[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

My take on point I, "Call for disruption" would place a full stop after
"evolve" and leave the whole statement at that. But disruption we
certainly need, and both the Gold and Green roads can provide a fair bit
of it. 

The gold road assumes that journals will always be needed. I hope they
will not, and I doubt they will. But temporarily, both the Green and
Gold (not the author-pay model) roads are needed

As for II, we all know that that "fear" has never been properly
documented by anyone. The PEER project in Europe appears (no pun
intended) to have left large commercial publishers most unsatisfied.

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le vendredi 13 septembre 2013 à 11:38 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, cilip): "In the interest of
> making research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or
> no embargo periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers… have
> argued that short embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions
> to their journals… The BIS report finds no evidence to support this
> distinction."
> __
> 
> I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps
> being voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
> 
> I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and
> unaffordable; publisher profits are excessive; the
> subscription (license) model is unsustainable: the
> subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force it
> to evolve toward Gold OA.
> 
> II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened
> by (Green) OA, which risks making the subscription model
> unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be protected in
> order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA.
> 
> Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all
> who cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the
> subscription model.
> 
> Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who
> cannot afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the
> subscription model from disruption.
> 
> Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide
> immediate OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel
> beholden to promise (d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from
> disruption)?
> 
> University of Liège and FRSN Belgium have adopted --
> and HEFCE and BIS have both proposed adopting -- the compromise
> resolution to this contradiction:
> 
> Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft
> of all articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if
> the author wishes to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do
> not require access to the deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the
> deposit be made Closed Access during the allowable embargo period and
> let the repository's automated eprint-request Button tide over the
> needs of research and researchers by making it easy for users to
> request and authors to provide a copy for research purposes with one
> click each. 
> 
> This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still
> disrupts serials publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable,
> chances are that it's time for publishers to phase out the products
> and services for which there is no longer a market in the online era
> and evolve instead toward something more in line with the real needs
> of the PostGutenberg research community.
> 
> Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive)
> pressure of necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal
> publishing industry from evolutionary pressure, at the expense of
> research progress?
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal

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

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Dana Roth]

Isn't the fact that "The BIS report finds no evidence to support this 
distinction," due to the fact that there isn't sufficient data?

I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription 
journals for some time ... and that it is the subscription model for 
commercially published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the short 
term.

An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially published 
'Journal of Comparative Neurology' ... that for 2012 cost its subscribers 
$30,860 and published only 234 articles.

Dana L. Roth
Caltech Library  1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection

End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, 
cilip): "In the interest of 
making research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or no 
embargo periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers... have argued 
that short embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions to their 
journals... The BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction."


I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being 
voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and unaffordable; 
publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license) model is 
unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force 
it to evolve toward Gold OA.

II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened by (Green) OA, 
which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the subscription model 
needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA.
Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who 
cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription model.

Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot 
afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model from 
disruption.

Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide immediate 
OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel beholden to promise 
(d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from disruption)?

University of Liège and FRSN 
Belgium have adopted -- and 
HEFCE
 and 
BIS
 have both proposed adopting -- the compromise resolution to this contradiction:

Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft of all 
articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if the author wishes 
to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do not require access to the 
deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the deposit be made Closed Access during 
the allowable embargo period and let the repository's automated eprint-request 
Button tide over the needs of research and researchers by making it easy for 
users to request and authors to provide a copy for research purposes with one 
click each.

This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still disrupts serials 
publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable, chances are that it's time 
for publishers to phase out the products and services for which there is no 
longer a market in the online era and evolve instead toward something more in 
line with the real needs of the PostGutenberg research community.

Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive) pressure of 
necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal publishing industry from 
evolutionary pressure, at the expense of research progress?

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

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Danny Kingsley]

It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not 
exist.

The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access 
threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes in 
the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey sent out early last 
year to librarians 
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf
 . Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that survey 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html

And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is what 
Springer referred to as their 'evidence' 
http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html
 .

There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the industry to 
collect some actual evidence either way (as opposed to opinions on a badly 
expressed hypothetical):


  1.  Taylor & Francis have decided to indefinitely expand their trial of 
immediate green permissions to articles in their Library & Information Science 
journals. If they were to run a comparison of those titles against the titles 
in, say , three other disciplinary areas over two to three years they would be 
able to ascertain if this decision has made any difference to their 
subscription patterns.
  2.  Earlier this year (21 March) SAGE changed their policy to immediate green 
open access – again this offers a clean comparison between their subscription 
levels prior to and after the implementation of this policy.

