[GOAL] 1. Alert: Some coordinated action from the Big Publishing Lobby in the UK & Netherlands (Stevan Harnad)

[Tom Olijhoek]

dear all,

I agree with Stephan Harnad that there is the danger of publishers trying
to bend the rules for open access to their wishes and with the aid of a big
political lobby they will certainly try to do so.
Nevertheless I think that the letter of mr Sander Dekker is mis interpreted
in some crucial places. When he talks about grasping the opportunity where
publishers are due to renew their bundled subscriptions in 2014 I interpret
this as the wish to stop this practice as off 2014 and free the
subscription money from libraries for financing journal mediated open
access. This is also the interpretation that Jos Engelen director of the
Dutch organization for scientific research gives in the same article in the
volkskrant.
And what would be wrong with all publishers adopting open access ,financing
their businesses wit money that is freed because of canceled subscriptions?
I think we should fight the risk of publishers taking open access as a
means to increase their incomes by adamantly refusing to accept any
embargoes, not for journals and not for repositories. That is the big
mistake that was made ,allowing these embargo periods in the first place
Tom Olijhoek


-- 
Tom Olijhoek
Codex Consult
www.codexconsult.eu
coordinator @ccess open access working group  at OKF
DOAJ  member of Advisory Board
freelance advisor for the WorldBank Publishing Group
TEL +(31)645540804
SKYPE tom.olijhoek
Twitter   @ccess
LinkedIn  http://nl.linkedin.com/in/tomolijhoek/
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands: Part I

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter
wrote:

>  @Stevan,
>
>
>
> Yes Stevan the Dutch secretary of education his letter has quite a bit of
> the Finch tone in it. But there are also some opportunities in his letter
> for repositories. Dekker actually asks for exact figures on OA in the
> Netherlands.
>
>
>
> "To obtain insight into the situation I request the universities, KNAW and
> NWO to provide numbers on Open Access publications through the various
> clearly defined variants of OA."
>
>
>
> In the Netherlands we have of course Narcis http://www.narcis.nl already,
> a comprehensive repository of nearly all OA publications in the
> Netherlands. But counting OA publications only is not sufficient. That is a
> small mistake in Dekker his letter. What is less well known is that all
> Dutch universities have to report to ministry of Education all the
> scientific output as well. This happens through the VSNU
> http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Feiten_en_Cijfers/Scientific_Research_Agreed_Definitions__def_2011_IRRH-20110624.pdf
>
>
>
>
> If due to this letter of Dekker it was decided that all reports on the
> output of the Dutch Science system to the ministry would be based on the
> full registration of all output registered in Narcis, on top of all OA
> publications it already registers, the underlying repositories would be in
> a much better position. If only Narcis takes up its responsibility and
> makes reports along the lines I did nearly 2 years ago
> http://wowter.net/2012/02/10/a-census-of-open-access-repositories-in-the-netherlands/the
>  repository infrastructure in the Netherlands would be reinforced as
> well.
>
>
>
> So apart from the fact that OA is on the political agenda in the
> Netherlands, there is an important momentum for Dutch repositories to seize
> right now.
>

The momentum for the Netherlands to seize is to *mandate Green OA*, at long
last (immediate institutional deposit, as a condition of funding,
employment and evaluation, whether or not OA to the deposit is embargoed)
-- instead of waiting for Dekker to mandate Fool's Gold instead (as he has
threatened to do, in two years).

