access with great trepidation.
This, I believe, is one of the root causes behind the slow progre
Against Squandering Scarce Research Funds on Pre-Emptive Gold OA Without First Mandating Green OA
*** Apologies for Cross-Posting ***
Pre-Emptive Gold OA. There is a fundamental strategic point for Open
Access (OA) that cannot be made often enough, because it concerns one
of the two biggestretardants on OA progress today -- and the
retardant that has, I think, lately become the bigger of the two.
(The other major retardant is copyright worries, but those have
shrunk dramatically, because most journals have now endorsed
immediate Green OA self-archiving, and the ID/OA mandate can provide
immediate "almost-OA" even for articles in the minority of journals
that still do not yet endorse immediate OA.)
The biggest retardant on OA progress today is hence a distracting
focus on pre-emptive Gold OA (including the conflation of the journal
affordability problem with the research accessibility problem, and
the conflation of Gold OA with OA itself, wrongly supposing that OA
or "full OA" means Gold OA -- instead of concentrating all efforts on
universalizing Green OA mandates.
Conflating the Journal Affordability Problem with the Research
Accessibility Problem. Although the journal affordability problem
("serials crisis") was historically one of the most important factors
in drawing attention to the need for OA, and although there is
definitely a causal link between the journal affordability problem
and the research accessibility problem (namely, that if all journals
were affordable to all institutions, there would be no research
access problem!), affordability and accessibility are
nevertheless not the same problem, and the conflation of the two, and
especially the tendency to portray affordability as the primary or
ultimate problem, is today causing great confusion and even greater
delay in achieving OA itself, despite the fact the universal OA is
already fully within reach.
The reason is as simple to state as it is (paradoxically) hard to get
people to pay attention to, take into account, and act accordingly:
Just as it is true that there would be no research accessibility
problem if the the journal affordability problem were solved (because
all institutions, and all their researchers, would then have
affordable access to all journals), it is also true that the journal
affordability problem would cease to be a real problem if the
research accessibility problem were solved: If all researchers
(indeed everyone) could access all journal articles for free online,
then it would no longer matter how much journals cost, and which
institutions were willing and able to pay for which journals. After
universal Green OA, journals may or may not eventually become more
affordable, or convert to Gold OA: It would no longer matter either
way, for we would already have OA -- full OA -- itself. And
surely access is what Open Access is and always was about.
It is this absolutely fundamental point that is still lost on most OA
advocates today. And it is obvious why most OA advocates don't notice
or take it into account: Because we are still so far away from
universal OA of either hue, Green or Gold.
Green OA Can Be Mandated, Gold OA Cannot. But here there is an
equally fundamental difference: Green OA self-archiving can be
accelerated and scaled up to universality (and this can be done at
virtually zero cost) by the research community alone -- i.e.,
research institutions (largely universities) and research funders
-- by mandating Green OA.
In contrast, Gold OA depends on publishers, costs money (often
substantial money), and cannot be mandated by institutions and
funders: All they can do is throw money at it -- already-scarce
research money, and at an asking-price that is today vastly inflated
compared to what the true cost would eventually be if the conversion
to Gold OA were driven by journal cancellations, following as a
result of universal Green OA. For if universal Green OA, in
completely solving the research access problem, did eventually make
subscriptions no longer sustainable as the means of recovering
publishing costs, then (a small part of) the windfall institutional
savings from the journal cancellations themselves -- rather than
scarce research funds -- could be used to pay for the Gold OA.