If it is the case that immediate green open access disrupts subscriptions (and 
I strongly suspect that it does not) then we can have that conversation when 
the evidence presents itself. Until then we are boxing at shadows.

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Executive Officer
Australian Open Access Support Group
e: e...@aoasg.org.au<mailto:e...@aoasg.org.au>
p: +612 6125 6839
w: .aoasg.org.au
t: @openaccess_oz



From: Dana Roth mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>>
Reply-To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM
To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Isn’t the fact that “The BIS report finds no evidence to support this 
distinction,” due to the fact that there isn’t sufficient data?

I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription 
journals for some time … and that it is the subscription model for commercially 
published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the short term.

An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially published 
‘Journal of Comparative Neurology’ … that for 2012 cost its subscribers $30,860 
and published only 234 articles.

Dana L. Roth
Caltech Library  1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org<mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org> 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection

End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, 
cilip)<http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/end-gold-rush>: "In the interest of 
making research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or no 
embargo periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers… have argued that 
short embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions to their journals… 
The BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction."


I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being 
voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and unaffordable; 
publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license) model is 
unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force 
it to evolve toward Gold OA.

II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened by (Green) OA, 
which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the subscription model 
needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA.
Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who 
cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription model.

Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot 
afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model from 
disruption.

Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide immediate 
OA for all who cannot afford subscri

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Friend, Fred]

This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be 
interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from 
publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very 
occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication, but 
the number appears very low by comparison with the total number of research 
journals published, and the causal link with repository deposit is obscure. A 
reduction in the quality of a journal (and I do not mean impact factor) or a 
reduction in library funding could be more influential factors than green open 
access. Presumably for commercial reasons publishers have not been willing to 
release information about subscription levels, but if they are to continue to 
use green open access as a threat they have to provide more evidence.

Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide more 
information about sustainability. They speak about repositories not being a 
sustainable model for research dissemination, by which they appear to mean that 
their journals will not be sustainable in a large-scale repository environment. 
Most institutional repositories are fully-sustainable, their sustainability 
derived from the sustainability of the university in which they are based. If 
any research journals are not sustainable, the reasons may have nothing to do 
with repositories. Those reasons are currently hidden within the "big deal" 
model, the weak journals surviving through the strength of other journals. 
Rather than blame any lack of sustainability upon green open access, perhaps 
publishers should take a harder look at the sustainability of some of their 
weaker journals. Repositories are sustainable; some journals may not be.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL


From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Danny 
Kingsley 
Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not 
exist.

The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access 
threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes in 
the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey sent out early last 
year to librarians 
http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf
 . Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that survey 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html

And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is what 
Springer referred to as their 'evidence' 
http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html
 .

There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the industry to 
collect some actual evidence either way (as opposed to opinions on a badly 
expressed hypothetical):


  1.  Taylor & Francis have decided to indefinitely expand their trial of 
immediate green permissions to articles in their Library & Information Science 
journals. If they were to run a comparison of those titles against the titles 
in, say , three other disciplinary areas over two to three years they would be 
able to ascertain if this decision has made any difference to their 
subscription patterns.
  2.  Earlier this year (21 March) SAGE changed their policy to immediate green 
open access – again this offers a clean comparison between their subscription 
levels prior to and after the implementation of this policy.

If it is the case that immediate green open access disrupts subscriptions (and 
I strongly suspect that it does not) then we can have that conversation when 
the evidence presents itself. Until then we are boxing at shadows.

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Executive Officer
Australian Open Access Support Group
e: e...@aoasg.org.au<mailto:e...@aoasg.org.au>
p: +612 6125 6839
w: .aoasg.org.au
t: @openaccess_oz



From: Dana Roth mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>>
Reply-To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM
To: "goal@eprints.org<mailto:goal@eprints.org>" 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Isn’t the fact that “The BIS report finds no evidence to support this 
distinction,” due to the fact that there isn’t sufficient data?

I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription 
journals for some time … and that it is the subscription model for commercially 
published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the short term.

An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially published 
‘Journal of Comparative Neurology’ … that for 2012 cost its subscribers $

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Peter Murray-Rust]

There seem to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA:

1. That Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing - see this
thread and frequent other posts.(DK: "It is not that there is not
sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not exist".  )


2. Stevan Harnad's goal that Green OA will destroy the subscription market (
http://poynder.blogspot.ch/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html)
>> SH >>Universal Green makes all articles OA, thereby making subscriptions
unsustainable, forcing publishers to cut needless costs and downsize to
managing peer review alone. No more demand for a print edition. No more
demand for an online edition. All access-provision and archiving offloaded
onto the global network of institutional OA repositories.
and above:
>>SH>>"Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for
all who cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the
subscription model."