*Stevan Harnad*


>  *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
>
> *Sent:* zaterdag 16 november 2013 21:50
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Cc:* LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; jisc-repositories
> *Subject:* [GOAL] The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands:
> Part I
>
>
>
> The UK and the Netherlands -- not coincidentally, the home bases of Big
> Publishing for refereed research -- have issued coordinated statements in
> support of what cannot be described other than as a publisher's nocturnal
> fantasy, in the face of the unstoppable worldwide clamour for Open Access.
>
> Here are the components of the publishers' nocturnal:
>
> (1) Do whatever it takes to sustain or increase your current revenue
> streams.
>
> (2) Your current revenue streams come mainly from subscriptions.
>
> (3) Claim far and wide that everything has to be done to sustain
> publishers' subscription revenue, otherwise publishing will be destroyed,
> and with it so will peer review, and research itself.
>
> (4) With (3) as your justification, embargo Green OA self-archiving for as
> long as possible, and fight against Green OA self-archiving mandates -- or
> make sure allowable embargoes are as long as possible.
>
> (5) Profess a fervent commitment to a transition to full 100% immediate OA
> -- but Gold OA, on your terms, in such a way as to ensure that you sustain
> or increase your current revenue streams.
>
> (6) Offer hybrid Gold OA and promise not to "double-dip." That will ensure
> that your subscription revenues segue seamlessly into Gold OA revenues
> while maintaining their current levels.
>
> (7) To hasten the transition, offer even Bigger Big Deals to cover
> subscriptions at the national level (as you had always dreamt of doing)
> until all payment is safely converted (Gold) OA.
>
> (8) Encourage centralized, collective payment of Gold OA fees too, in even
> Bigger Deals, so Gold OA can continue to be treated as annual institutional
> -- preferably national -- payments rather than as piecewise payments per
> individual article.
>
> (9) Persuade governments to mandate, subsidize and prefer Gold OA rather
> than mandating Green OA
>
> (10) Make sure Green OA is perceived as delayed OA (because of your
> embargoes!), so that only Gold OA can be immediate.
>
> (11) Mobilize the minority OA advocates who are in a great hurry for
> re-use rights (CC-BY, text-mining, republication) to support you in your
> promotion of Gold OA and demotion and embargoing of Green OA.
>
> (12) Cross your fingers and hope that the research community will be
> gullible enough to buy it all.
>
> There is, however, a compeletely effective prophylactic against this
> publisher fantasy (but it has to be adopted by the research community,
> because British

[GOAL] Publishers to Researchers: "Want OA? OK, but only on our terms, and timetable!"

[Stevan Harnad]

Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands: Part
I

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Tom Olijhoek wrote:

what would be wrong with all publishers adopting open access, financing
> their businesses with money that is freed because of canceled subscriptions?
>

Nothing wrong -- *after* Green OA has been mandated globally, has caused
subscriptions to be canceled, and has driven down the price of Gold OA from
today's over-priced, double-paid Fool's Gold to affordable, sustainable
Fair Gold.

Everything wrong -- *before* Green OA has been mandated globally, while
publishers instead try to force Fool's Gold to be paid for OA by embargoing
Green OA and lobbying against Green OA mandates, in order to make sure they
control the terms and timetable for any transition, locking in their
current levels of revenue come what may.

Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open Access
Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature.

Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top journals)
are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold
OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still arbitrarily high ("Fool's Gold");
and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates
and lower quality standards.

What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA
self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon
acceptance for publication) ("Green OA").

That will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should
go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with
just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut
obsolete post-Green costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision,
archiving -- all offloaded onto the global network of Green OA
institutional repositories), downsize to just providing the service of peer
review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model ("Fair Gold").

Meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have released the funds to
pay these residual service costs.

The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a
"no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder paying for each
round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance,
revision/re-refereeing, or rejection).

This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates
and decline in quality standards.

--- 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)



> I think we should fight the risk of publishers taking open access as a
> means to increase their incomes by adamantly refusing to accept any
> embargoes, not for journals and not for repositories. That is the big
> mistake that was made ,allowing these embargo periods in the first place.
>

Easy to say; hard to get researchers to do (because they fear that their
journals will not accept their articles, or will take legal action against
them).

The fears are ungrounded (physicists have been doing it in Arxiv,
unchallenged, since 1991, and computer scientists, in FTP archives, even
longer).

But simply saying to researchers "we
should"
has proved ineffective for 20 years now.

And that is why research institutions and funders worldwide have now
begun mandating
that their researchers must provide Green OA.

And those Green OA mandates are precisely what (some) publishers are now
working feverishly to try to stop, by embargoing Green OA and lobbying
governments to mandate (Fool's) Gold OA instead.

And with the UK and the Netherlands governments (only), the publishing
lobby has made some recent headway.

The remedy is available, however, and the worldwide OA movement will make
sure it is made known and used:

(a) Research funders and institutions worldwide all adopt an immediate-deposit
mandate,
requiring, as a condition of funding, employment and evaluation, that all
researchers deposit their final, peer-reviewed drafts in their
institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance for publication,
regardless of whether they are published in a subscription journal or a
Gold OA journal -- and regardless of whether access to the deposit is made
Green OA immediately or only after a publisher embargo.

(b) Do not mandate or designate any extra money to pay for Gold OA: let
that come from the subscription cancellation savings -- if and when Green
OA actually releases institutions to cancel
subscriptions
.

(c) To tide over research access needs during any embargo, make sure to
implement the institutional repository's automated copy-request
Button

[GOAL] Re: 1. Alert: Some coordinated action from the Big Publishing Lobby in the UK & Netherlands (Stevan Harnad)

[Bosman, J.M.]

Dear Tom,

I expect San Dekker will have a very hard job to persuade publishers to 
substantially lower subscription prices.

