[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.nlwrote: @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 and Dutch Ministers are apparently too vulnerable to the publishing lobby): (a)
[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I
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 AH and SS, the option of Green, but makes it clear his choice is Gold. Jeroen -NL Jeroen Bosman, vakspecialist Geowetenschappen Universiteitsbibliotheek Utrechthttp://www.uu.nl/bibliotheek email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto:j.bos...@uu.nl telefoon: 030-2536613 post: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht bezoek: kamer 2.50, Heidelberglaan 3. Utrecht web: Jeroen Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/nl/vakgebieden/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman profielen: Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 / Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK / ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 / Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero / VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ / Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619 blogt op: IM2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/ -EN Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian GeographyGeoscience Utrecht University Libraryhttp://www.uu.nl/library email: j.bos...@uu.nlmailto: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 Bosmanhttp://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman profielen: : Academiahttp://uu.academia.edu/JeroenBosman / Google Scholarhttp://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-IfPy3IJhl=en / ISNIhttp://www.isni.org/28810209 / Mendeleyhttp://www.mendeley.com/profiles/jeroen-bosman/ / MicrosoftAcademichttp://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/51538592/jeroen-bosman / ORCIDhttp://orcid.org/-0001-5796-2727 / ResearcherIDhttp://www.researcherid.com/ProfileView.action?queryString=KG0UuZjN5WmCiHc%252FMC4oLVEKrQQu%252BpzQ8%252F9yrRrmi8Y%253DInit=YesSrcApp=CRreturnCode=ROUTER.SuccessSID=N27lOD6EgipnADLnAbK / ResearchGatehttp://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeroen_Bosman/ / Scopushttp://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.url?authorId=7003519484 / Slidesharehttp://www.slideshare.net/hierohiero / VIAFhttp://viaf.org/viaf/36099266/ / Worldcathttp://www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n91-100619 blogging at: IM 2.0http://im2punt0.wordpress.com/ / Ref4UUhttp://ref4uu.blogspot.com/ - 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 wouter.gerrit...@wur.nlmailto: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
[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I
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_vipquotesview=quoteid=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 wouter.gerrit...@wur.nlwrote: @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 wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d wageningenur.nl/library @wowter http://twitter.com/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) as your justification, embargo Green OA self-archiving for as long
[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Bosman, J.M. j.bos...@uu.nl 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 http://roarmap.eprints.org/561/ with a very weak 18-month embargo, and Erasmus http://roarmap.eprints.org/295/ 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 in support of what cannot be described other than as a publisher's nocturnal fantasy
[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I
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_vipquotesview=quoteid=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 wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl 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 @wowter wowter.net From: goal-boun...@eprints.org
[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I
@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.nlmailto:wouter.gerrit...@wur.nl%0d wageningenur.nl/libraryhttp://wageningenur.nl/library @wowterhttp://twitter.com/Wowter/ wowter.nethttp://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) 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 and Dutch Ministers are apparently too vulnerable to the publishing lobby): (a) Research funders and institutions worldwide adopt an immediate-deposit mandate, requiring, as a condition of funding,
[GOAL] Re: The Journal Publisher Lobby in the UK Netherlands: Part I
Stevan is absolutely right that all we need is immediate deposit in archives. Gold policies are counter-productive. Gold policies designed to protect the interests of large high-profit commercial publishers are particularly likely to be counter-productive. One reason is that any such mandate is likely to increase costs, immediately for the mandating country and overall for the scholarly publishing industry. Possible counter-strategies: Do the countries involved have policies requiring procurement from the lowest bidder? If so, then perhaps gold OA should work to the benefit of the likes of PeerJ, PLoS ONE, Hindawi, not the big commercial publishers. The Elsevier open access license agreement illustrates why what looks like gold OA may not be gold OA at all, e.g. even with CC-BY Elsevier asks for an exclusive license to publish: http://www.elsevier.com/journal-authors/open-access/open-access-policies/author-agreement Let's start talking with faculty and research funding agencies about where they want money spent: to fund research and academic salaries, or to fuel 30-40% profit margins for a few large commercial scholarly publishers? Hints: how does the gold OA APCs of the large commercial publishers compare with funding typically provided to grad students, whether through scholarships, research or teaching assistantships? What about funding for part-time teachers? How does the APC cost compare with what is typically paid for a teacher to teach a course? I talked about this a bit (focusing on scholarly publishing per se rather than OA APCs) in my OA week talk at the University of Regina. As an example of this kind of analysis, consider the EBSCO serials price projections for 2014, in which publishers are expected to increase prices 6-8%: http://www2.ebsco.com/en-us/Documents/PriceProjections2014.pdf An 8% increase on a million-dollar contract (there are universities paying Elsevier much more than this) is $160,000. That's enough to fund a faculty salary or two - and that's just a typical one-year increase on top of the 30-40% profit margin. If we're cutting faculty positions while paying these kinds of increases, in effect we're cutting researcher jobs to fuel tiny percentage increases in already large profit margins for scholarly publishers. best, Heather Morrison On 2013-11-16, 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 VSNUhttp://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