I cannot reconcile these. One the one hand the advocates of Green OA seem
to be telling the publishers "please give us Green OA mandates[1] - they
won't hurt you" and on the other "Green OA is going to disrupt your
business".  Why should any publisher provide for deposition of something
that is designed to disrupt their business? (If they were smart they would
design a different business that cuts out libraries altogether and I
suspect that is what some will do).

[1] Note that we require publisher consent to have Green OA deposition
(having failed to convince universities and authors to withhold copyright
transfer - which would solve the problem).


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Friend, Fred  wrote:

>  This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be
> interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from
> publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very
> occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication,
> but the number appears very low by comparison with the total number of
> research journals published, and the causal link with repository deposit is
> obscure. A reduction in the quality of a journal (and I do not mean impact
> factor) or a reduction in library funding could be more influential factors
> than green open access. Presumably for commercial reasons publishers have
> not been willing to release information about subscription levels, but if
> they are to continue to use green open access as a threat they have to
> provide more evidence.
>
>
>
> Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide more
> information about sustainability. They speak about repositories not being a
> sustainable model for research dissemination, by which they appear to mean
> that their journals will not be sustainable in a large-scale repository
> environment. Most institutional repositories are fully-sustainable, their
> sustainability derived from the sustainability of the university in which
> they are based. If any research journals are not sustainable, the reasons
> may have nothing to do with repositories. Those reasons are currently
> hidden within the "big deal" model, the weak journals surviving through the
> strength of other journals. Rather than blame any lack of sustainability
> upon green open access, perhaps publishers should take a harder look at the
> sustainability of some of their weaker journals. Repositories are
> sustainable; some journals may not be.
>
>
>
> Fred Friend
>
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
>  ------------------
> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of
> Danny Kingsley 
> *Sent:* 14 September 2013 08:39
>
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection
>
>   It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat'
> does not exist.
>
>  The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open
> access threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial
> publishers comes in the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey
> sent out early last year to librarians
> http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf.
>  Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that
> survey
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html
>
>
>  And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is
> what Springer referred to as their 'evidence'
> http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html.
>
>  There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Heather Morrison]

A journal publishing 234 articles per year charging $30,860 for a subscription 
SHOULD be disrupted, on the basis of price. At this rate it would cost 7 times 
more to provide access to only the medical schools in North America than to 
provide open access to everyone, everywhere with an internet connection, even 
at the rates of a for-profit professional commercial publisher's very high 
impact journal. At the rates of The Journal of Machine Learning, aptly 
described by Shieber as an efficient journal, all of the articles published in 
this journal could be made open access for a total cost that is less than 10% 
of a single subscription.

Details:

The Association of American Medical Colleges accredits 141 medical schools in 
the U.S. and Canada alone. If each one of these schools purchased a 
subscription at $30,860, that would add up to revenue of $4.3 million per year.

$4.3 million would be sufficient to pay open access article processing fees for 
1,657 articles at the rates of the professional for-profit BioMedCentral's 
very-high-impact journal Genome Biology (U.S. $2,265).

Shieber describes the approach and costs (average $10 per article) of the 
Journal of Machine Learning on his blog The Occasional Pamphlet:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/

The question should be how we can protect and sustain high-quality scholarly 
publishing in an open access environment - not how to protect such 
mind-boggling inefficiency as journals that charge over $30,000 for a 
subscription!

Those who think that it is important to sustain scholarly journals so that a 
surplus can assist with things like education might want to consider whether 
medical schools should immediately cancel this journal and offer a medical 
student a $30,000 scholarship instead.

best,

--
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

ALA Accreditation site visit scheduled for 30 Sept-1 Oct 2013 /
Visite du comité externe pour l'accréditation par l'ALA est prévu le 30
sept-1 oct 2013

http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html
http://www.esi.uottawa.ca/accreditation.html



On 2013-09-13, at 4:53 PM, Dana Roth 
mailto:dzr...@library.caltech.edu>> wrote:

Isn’t the fact that “The BIS report finds no evidence to support this 
distinction,” due to the fact that there isn’t sufficient data?

I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription 
journals for some time … and that it is the subscription model for commercially 
published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the short term.

An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially published 
‘Journal of Comparative Neurology’ … that for 2012 cost its subscribers $30,860 
and published only 234 articles.

Dana L. Roth
Caltech Library  1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzr...@library.caltech.edu
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org 
[mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of 
Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection

End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, 
cilip): "In the interest of 
making research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or no 
embargo periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers… have argued that 
short embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions to their journals… 
The BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction."