First: publishers see Gold OA in hybrid journals as a separate product/service 
having nothing to do with subscription. Please read what Wiley's Bob Campbell 
says about this (esp. his reponse to Stevan's comment): 
http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/07/open-access-in-the-uk-will-gold-or-green-prevail/

Second: the Dutch article output is only 2.5% of the world's total. Publishers 
will perhaps, if put under severe pressure, lower prices with 2% (in 2024 when 
all dutch output has to be OA), of course offset by the next 5% price increase. 
People in the Netherlands who now cheer for Sander Dekker do not realize that 
the other 97.5% of scholarly article output is unchanged by Sander Dekker's 
actions.

And do you really believe Sander Dekker will start negotiations with T&F, 
Wiley, Sage, ACS, Springer, OUP, CUP & Emerald etc., apart from the Dutch 
publishers Elsevier and Kluwer? He will leave that to UKB (univ. libraries' 
federation) and SURF (dutch JISC) I guess. I do not see why they will have more 
success than in the last round of price talks.

My main fear is that the House of Commons (Tweede Kamer) committee members 
talking about this on December 4th will not fully realize what is at stake here.

Best,
Jeroen
-NL
Jeroen Bosman, vakspecialist Geowetenschappen
Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telefoon: 030-2536613
post: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht
bezoek: kamer 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
profielen: Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI / 
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 / ResearchGate / 
Scopus /  
Slideshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat
blogt op: I&M2.0 / 
Ref4UU
-EN
Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience
Utrecht University Library
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
profielen: : Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI / 
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 / ResearchGate / 
Scopus /  
Slideshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat
blogging at: I&M 2.0 / 
Ref4UU
-
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Tom Olijhoek
Sent: zondag 17 november 2013 9:33
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: [GOAL] 1. Alert: Some coordinated action from the Big Publishing Lobby 
in the UK & Netherlands (Stevan Harnad)

dear all,

I agree with Stephan Harnad that there is the danger of publishers trying to 
bend the rules for open access to their wishes and with the aid of a big 
political lobby they will certainly try to do so.
Nevertheless I think that the letter of mr Sander Dekker is mis interpreted in 
some crucial places. When he talks about gras

[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands: Part I

[Bosman, J.M.]

Stevan,

The threat of Sander Dekker in The Netherlands is not to mandate fools gold per 
se but to put the obligation to publish open access into the law:

"Indien de betrokken partijen zich onvoldoende inzetten, of de ontwikkelingen 
in onvoldoende mate vorderen, zullen de minister en ik voorstellen de 
verplichting om Open Access te publiceren in 2016 op te nemen in de Wet op het 
hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek (WHW)."

Which is literally:

"If the stakeholders involved show not enough commitment, or if developments do 
not progress enough, the Minister and I will propose the put the obligation to 
publish in Open Access in the Higher Education and Scientific Research Law in 
2016"

In his letter he does not discern between free (no fee, no subscription), 
non-commercial Open Access, fully commercial Open Access and fully commercial 
hybrid journals. He also leaves open, especially for A&H and SS, the option of 
Green, but makes it clear his choice is Gold.

Jeroen
-NL
Jeroen Bosman, vakspecialist Geowetenschappen
Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrecht
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telefoon: 030-2536613
post: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht
bezoek: kamer 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
profielen: Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI / 
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 / ResearchGate / 
Scopus /  
Slideshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat
blogt op: I&M2.0 / 
Ref4UU
-EN
Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience
Utrecht University Library
email: j.bos...@uu.nl
telephone: +31.30.2536613
mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands
visiting address: room 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht
web: Jeroen 
Bosman
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
profielen: : Academia / Google 
Scholar / 
ISNI / 
Mendeley / 
MicrosoftAcademic
 / ORCID / 
ResearcherID
 / ResearchGate / 
Scopus /  
Slideshare /  
VIAF /  
Worldcat
blogging at: I&M 2.0 / 
Ref4UU
-
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: zondag 17 november 2013 12:50
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands: Part I

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter 
mailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl>> wrote:
@Stevan,

Yes Stevan the Dutch secretary of education his letter has quite a bit of the 
Finch tone in it. But there are also some opportunities in his letter for 
repositories. Dekker actually asks for exact figures on OA in the Netherlands.

"To obtain insight into the situation I request the universities, KNAW and NWO 
to provide numbers on Open Access publications through the various clearly 
defined variants of OA."

In the Netherlands we have of course Narcis http://www.narcis.nl already, a 
comprehensive repository of nearly all OA publications in the Netherlands. But 
counting OA publications only is not sufficien

[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.