So instead of focusing all efforts today on ensuring that all
institutions and funders worldwide mandate Green OA, as soon as
possible, many OA advocates continue to be fixated instead on trying
to solve the journal affordability problem directly, by wasting
precious research money on paying for Gold OA (at a time when
publication is still being fully paid for by subscriptions, whereas
research is sadly underfunded) and by encouraging researchers to
publish in Gold OA journals. This is being done at a time when (1)
Gold OA journals are few, especially among the top journals in each
field, (2) the top Gold OA journals themselves are expensive, and,
most important of all, (3) publishing in them is completely
unnecessary -- if the objective is, as it ought to be, to provide
immediate OA. For OA can be provided through imm
Score 9 for Arthur Sale's "Patchwork" Mandate Proposal: U Oregon Departmental Mandate
University of Oregon (UO) has just registered (in ROARMAP) UO's second Green Open Access (OA) self-archiving mandate in a week -- the world's 80th Green OA mandate overall. UO's first mandate was for the UO Library Faculty. UO's latest one is for the UO Department of Romance Languages. It's also the first departmental mandate in thehumanities (confirming, along with the several humanities funder mandates already adopted, that OA isn't, and never was, just for the sciences!). This is also the world's 9th departmental mandate, again confirming Arthur Sale's sage advice about the "patchwork mandate" strategy: If your institution has not yet managed to reach consensus on adopting a university-wide OA mandate, don't wait! Go ahead and adopt departmental mandates, for which consensus can be reached more quickly and easily. The very first Green OA self-archiving mandate of them all was likewise a "patchwork mandate," adopted by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at University of Southampton. (A university-wide mandate has since been adopted as well.) Also, if your institution does not yet have an Institutional Repository (IR), urge them to create one. (I recommendEPrints as by far best, fastest, and simplest, of the free OS softwares, yet the one with the most powerful OA functionality.) But, as with mandates, don't wait for your institution to get 'round to it, if they're being sluggish: justdownload EPrints and create a departmental IR of your own: It can later be integrated with or upgraded into the university-wide IR. Stevan Harnad American Scientist Open Access Forum
Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES
Tenopir and King found that the average number of articles per journal was, in fact, increasing steadily. I think it's a fallacy that publishers launch new journals in order to make money; it is, surely, more profitable to expand an existing journal (assuming you can increase the price accordingly)? New journals take years to make any money, even if they succeed - and not all do Sally Sally Morris South House, The Street Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK Tel: +44(0)1903 871286 Fax: +44(0)8701 202806 Email: sa...@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: 15 May 2009 15:33 To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES -- Forwarded message -- From: Colin Smith at Open University I've just realised I quoted the wrong day in the email I just sent to the forum. It should have been Mon 11 May, not Fri. If this reaches you in time, please correct it during moderation. On Mon 11 May 2009 at 09:27 Sally Morris wrote: While Andrew Adams' letter makes some valid points, I would like to point out that the number of articles per author has not changed over many years (Tenopir and King have excellent data on this). Thus neither 'publish or perish' nor 'greedy publishers' have contributed in any way to the steady growth (not 'explosion') of research articles - it simply reflects growth in research funding, and thus number of researchers." Even if the number of articles per author has not changed significantly, surely the issue here is the number of journals in which those articles are published? Is there any data on this? If the steady growth in articles is being spread thinly across a larger number of titles then this could be interpreted as evidence for the needless launch of new journals in a saturated market. Anecdotally, I seem to come across more and more journals publishing two issues in one, presumably because of a lack of copy-flow. Indeed, I have worked for at least one publisher where a decision was taken to exploit an (unconvincing) niche in the market by launching a new journal, instead of looking to enhance the editorial content of an existing title. That journal then struggled for copy, publishing very thin or joint issues, but generated more income than if the publisher had accommodated the extra papers by increasing the size or number of issues of an (appropriate) existing journal. Colin Smith Research Repository Manager Open Research Online (ORO) Open University Library Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA http://twitter.com/smithcolin http://oro.open.ac.uk
Fwd: PhD studentship in Copyright and Digital Scholarship
-- Forwarded message -- From: Leslie Carr List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM Subject: PhD studentship in Copyright and Digital Scholarship EPrints Services are funding a PhD studentship in Digital Rights and Digital Scholarship at the EPSRC Web Science Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Southampton. The Web has had a huge impact on society and on the scientific and scholarly communications process. As more attention is paid to new e-research and e-learning methodologies it is time to stand back and investigate how rights and responsibilities are understood when "copying", "publishing" and "syndicating" are fundamental activities of the interconnected digital world. Applicants with a technical background (a good Bachelors degree in Computer Science, Information Science, Information Technology or similar) are invited for this 4-year research programme, which begins in October 2009 with a 1-year taught MSc in Web Science and is followed by a three year PhD supervised jointly by the School of Law and the School of Electronics and Computer Science. The full four-year scholarships (including stipend) is available to UK residents. EPrints Services provide repository hosting, training and bespoke development for the research community and are funding this research opportunity to promote understanding of the context of the future scholarly environment. Further information: EPSRC Web Science Doctoral Training: http://webscience.ecs.soton.ac.uk/dtc EPrints Services: http://www.eprints.org/ Enquiries should be addressed to Dr Leslie Carr lac -- ecs.soton.ac.uk in the first instance. -- Les Carr