I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being 
voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and unaffordable; 
publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license) model is 
unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force 
it to evolve toward Gold OA.

II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened by (Green) OA, 
which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the subscription model 
needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA.
Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who 
cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription model.

Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot 
afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model from 
disruption.

Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide immediate 
OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel beholden 

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:


> *PM-R: *Stevan Harnad's goal [is] that Green OA will destroy the
> subscription market (
> http://poynder.blogspot.ch/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html)
>

My only goal is (and always has been) 100% OA: no more, no less.

The means of attaining that goal is Green OA mandates from funders and
institutions.

The mandates require authors (1) to deposit their final, refereed drafts in
their institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance for
publication

and (2) to set access to the immediate-deposit as OA as soon as possible

and (3) to rely on the repository's facilitated copy-request Button to
provide Almost-OA during any embargo/

The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture.

*PM-R: *On the one hand the advocates of Green OA seem to be telling the
> publishers "please give us Green OA mandates - they won't hurt you" and on
> the other "Green OA is going to disrupt your business".


No. Green OA advocates are asking *funders* and *institutions* "please give
us Green OA mandates."

What is asked from publishers is to endorse setting access to the
immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- -- as over 60% of
publishers
already
do--  rather than after an embargo.

The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture.

*PM-R: *Why should any publisher provide for deposition of something that
> is designed to disrupt their business?


The immediate-deposit in the repository has nothing to do with the
publisher.

What is helpful from publishers is to endorse setting access to the
immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- as over 60% of
publishersalready
do.

The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture.

*Stevan Harnad*

> *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org 
> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad
> *Sent:* Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection
>
> *End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, 
> cilip)
> :* *"In the interest of making research outputs publicly available;
> shorter and consistent or no embargo periods are the desired outcome.
> However, publishers… have argued that short embargo periods make librarians
> cancel subscriptions to their journals… The BIS report finds no evidence to
> support this distinction."*
>  --
>
>
> I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being
> voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
>
> *I. Call for Disruption:* Serial publications are overpriced and
> unaffordable; publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license)
> model is unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in
> order to force it to evolve toward Gold OA.
>
> *II. Call for Protection:* Serials publications are threatened by (Green)
> OA, which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the
> subscription model needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve
> toward Gold OA.
>
> Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who
> cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription
> model.
>
> Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot
> afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model
> from disruption.
>
> Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide
> immediate OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel
> beholden to promise (d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from
> disruption)?
>
> University of Liège  and FRSN 
> Belgium have
> adopted -- and 
> HEFCE
>  and 
> BIS
>  have
> both proposed adopting -- the compromise resolution to this contradiction:
>
> Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft of
> all articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if the author
> wishes to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do not require
> access to the deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the deposit be made
> Closed Access during the allowable embargo period and let the repository's
> automated eprint-request Button tide over the needs of research and
> researchers by making it easy for users to request and authors to provide a
> copy for research purposes with one click each.
>
> This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still disrupts
> serials publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable, chances are that
> it's time for publishers to phase ou

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

I find myself fully in full agreement with both Danny Kingsley and Fred
Friend.

In a previous message, I mentioned the PEER project  funded by the
European Commission. The final report is available at
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/20120618_PEER_Final_public_report_D9-13.pdf
 .

One interesting report coming from this project to read is
http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/reports/PEER_Economics_Report.pdf. A 
bit strangely, it reintroduces the issue of Gold "author-pay" journals within a 
project that ostensibly aimed at judging the possible impact of repositories on 
the business models of publishers. That detail alone is symptomatic of the fact 
that publishers were intent on foregrounding author-pay, Gold, publishing at 
the expense of depositories, even though the real objective of the project was 
the study of repositories.

Interestingly, the commercial publishers that were involved in PEER had
apparently hoped to demonstrate what Dana Roth reflects in her message -
namely a negative impact of repositories on their business models - but
the outcome did not work out that way, and they proceeded to move away
from the objective of the project and immediately revert to the
author-pay gold model as the only viable road to Open Access. Since
then, commercial publishers have strenuously tried to promote this
flavour of OA publishing and have even tried to make it pass for the
whole of Gold (thus excluding entities such as Scielo and Redalyc in
latin America that are Gold, "libre" for readers and "libre" for
readers)..

And the conclusion remains: despite long and sometimes costly efforts,
studies of repositories that involve all parties (librarians,
publishers, etc.) strengthen the point that the feared consequences
really belong to the realm of fantasies, not facts. The "fears" are
psychological states among some players. They reflect the risk
evaluation mentality of entrepreneurs, and not the realities of the
world. Furthermore, while speaking of realities, one may wonder whether
these fears are real, or whether they are rhetorical... 