[Bjoern Brembs]

On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote:

> The political approach may be necessary to get OA
> enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it
> is immune from political influence. In my book, that seems
> to be a perfect role for libraries.

This is a serious problem with mandates: they are liable to political influence 
- and billions in $$$ pay for plenty of political influence, way more than we 
can ever dream of having.

I thus support Eric's motion: we need to move everything in-house, away from 
any political influence. Libraries are the natural place for that.

Best wishes,

Bjoern





-- 
Björn Brembs
-
http://brembs.net
Neurogenetics
Universität Regensburg
Germany


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Academia Bound?

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2013-11-17, at 2:27 PM, LIBLICENSE  wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher 
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:02:15 -0600
> 
> Why should Green OA not apply to books if and when the authors are
> receiving no royalty payments? What difference is there in the
> intellectual content that justifies treating them any differently? If
> money is not involved as a reward to authors, why should they not be
> under the same mandate as journal article authors? It seems artificial
> to create this digital divide between books and journals. Both
> contribute to the advance of knowledge, and access to both is
> important.

One thing at a time, Sandy: Green mandates have not yet prevailed for 
journal articles,where the case is more clearcut and exception-free. 
(Let's not, like Stephen Leacock's fabled horseman, jump on a horse 
"and gallop off in all directions" (articles, books, data, software, Green, 
Gold, CC-BY.)

There is one priority, and it will usher in all the rest: mandate Green for 
journal articles (Liège model immediate-institutional-deposit, whether 
or not embargoed, as a condition for funding, employment, evaluation).

Do that, and we'll soon have 100% OA for articles, and then all the rest 
will follow too.

Keep running off in all directions, as we've been doing for 10 years now, 
and we'll keep getting nowhere, fast…

A word to the wise, from the wizened...

Chrs, Stevan 

> 
> Sandy Thatcher
> 
> 
> At 9:40 AM -0500 11/15/13, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> 
> Commentary on "Open Access and Academic Freedom" in Inside Higher Ed
> 15 November 2013, by Cary Nelson, former national president of the
> American Association of University Professors
> 
> 
> 
> If, in the print-on-paper era, it was not a constraint on academic
> freedom that universities and research funders required, as a
> condition of funding or employment, that researchers conduct and
> publish research -- rather than put it in a desk drawer -- so it could
> be read, used, applied and built upon by all users whose institutions
> could afford to subscribe to the journal in which it was published
> ("publish or perish"), then it is not a constraint on academic freedom
> in the online era that universities and research funders require, as a
> condition of funding or employment, that researchers make their
> research accessible online to all its potential users rather than just
> those whose institutions could afford to subscribe to the journal in
> which it was published ("self-archive to flourish").
> 
> However, two kinds of Open Access (OA) mandates are indeed constraints
> on academic freedom:
> 
> 1. any mandate that constrains the researcher's choice of which
> journal to publish in -- other than to require that it be of the
> highest quality whose peer-review standards the research can meet
> 
> 2. any mandate that requires the researcher to pay to publish (if the
> author does not wish to, or does not have the funds)
> 
> The immediate-deposit/optional-access (ID/OA) mandate requires authors
> to deposit their final refereed draft in their institutional
> repository immediately upon acceptance for publication, regardless of
> which journal they choose to publish in, and regardless of whether
> they choose to comply with an OA embargo (if any) on the part of the
> journal. (If so, the access to the deposit can be set as Closed Access
> rather than Open Access during the embargo, and the repository
> software has a facilitated copy-request Button, allowing would-be
> users to request a copy for research purposes with one click, and
> allowing the author the free choice to comply or not comply, likewise
> with one click.)
> 
> Since OA is beneficial to researchers -- because it maximizes research
> downloads and citations, which universities and funders now count,
> along with publications, in evaluating and rewarding research output
> -- why do researchers need mandates at all? Because they are afraid of
> publishers -- afraid their publisher will not publish their research
> if they make it OA, or even afraid they will be prosecuted for
> copyright infringement.
> 
> So OA mandates are needed to embolden authors to provide OA, knowing
> they have the support of their institutions and funders. And the ID/OA
> mandate is immune to publisher embargoes. Over ten years of experience
> (of "performing a useful service by giving faculty a vehicle for
> voluntary self-archiving") have by now shown definitively that most
> researchers will not self-archive unless it is mandatory. (The only
> exceptions are some fields of physics and computer science where
> researchers provide OA spontaneously, unmandated.) So what is needed
> is a no-option immediate-self-archiving mandate, but with leeway on
> when to make the deposit OA. This is indeed in a sense "optional Green
> OA," but the crucial component is that the deposit itself is
> mandatory.
> 
> Funding is a red herring. Most universities have already invested in
> creating and m

[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands: Part I

[Peter Suber]

I hope that Dutch researchers will seize the opportunity that
Wouter Gerritsma describes, and save the Netherlands from repeating the
mistake of the UK.