Re: Kathryn Sutherland's Attack on OA in the THES
-- Forwarded message -- From: Colin Smith at Open University I've just realised I quoted the wrong day in the email I just sent to the forum. It should have been Mon 11 May, not Fri. If this reaches you in time, please correct it during moderation. On Mon 11 May 2009 at 09:27 Sally Morris wrote: While Andrew Adams' letter makes some valid points, I would like to point out that the number of articles per author has not changed over many years (Tenopir and King have excellent data on this). Thus neither 'publish or perish' nor 'greedy publishers' have contributed in any way to the steady growth (not 'explosion') of research articles - it simply reflects growth in research funding, and thus number of researchers." Even if the number of articles per author has not changed significantly, surely the issue here is the number of journals in which those articles are published? Is there any data on this? If the steady growth in articles is being spread thinly across a larger number of titles then this could be interpreted as evidence for the needless launch of new journals in a saturated market. Anecdotally, I seem to come across more and more journals publishing two issues in one, presumably because of a lack of copy-flow. Indeed, I have worked for at least one publisher where a decision was taken to exploit an (unconvincing) niche in the market by launching a new journal, instead of looking to enhance the editorial content of an existing title. That journal then struggled for copy, publishing very thin or joint issues, but generated more income than if the publisher had accommodated the extra papers by increasing the size or number of issues of an (appropriate) existing journal. Colin Smith Research Repository Manager Open Research Online (ORO) Open University Library Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA http://twitter.com/smithcolin http://oro.open.ac.uk
Fwd: [SOAF] First Humanities Departmental OA Mandate in the world
[ The following text is in the "windows-1252" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] -- Forwarded message -- From: Peter Suber List-Post: goal@eprints.org List-Post: goal@eprints.org Date: Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:12 PM Subject: [SOAF] First Humanities Departmental OA Mandate in the world To: SPARC Open Access Forum [Forwarding from David Wacks. --Peter Suber.] On Wednesday, May 14th, by unanimous vote, the faculty of the Department of Romance Languages at the University of Oregon adopted an Open Access mandate (text below). This mandate is the first (according to ROAR) such mandate in the world by any Department in the Humanities and the 3rd in Oregon (after OSU Library faculty and UO Library faculty). It is distinguished by the stipulation that URLs of self-archived postprints are to be included in all materials submitted to the Department for purposes of review and promotion. 14 May 2009 Eugene, Oregon Resolved, that the UO Romance Languages Faculty adopts the following policy in support of deposit of scholarly works in Scholars' Bank: The Romance Languages Faculty of the University of Oregon are committed to disseminating the fruits of their research and scholarship as widely as possible. In keeping with that commitment, the Faculty adopts the following policy: Every Romance Language tenure-track faculty member is required to self-archive in UO Scholars? Bank a postprint version of every peer-reviewed article or book chapter published while the person is a member of the Romance Languages faculty. The URLs of these postprints will be included in all materials submitted internally to the Romance Languages Department for purposes of review and promotion. Self-archiving in UO Scholars? Bank means that each Romance Languages faculty member gives to the University of Oregon nonexclusive permission to use and make available that author's scholarly articles for the purpose of open dissemination. Specifically, each Romance Languages faculty member grants to the UO a Creative Commons "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States" license to each of his or her scholarly articles. The license will apply to all scholarly articles written while the person is a member of the Romance Languages Faculty except for any articles accepted for publication before the adoption of this policy and any articles for which the Faculty member entered into an incompatible licensing or assignment agreement before the adoption of this policy. The Department of Romance Languages will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written notification by the author, who informs the Department of the reason. It is strongly recommended that faculty link publications listed on their Departmental website faculty profile to the corresponding self-archived postprints, and also that they self-archive postprints of articles and book chapters published prior to the adoption of this policy. To facilitate distribution of the scholarly articles, as of the date of publication, each faculty member will make available an electronic copy of his or her final version of the article and full citation at no charge to a designated representative of the UO Libraries in appropriate formats (such as PDF) specified by the Libraries. After publication, the University of Oregon Libraries will make the scholarly article available to the public in the UO's institutional repository. David Wacks Asst. Professor of Spanish University of Oregon Dept. Romance Languages http://rl.uoregon.edu/people/faculty/profiles/wacks/index.php twitter: davidwacks