Jean-Claude Guédon





Le samedi 14 septembre 2013 à 11:06 +, Friend, Fred a écrit :
> This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be
> interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from
> publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very
> occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing
> publication, but the number appears very low by comparison with the
> total number of research journals published, and the causal link with
> repository deposit is obscure. A reduction in the quality of a journal
> (and I do not mean impact factor) or a reduction in library funding
> could be more influential factors than green open access. Presumably
> for commercial reasons publishers have not been willing to release
> information about subscription levels, but if they are to continue to
> use green open access as a threat they have to provide more evidence.
> 
>  
> 
> Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide
> more information about sustainability. They speak about repositories
> not being a sustainable model for research dissemination, by which
> they appear to mean that their journals will not be sustainable in a
> large-scale repository environment. Most institutional repositories
> are fully-sustainable, their sustainability derived from the
> sustainability of the university in which they are based. If any
> research journals are not sustainable, the reasons may have nothing to
> do with repositories. Those reasons are currently hidden within the
> "big deal" model, the weak journals surviving through the strength of
> other journals. Rather than blame any lack of sustainability upon
> green open access, perhaps publishers should take a harder look at the
> sustainability of some of their weaker journals. Repositories are
> sustainable; some journals may not be.
> 
>  
> 
> Fred Friend
> 
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL  
> 
> 
> 
> ______
> 
> From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of
> Danny Kingsley 
> Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection 
> 
>  
> It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat'
> does not exist. 
> 
> 
> The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open
> access threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial
> publishers comes in the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP
> survey sent out early last year to librarians
> http://www.publishingresearch.net/

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Couture Marc]

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:

>
> There seems to be two incompatible arguments about the effect of Green OA:
>
> 1. Green OA presents no threat to subscription publishing [...]
>
> 2. [...] Green OA will destroy the subscription market.
>

I've been struggling with the same dilemma for a long time, and much more since 
I've launched a campaign to have my university adopt a Green OA deposit 
mandate, where this issue is regularly raised and has to be addressed.

The truth is that we don't know what will happen. One can equally envision any 
scenario along a spectrum between:

A. Green OA (actually ~20%) reaching an upper limit well below 100 % (mandates 
not generalizing), with limited TA to (Gold) OA conversion among journals, 
resulting in few subscription cancellations, and (possibly) a slight decrease 
of total costs to the community (ultimately the taxpayers) due to (1) OA 
publishing being inherently less expensive, and (2) market pressure (authors 
choosing an OA journal based in part on its impact/publishing fees ratio).

B. Green OA reaching ~100% with total TA to OA conversion, and journals 
downsizing to peer-review providers (the other publication functions being 
overtaken by repositories), resulting in a huge overall cost decrease to the 
community.

While the #2 end of the spectrum may certainly be seen as a threat to 
publishers, or at least to some of them, it's extremely hard to predict which 
scenario is likely to occur, and to what extent any specific scenario 
constitutes a "real" threat. One can easily imagine a scenario with 100% Green 
OA and journals (partially or totally converted to OA) keeping their actual 
functions.

One problem is that some publishers seem to consider as a threat any pressure 
to change the still dominant dissemination (or "business") model, whose 
inadequacy is now widely recognized among the scientific community (but not by 
the shareholders, of course).

So, I think that nobody can honestly state either  #1 or  #2 above as is. But 
one could say that:

- the scholarly publication world is due (and has begun) to change in a 
profound way;

- that nobody knows exactly what this change will be, or what role Green OA 
will play in it;

- that Green OA is a legitimate demand, made in the public interest by (among 
others) publicly paid and funded researchers giving, as authors and reviewers, 
their works and their time for free;

- that those responsible for public policy (and use of taxpayers' money) are 
expected to put the public interest above that of private entities.

Marc Couture

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

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

I believe that Stevan is logically right on all counts, but one problem
remains that is not addressed here: people decide upon the behaviour on
the basis of a mixed bag of facts and conjectures. Facts are used to
constrain conjectures within the general perimeter of a risk analysis.

Each category of players (researchers, librarians, publishers) follows
its own kind of risk analysis.

In short, facts are distinct from conjectures, but acts also differ from
adventures...

How people decide to act or not cannot avoid risk analysis aka
conjectures

Stevan's analysis covers the logical side of the argument flawlessly;
whether it covers the psychology of the players is a different matter.
In particular, I worry that this starkly logical approach may not be the
best way to convince people. If it were, we would no longer need
rhetoric and life might be simpler, but this is an unrealistic
assumption.