Note, however, that the Netherlands has flirted with gold OA mandates at
least twice before, and in both cases prior to the Finch report in the UK.

1. In a November 2009 interview, Henk Schmidt, Rector of Erasmus University
Rotterdam, described his plans to require OA, with a preference for gold
over green. "I intend obliging our researchers to circulate their articles
publicly, for example no more than six months after publication. I'm aiming
for 2011, if possible in collaboration with publishers via the 'Golden
Road' and otherwise without the publishers via the 'Green Road'."
http://web.archive.org/web/20100213075122/http://www.openaccess.nl/index.php?option=com_vipquotes&view=quote&id=30

However, in September 2010, he announced the university's new OA policy,
which is green.
http://rechtennieuws.nl/30283/als-je-niet-gelezen-wordt-bestaat-je-werk-niet-erasmus-universiteit-zet-in-op-open-access-publiceren.html
http://roarmap.eprints.org/295/

2. In January 2011, J.J. Engelen, Chairman of the NWO (Nederlandse
Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), described his preference for
a future gold OA policy. "These goals of scientic publishing are best
reached by means of an open access publishing business modelOpen access
publishing should become a requirement for publicly funded research. In
order to make open access publishing a success, the enthusiastic
cooperation of the professional publishing companies active on the
scientific market is highly desirable."
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2011-0622

 Peter

Peter Suber
bit.ly/petersuber





On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter
wrote:

>  @Stevan,
>
>
>
> Yes Stevan the Dutch secretary of education his letter has quite a bit of
> the Finch tone in it. But there are also some opportunities in his letter
> for repositories. Dekker actually asks for exact figures on OA in the
> Netherlands.
>
>
>
> "To obtain insight into the situation I request the universities, KNAW and
> NWO to provide numbers on Open Access publications through the various
> clearly defined variants of OA."
>
>
>
> In the Netherlands we have of course Narcis http://www.narcis.nl already,
> a comprehensive repository of nearly all OA publications in the
> Netherlands. But counting OA publications only is not sufficient. That is a
> small mistake in Dekker his letter. What is less well known is that all
> Dutch universities have to report to ministry of Education all the
> scientific output as well. This happens through the VSNU
> http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Feiten_en_Cijfers/Scientific_Research_Agreed_Definitions__def_2011_IRRH-20110624.pdf
>
>
>
>
> If due to this letter of Dekker it was decided that all reports on the
> output of the Dutch Science system to the ministry would be based on the
> full registration of all output registered in Narcis, on top of all OA
> publications it already registers, the underlying repositories would be in
> a much better position. If only Narcis takes up its responsibility and
> makes reports along the lines I did nearly 2 years ago
> http://wowter.net/2012/02/10/a-census-of-open-access-repositories-in-the-netherlands/the
>  repository infrastructure in the Netherlands would be reinforced as
> well.
>
>
>
> So apart from the fact that OA is on the political agenda in the
> Netherlands, there is an important momentum for Dutch repositories to seize
> right now.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Wouter
>
>
>
>
>
> Wouter Gerritsma
>
> Team leader research support
>
> Information Specialist – Bibliometrician
>
> Wageningen UR Library
>
> PO box 9100
>
> 6700 HA Wageningen
>
> The Netherlands
>
> ++31 3174 83052
>
> wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl 
>
> wageningenur.nl/library
>
> @wowter 
>
> wowter.net
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* zaterdag 16 november 2013 21:50
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Cc:* LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; jisc-repositories
> *Subject:* [GOAL] The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands:
> Part I
>
>
>
> The UK and the Netherlands -- not coincidentally, the home bases of Big
> Publishing for refereed research -- have issued coordinated statements in
> support of what cannot be described other than as a publisher's nocturnal
> fantasy, in the face of the unstoppable worldwide clamour for Open Access.
>
> Here are the components of the publishers' nocturnal:
>
> (1) Do whatever it takes to sustain or increase your current revenue
> streams.
>
> (2) Your current revenue streams come mainly from subscriptions.
>
> (3) Claim far and wide that everything has to be done to sustain
> publishers' subscription revenue, otherwise publishing will be destroyed,
> and with it so will peer review, and research itself.
>
> (4) With (3

[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Bjoern Brembs  wrote:

> On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote:
>
> > The political approach may be necessary to get OA
> > enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it
> > is immune from political influence. In my book, that seems
> > to be a perfect role for libraries.
>
> This is a serious problem with mandates: they are liable to political
> influence - and billions in $$$ pay for plenty of political influence, way
> more than we can ever dream of having.
>
> I thus support Eric's motion: we need to move everything in-house, away
> from any political influence. Libraries are the natural place for that.
>

I patiently await Bjoern's or Eric's practical explanation of how libraries
are going to get researchers to provide OA.

(Till I hear, I'm sticking to Green OA mandates. And malign political
influence can be countered by benign. The publishing lobby has more money.
But there are far more of us researchers; and whereas our governments may
be susceptible to publisher lobbying, our funders are less so, and our
institutions still less so: and it's the latter two that do the mandating…)

Stevan Harnad
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands: Part I

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Bosman, J.M.  wrote:


> The threat of Sander Dekker in The Netherlands is not to mandate fools
> gold per se but to put the obligation to publish open access into the law:
>
>
>
>
> “*If the stakeholders involved do not show enough commitment, or if
> developments do not progress enough, the Minister and I will propose to put
> the obligation to publish in Open Access in the Higher Education and
> Scientific Research Law in 2016”*
>
>
>
> In his letter he… leaves open…  the option of Green, but makes it clear
> his choice is Gold.
>

The language is ambiguous because one *publishes* Open Access when one
publishes in a Gold OA journal, but with Green OA, one *provides* Open
Access to ones articles (having published in any journal at all) by
self-archiving them free for all online (preferably in one's institutional
repository).

But Sander Dekker having expressed admiration for the UK Finch Policy, and
having expressed a preference for Gold, I would be surprised if what he
contemplates mandating in two years is Green OA.

And having already waited this long without mandating OA, and having seen
that in no country has OA been provided if only invited, recommended or
encouraged rather than mandated, it is not clear what Sander Dekker is
expecting from two more unmandated years in the Netherlands.

(Politicians have time, apparently; but research and researchers need
access now: more than a decade of access and impact has already been
needlessly lost. And Netherlands need not wait for its government to stir
from its patient orocentric stupor: Dutch funders and institutions can go
ahead and mandate Green OA already. KNAW and Erasmus have done so already
-- KNAW  with a very weak 18-month
embargo, and Erasmus  with 6, but both
should upgrade to the Liege-model immediate-deposit mandate -- and so
should the rest of UK's institutions and funders.)

*Stevan Harnad*


>  *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
>
> *Sent:* zondag 17 november 2013 12:50
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK &
> Netherlands: Part I
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter <
> wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl> wrote:
>
>  @Stevan,
>
>
>
> Yes Stevan the Dutch secretary of education his letter has quite a bit of
> the Finch tone in it. But there are also some opportunities in his letter
> for repositories. Dekker actually asks for exact figures on OA in the
> Netherlands.
>
>
>
> "To obtain insight into the situation I request the universities, KNAW and
> NWO to provide numbers on Open Access publications through the various
> clearly defined variants of OA."
>
>
>
> In the Netherlands we have of course Narcis http://www.narcis.nl already,
> a comprehensive repository of nearly all OA publications in the
> Netherlands. But counting OA publications only is not sufficient. That is a
> small mistake in Dekker his letter. What is less well known is that all
> Dutch universities have to report to ministry of Education all the
> scientific output as well. This happens through the VSNU
> http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Feiten_en_Cijfers/Scientific_Research_Agreed_Definitions__def_2011_IRRH-20110624.pdf
>
>
>
>
> If due to this letter of Dekker it was decided that all reports on the
> output of the Dutch Science system to the ministry would be based on the
> full registration of all output registered in Narcis, on top of all OA
> publications it already registers, the underlying repositories would be in
> a much better position. If only Narcis takes up its responsibility and
> makes reports along the lines I did nearly 2 years ago
> http://wowter.net/2012/02/10/a-census-of-open-access-repositories-in-the-netherlands/the
>  repository infrastructure in the Netherlands would be reinforced as
> well.
>
>
>
> So apart from the fact that OA is on the political agenda in the
> Netherlands, there is an important momentum for Dutch repositories to seize
> right now.
>
>
>
> The momentum for the Netherlands to seize is to *mandate Green OA*, at
> long last (immediate institutional deposit, as a condition of funding,
> employment and evaluation, whether or not OA to the deposit is embargoed)
> -- instead of waiting for Dekker to mandate Fool's Gold instead (as he has
> threatened to do, in two years).
>
>
>
> *Stevan Harnad*
>
>
>
>  *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
>
> *Sent:* zaterdag 16 november 2013 21:50
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Cc:* LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; jisc-repositories
> *Subject:* [GOAL] The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands:
> Part I
>
>
>
> The UK and the Netherlands -- not coincidentally, the home bases of Big
> Publishing for refereed research -- have issued coordinated statements i

[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK & Netherlands: Part I

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Could we make sure that we do not use "Gold" too quickly as a synonym
for "author-pay Gold". I meet ever more frequently with this confusion
and I think it deeply affects the quality of our analyses and
strategies.