Jean-Claude Guédon







Le samedi 14 septembre 2013 à 15:09 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Peter Murray-Rust 
> wrote:
>  
> PM-R: Stevan Harnad's goal [is] that Green OA will destroy the
> subscription market
> 
> (http://poynder.blogspot.ch/2013/07/where-are-we-what-still-needs-to-be.html )
> 
> 
> 
> My only goal is (and always has been) 100% OA: no more, no less. 
> 
> 
> The means of attaining that goal is Green OA mandates from funders and
> institutions.
> 
> 
> The mandates require authors (1) to deposit their final, refereed
> drafts in their institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance
> for publication 
> 
> 
> and (2) to set access to the immediate-deposit as OA as soon as
> possible 
> 
> 
> and (3) to rely on the repository's facilitated copy-request Button to
> provide Almost-OA during any embargo/
> 
> 
> The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> PM-R: On the one hand the advocates of Green OA seem to be
> telling the publishers "please give us Green OA mandates -
> they won't hurt you" and on the other "Green OA is going to
> disrupt your business".  
> 
> 
> No. Green OA advocates are asking funders and institutions "please
> give us Green OA mandates."
> 
> 
> What is asked from publishers is to endorse setting access to the
> immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- -- as over 60% of
> publishers already do--  rather than after an embargo.
> 
> 
> The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PM-R: Why should any publisher provide for deposition of
> something that is designed to disrupt their business? 
> 
> 
> 
> The immediate-deposit in the repository has nothing to do with the
> publisher. 
> 
> 
> What is helpful from publishers is to endorse setting access to the
> immediate-deposit as OA immediately -- as over 60% of publishers
> already do.
> 
> 
> The rest (about disruption, etc.) is all conjecture.
> 
> 
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> From:goal-boun...@eprints.org
> [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection
> 
> 
> End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, cilip): "In the interest
> of making research outputs publicly available; shorter and
> consistent or no embargo periods are the desired outcome.
> However, publishers… have argued that short embargo periods
> make librarians cancel subscriptions to their journals… The
> BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction."
> 
> 
>
> __
> 
> 
> I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that
> keeps being voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:
> 
> I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and
> unaffordable; publisher profits are excessive; the
> subscription (license) model is unsustainable: the
> subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to force it
> to evolve toward Gold OA.
> 
> II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened
> by (Green) OA, which risks making the subscription model
> unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be protected in
> order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA.
> 
> Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA
> for all who cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they
> disrupt the subscription model.
> 
> Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from
> all who cannot afford subscription access, and (d) they
> protect the subscription model from disruption.
> 
>

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Andrew A. Adams]

Journal cancellation rates are currently almost impossible to judge, at least 
for the big publishers because of the "big deals". The big deal subscriptions 
mean that many libraries are subscribing either to whole publisher 
archives/fleets or at least to whole subjects. In those circumstances 
institutions cannot unsubscribe from individual journals until and unless 
sufficient journals could be included to drop the price of the remaining 
necessary journal subscriptions to below the big deal cost.

All the cancellation (because of Green OA) talk is entirely speculative and 
pretty much impossible to model (because so many other things are also 
changing at the same time) that we must focus on cutting through the Gordian 
knot of "transitions to sustainable publishing" by mandating Green OA 
(Immediate Deposit/Optional Access where necessary) and let the disruptions 
to publishing take its course as it may.

Some argue that publishing and journals are so important to academia that we 
must be careful not to undermine them. I make the opposite evaluation: 
journals and peer review are so important to academia that if Green OA (so 
far as we can tell from some pretty decent evidence quickly achievable by 
Mandates [and only by mandates]) causes significant disruption to journal 
publishing viability, that the relevant communities would quickly find a way 
to ensure the survival of the important avenues of communications by means 
other than the current subscription model.

-- 
Professor Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration,  and
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


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

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Bo-Christer Björk]

I fully agree,

There would be no great harm done in the longer perspective if some of 
the current major publishers dissapeared from the market, as long as the 
access to older article in their electronic holdings are secured. They 
would just be replaced by other. Academics need good journals for many 
reasons, partly because of recognition and evaluation reasons. Good and 
top journals have usually not been created through design but through a 
Darwinian selection process where authors, reviewers and academic 
editors flock to journals which become the leading ones in their fields, 
and these journals in many fields are not always more expensive to 
operate, since the major cost difference to lower prestige journals is 
in the amount of unpaid voluntary work going into the peer review part. 
And this is large managed by academic editors as well.  I see no danger 
to the quality of scientific article publishing. People are still able 
to fly around the world even if many major airlines who haven't been 
able to adapt to changing market  conditions have gone bankrupt.