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le dimanche 17 novembre 2013 à 17:38 -0500, Peter Suber a écrit :
> I hope that Dutch researchers will seize the opportunity that
> Wouter Gerritsma describes, and save the Netherlands from repeating
> the mistake of the UK.
> 
> 
> Note, however, that the Netherlands has flirted with gold OA mandates
> at least twice before, and in both cases prior to the Finch report in
> the UK. 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. In a November 2009 interview, Henk Schmidt, Rector of Erasmus
> University Rotterdam, described his plans to require OA, with a
> preference for gold over green. "I intend obliging our researchers to
> circulate their articles publicly, for example no more than six months
> after publication. I'm aiming for 2011, if possible in collaboration
> with publishers via the 'Golden Road' and otherwise without the
> publishers via the 'Green Road'." 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20100213075122/http://www.openaccess.nl/index.php?option=com_vipquotes&view=quote&id=30
> 
> 
> However, in September 2010, he announced the university's new OA
> policy, which is green.
> http://rechtennieuws.nl/30283/als-je-niet-gelezen-wordt-bestaat-je-werk-niet-erasmus-universiteit-zet-in-op-open-access-publiceren.html
> http://roarmap.eprints.org/295/
> 
> 
> 2. In January 2011, J.J. Engelen, Chairman of the NWO (Nederlandse
> Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek), described his preference
> for a future gold OA policy. "These goals of scientic publishing are
> best reached by means of an open access publishing business
> modelOpen access publishing should become a requirement for
> publicly funded research. In order to make open access publishing a
> success, the enthusiastic cooperation of the professional publishing
> companies active on the scientific market is highly desirable." 
> http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ISU-2011-0622
> 
> 
>  Peter
> 
> 
> Peter Suber
> bit.ly/petersuber 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Gerritsma, Wouter
>  wrote:
> 
> @Stevan,
> 
>  
> 
> Yes Stevan the Dutch secretary of educationhis letter has
> quite a bit of the Finch tone in it. But there are also some
> opportunities in his letter for repositories. Dekker actually
> asks for exact figures on OA in the Netherlands. 
> 
>  
> 
> "To obtain insight into the situation I request the
> universities, KNAW and NWO to provide numbers on Open Access
> publications through the various clearly defined variants of
> OA."
> 
>  
> 
> In the Netherlands we have of course Narcis
> http://www.narcis.nl already, a comprehensive repository of
> nearly all OA publications in the Netherlands. But counting OA
> publications only is not sufficient. That is a small mistake
> in Dekker his letter. What is less well known is that all
> Dutch universities have to report to ministry of Education all
> the scientific output as well. This happens through the VSNU
> 
> http://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Feiten_en_Cijfers/Scientific_Research_Agreed_Definitions__def_2011_IRRH-20110624.pdf
> 
> 
>  
> 
> If due to this letter of Dekker it was decided that all
> reports on the output of the Dutch Science system to the
> ministry would be based on the full registration of all output
> registered in Narcis, on top of all OA publications it already
> registers, the underlying repositories would be in a much
> better position. If only Narcis takes up its responsibility
> and makes reports along the lines I did nearly 2 years ago
> 
> http://wowter.net/2012/02/10/a-census-of-open-access-repositories-in-the-netherlands/
>  the repository infrastructure in the Netherlands would be reinforced as 
> well.
> 
>  
> 
> So apart from the fact that OA is on the political agenda in
> the Netherlands, there is an important momentum for Dutch
> repositories to seize right now.
> 
>  
> 
> All the best 
> 
> Wouter
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Wouter Gerritsma
> 
> Team leader research support
> 
> Information Specialist – Bibliometrician
> 
> Wageningen UR Library
> 
> PO box 9100
> 
> 6700 HA Wageningen 
> 
> The Netherlands
> 
> ++31 3174 83052
> 
> wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl
> 
> wageningenur.nl/library
> 
> @wowte

[GOAL] Finch II: "Our Mind's Made Up: Don't Confuse Us With Facts"

[Stevan Harnad]

*Finch Report II: A Review of Progress in Implementing the Recommendations
of the Finch Report ("Accessibility, Sustainability, Excellence: How to
Expand Access to Research Publications")*

"*Our review is based on a rigorous analysis of evidence from a wide range
of sources*."

Hardly. The Finch II review is in fact a very selective re-hash of opinions
and opinion-surveys, with nothing faintly resembling the objective evidence
called for by the BIS Select
Committee.


This exceedingly long, rambling, incoherent new Finch report has very
little that is new or substantive; it is mostly vague, self-congratulatory
sloganeering. But its thrust is clear: Despite all the objections and
counter-evidence to Finch I, and despite the very trenchant and specific
critique and recommendations of the BIS Select Committee, Finch II is
simply digging in its heels and sticking to what it said in Finch I.

This is clearly the result of remarkably successful lobbying by the UK
journal publishing industry (aided and abetted by a small fervent minority
of OA 
advocates
who
consider free online access insufficient, and insist on paying extra for a
CC-BY license that allows re-use, text-mining, re-mixing and
re-publication) -- plus a good deal of woolly-mindedness (and perhaps some
pig-headedness too) in the Finch Committee and its advisors (e.g., the Wellcome
Trust
).

The most important amendment grudgingly admitted by Finch II is that UK
researchers are now free to choose between providing OA via the Green route
(of publishing articles in any journal at all, by making the article OA in
a repository after any allowable publisher embargo has expired) or via the
Gold route (by paying the publisher [pure Gold or hybrid] to make the
article OA immediately [with a CC-BY license]).

I will not rehearse
again
the
many reasons why paying for Gold OA is a waste of UK public funds,
double-paying arbitrarily inflated "Fool's
Gold"
fees to publishers for the UK's outgoing 6% of worldwide research, over and
above paying subscription fees to publishers for all incoming research. The
fact is that Finch has now conceded that researchers are free to choose
whether or not to pay for Gold, so UK researchers need not waste money on
Fool's Gold unless they wish to. Author choice is restored.

Moreover, Green OA embargo length limits will not be enforced for at least
two years (Finch/RCUK are instead focussing all their attention on
montoring how the Gold funds is being spent).

And Finch II also seems to have grudgingly conceded that the parallel HEFCE
addendum
--
requiring that in order to be eligible for REF2020, all articles must be
deposited in the author's institutional repository immediately upon
publlication (not after an embargo, nor just before REF2020) -- is likely
to be adopted.

This concession should not have been grudging, because the HEFCE/REF
addendum in fact provides the crucial missing component that will make the
Finch/RCUK mandate succeed, despite Finch's preference for Fool's Gold: It
provides the all-important mechanism for monitoring and ensuring timely
compliance, by recruiting institutions (ever ready to do anything they
possibly can to increase their chances of success in REF) to ensure that
deposit is immediate, even if OA is embargoed. (During any embargo the
institutonal repositories also have the automated copy-request
Button

[GOAL] Re: [Open-access] Fight Publishing Lobby's Latest "FIRST" Act to Delay OA - Nth Successor to PRISM, RWA etc.

[brentier]

Libraries are definitely places where awareness occurs. They are the sentinels. 
However, they don't have enough power (generally) to impose Open Access as a 
permanent reflex with researchers. 
The only way researchers can be convinced is through mandatory pressure from 
the funders and/or the Academic authorities. And the only way mandates can be 
imposed is through the research assessment procedures. Everything else lingers 
or fails. 
(82% compliance with incitative mandates instead of 8% on average with 'soft' 
mandates).
If the pressure is applied through Green OA mandates, academic freedom is fully 
respected. All it takes is 5 minutes (max) extra work for each new publication 
(usually not a daily task).
Considering the benefits for the author(s), the mandate soon becomes accessory. 

> Le 17 nov. 2013 à 23:11, Bjoern Brembs  a écrit :
> 
>> On Friday, November 15, 2013, 1:09:13 AM, you wrote:
>> 
>> The political approach may be necessary to get OA
>> enacted, but we need to implement OA in such a way that it
>> is immune from political influence. In my book, that seems
>> to be a perfect role for libraries.
> 
> This is a serious problem with mandates: they are liable to political 
> influence - and billions in $$$ pay for plenty of political influence, way 
> more than we can ever dream of having.
> 
> I thus support Eric's motion: we need to move everything in-house, away from 
> any political influence. Libraries are the natural place for that.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Bjoern
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Björn Brembs
> -
> http://brembs.net
> Neurogenetics
> Universität Regensburg
> Germany
> 
> 
> ___
> 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