Best regards
Bo-Christer


  9/16/13 12:42 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> Journal cancellation rates are currently almost impossible to judge, at least
> for the big publishers because of the "big deals". The big deal subscriptions
> mean that many libraries are subscribing either to whole publisher
> archives/fleets or at least to whole subjects. In those circumstances
> institutions cannot unsubscribe from individual journals until and unless
> sufficient journals could be included to drop the price of the remaining
> necessary journal subscriptions to below the big deal cost.
>
> All the cancellation (because of Green OA) talk is entirely speculative and
> pretty much impossible to model (because so many other things are also
> changing at the same time) that we must focus on cutting through the Gordian
> knot of "transitions to sustainable publishing" by mandating Green OA
> (Immediate Deposit/Optional Access where necessary) and let the disruptions
> to publishing take its course as it may.
>
> Some argue that publishing and journals are so important to academia that we
> must be careful not to undermine them. I make the opposite evaluation:
> journals and peer review are so important to academia that if Green OA (so
> far as we can tell from some pretty decent evidence quickly achievable by
> Mandates [and only by mandates]) causes significant disruption to journal
> publishing viability, that the relevant communities would quickly find a way
> to ensure the survival of the important avenues of communications by means
> other than the current subscription model.
>
>

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

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Thomas Krichel]

  Stevan Harnad writes

> It does not, because it is both arbitrary and absurd to cancel a journal
> because it is Green  rather than because their users no longer need it"

  It is not. There simply is not the money to buy all subscriptions, and
  the more a journal's contents can be recovered from the web the more
  the need for subscribing to it declines.

> But more important than any of that is the gross disservice that gratuitous
> public librarian announcements like that do to the OA movement:

  Libraries are not there to serve the OA movement.

> to get the money the UK has foolishly elected to throw at Fool's
> Gold unilaterally, and preferentially.

  I agree. But the subscription model is even more foolish.

  Let toll-gating publishers have embargoes till kingdom come.  If
  nobody reads the papers, authors, who need the attention of readers,
  will have to use the IR to place a version of the paper
  out. Scholars will find alternative ways to evaluate these papers.

> With friends like these, the OA movement hardly needs enemies.

  I'm all in favour of OA, but it will not happen until subscriptions
  decline. The more subscriptions decline the better for OA.

--

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Arthur Sale  wrote:

At a severe risk of offending Stevan, I write to say that my University has
> practised an almost-OA policy for at least 15 years that falls into neither
> the Green nor Gold category we offer a free (to the researcher)
> automated document delivery service to any researcher... for an article we
> do not subscribe to.
>

No offence at all!

But individual article access via
pay-to-view(e.g.,
interlibrary loan) -- like subscription access and license access --
are simply variants of the *toll access,* in contrast with which "open
access" was coined and to remedy which the OA movement was launched. It's
toll access no matter who is paying the access tolls. And OA means
toll-free online access.

There's nothing "almost-OA" about any kind of toll access. The button is
almost-OA because although it may not be immediate, and although it may not
be certain, it is certainly toll-free.

But none of this has anything to do with the Green/Gold distinction, which
is about whether the toll-free access is provided by the author (Green) or
the journal (Gold).

(I'm sure Arthur won't do it, but I hope no one else will come back with
"but the Gold OA APC is a toll, so Gold OA is toll-access too." For pedants
we could write out "toll-access" as "access-toll to the user or to the
user's institution." When an author (or his institution) pays to
*publish*(whether Gold-OA or non-OA) the payment is not a user access
toll. Everyone
agrees that the true expenses of publishing have to be paid by someone. But
only subscription/licence/pay-per-view pays them via access tolls, denying
access if the toll are not paid. Gold OA does not. And for Green OA,
subscriptions -- while they remain sustainable -- have already paid the
publication costs, so Green OA is just supplementary access, for those
whose institutions can't afford the subscription toll. -- What the "true
expense" of publishing is is another matter. By my lights, we won't know
till universal Green OA has prevailed. And I'm betting they will turn out
to be just the cost of implementing peer review.)

There is a delay sure, but it is the same delay as the Request-A-Copy
> button, and more certain.
>

Agreed that paid pay-per-view is more certain than the button (just as paid
subscription access and paid licensed access are). Bur I would not be sure
they're both equally delayed: In principle, a user could click a request
and the author could click to comply within one minute of one another, if
they are both at their keyboards. (Unlikely if one is in Oz!)

I'd also say that the uncertainty as to whether the author will comply is
rather small...


> These issues are complex. The subscription decisions we make in libraries
> are binary (either your subscribe or you don't), but the criteria we have
> to use in making those decisions are not binary—we're typically considering
> multiple criteria (relevance, price, cost per download, demonstrated
> demand, etc.) that exist on a continuum. One thing is for certain, though:
> the more a journal's content is available for free, and the quicker it
> becomes available for free, the less likely it is that we'll maintain a
> subscription. I think that's the only rational position to take when there
> are so many journals out there that our faculty want, and that we're not
> subscribing to because we're out of money.
>

Agreed.

But the point of contention was not about cancelling journals based on what
percentage of their content was Green OA but about cancelling journals *if
their publishers do not embargo Green OA*.

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

[GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

[Arthur Sale]

Perhaps Stevan, I should have added that our Document Delivery improves our
level of use of OA too. The Document Delivery people make a check that the
requested article is not available OA before they place a per-article order.
They know all the tricks. If found to be OA the requester is advised of the
location by email and enlightened about services such as DOAJ, BASE and
Google Scholar. We don't then give them the article, but make them get it
themselves. Thus we increase the skills and use of OA by our researchers (in
reading articles) and hope some of this rubs off on author behaviour. It
also automatically focuses on the more active researchers.

 

I agree about your Green and Gold characterization, because clearly this is
still in default a toll-access route, though a pay-per-article rather than a
pay-per-journal or bundle subscription.

 

In person I would argue with you about it being as much almost-OA as The
Button, and certainly much more reliable. This is an important factor for
researchers. However, I do not see any value in arguing that by email. You
are of course absolutely correct that viewed from Australia and New Zealand
(and China and Japan), Button requests are almost never instant because of
time-zones. With only 3% of the world's scientific literature being
Australian, it cannot be otherwise, even with 100% Green.

 

However, I will note that the policy encourages online usage by researchers,
and because it diverts money away from subscriptions towards the service, it
contributes to make the 'Kuhnian revolution' that we all desire in the
thinking of librarians and academics and the management of their budgets.
The service is funded by extra cancellations, of course - we don't have any
extra money. You can therefore rely that is run efficiently, of course. It
is then a small step to using the same or similar funds for APCs, and the
researchers need never notice! Well not much - they would have to forward
the APC invoice to the Library to pay. We also begin to think more about
article-quality rather than journal-quality, and that surely is a good
thing, for research,, peer-review functions, scientometrics, and OA.

 

Just thinking ahead, sensibly, really. A modest step, but it seems to work
well.

 

Arthur

 

From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf
Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013 2:25 PM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

 

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Arthur Sale  wrote:

 

At a severe risk of offending Stevan, I write to say that my University has
practised an almost-OA policy for at least 15 years that falls into neither
the Green nor Gold category we offer a free (to the researcher)
automated document delivery service to any researcher... for an article we
do not subscribe to. 

 

No offence at all!

 

But individual article access via pay-to-view
<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=q9A3UsyqMcjgyQHitICAAw#q=amsci+(subscri
ption+license+pay-per-view)+harnad>  (e.g., interlibrary loan) -- like
subscription access and license access -- are simply variants of the toll
access, in contrast with which "open access" was coined and to remedy which
the OA movement was launched. It's toll access no matter who is paying the
access tolls. And OA means toll-free online access.

 

There's nothing "almost-OA" about any kind of toll access. The button is
almost-OA because although it may not be immediate, and although it may not
be certain, it is certainly toll-free.

 

But none of this has anything to do with the Green/Gold distinction, which
is about whether the toll-free access is provided by the author (Green) or
the journal (Gold).

 

(I'm sure Arthur won't do it, but I hope no one else will come back with
"but the Gold OA APC is a toll, so Gold OA is toll-access too." For pedants
we could write out "toll-access" as "access-toll to the user or to the
user's institution." When an author (or his institution) pays to publish
(whether Gold-OA or non-OA) the payment is not a user access toll. Everyone
agrees that the true expenses of publishing have to be paid by someone. But
only subscription/licence/pay-per-view pays them via access tolls, denying
access if the toll are not paid. Gold OA does not. And for Green OA,
subscriptions -- while they remain sustainable -- have already paid the
publication costs, so Green OA is just supplementary access, for those whose
institutions can't afford the subscription toll. -- What the "true expense"
of publishing is is another matter. By my lights, we won't know till
universal Green OA has prevailed. And I'm betting they will turn out to be
just the cost of implementing peer review.)

 

There is a delay sure, but it is the same delay as the Request-A-Copy
button, and more certain. 

 

Agreed