(1). I hope we have now laid to rest the absurd notion of cancelling journals because they do *not* embargo Green OA.
(2) As to monitoring what proportion of articles published in the current year are OA (and how soon): This is a huge ongoing *global* undertaking, and several teams (including ours) are working on it. (3) The notion of doing (2) *locally*, with a view to cancelling journals once a target percentage of their contents is Green OA, is extremely premature, hence extremely unrealistic, but, worse than that, it is extremely counterproductive. (4) It is counterproductive because it creates an air of imminent cancellation when in fact* there is no cancellation (and very little OA) in sight.* (5) Hence all it does is spook publishers -- not with the actual growth of OA, but with librarians hopeful but purely notional preparations for journal cancellation, should OA ever really begin to grow. (6) And for OA to really begin to grow, we need effective Green OA mandates. (7) And although I want to stress that it is not *essential* for the effectiveness of Green OA mandates, it is very helpful for Green OA mandates if publisher Green OA embargoes are zero or minimal. (8) Yet it is precisely the publisher impulse to adopt non-zero Green OA embargoes, and lengthen them, that is needlessly encouraged by librarians giving in to their own self-defeating impulse toward *abrogatio praecox*. Journal users need immediate access, not access after a 6-12-24 month embargo or longer. As we will soon report, the percentage of *immediate* Green OA in almost all institutional repositories is still extremely low (under 10%) -- even in most of the 1% of them that have Green OA mandates. (Chances are that the percentage of immediate Green OA on other websites is even lower.) The exceptions are the few institutions that have adopted the strongest Green OA mandate -- the mandate model that is now recommended by BOAI-10, HEFCE and BIS: Immediate-Deposit (not immediate-OA) required as a condition for eligibility for performance review, research assessment and funding, coupled with the Almost-OA eprint-request Button to tide over individual user requests during any embargo. Once deposited, papers are just one click from being made OA; and all the individual clicks to provide Almost-OA apply mounting pressure to set access as OA once and for all. This mandate would work even if all publishers embargoed OA, because immediate-deposit is mandatory whether or not there is a publisher embargo on setting access to the deposit as OA. Currently the immediate-deposit mandate can generate 60% immediate-OA and 40% Almost-OA. But if librarians spook publishers with their hopeful but empty notional gestures toward abrogatio praecox, they can drive that closer to 0% immediate-OA and 100% Almost-OA, which means loss of immediate-OA in exchange for absolutely no gain in cancellations. Your call... *Stevan Harnad* On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Ellen Finnie Duranceau <efin...@mit.edu>wrote: > With this debate underway, I’ve been trying to picture a reasonable > workflow that would assess the rate of immediate green OA via publisher’s > self-archiving policy and use it effectively in a collections process. I > have been unable to come up with any scenario that seems solid enough to > even experiment with, let alone deploy, in a research library. **** > > ** ** > > For this exercise, I’m leaving aside any broader goals of wider > distribution of publicly funded research, etc., or any philosophical > factors, and am just focusing on providing sufficient service to one’s own > community.**** > > ** ** > > First, we have the problem that a wide sampling from any given journal > would be required, since author practices in self-archiving vary. This > sampling would also have to be repeated regularly, and take in several > sample years, since practices will vary over time. **** > > ** ** > > Whoever performs this sampling would also have to be trained in > recognizing the version of articles, since presumably one wants the > peer-reviewed version available to one’s faculty and researchers and > students. This would require, in many cases, comparing the manuscript with > the version of record (which, please note, is only available to you if you > subscribe).**** > > ** ** > > After all the sampling is done and a spreadsheet created, one would then > have to calculate what percentage of the journal was openly available (and > whether that percentage was acceptable – this would have to be a very high > number, presumably), and after what time period. This would not be an easy > feat, as one has to have numbers representing the total number of articles > in order to make the comparison, and as far as I’m aware, this would > involve manually tabulating the number of articles in each issue (again > possibly through sampling). Then this information would have to be used > in conjunction with other important data such as usage level, faculty > interest and feedback, cost, etc. (Let’s leave aside for the moment that > this whole approach would only be responsible if one had buy-in from the > community one is serving.)**** > > ** ** > > If the decision were taken to cancel the journal, assuming here that the > decision rested in part on the availability of OA manuscripts, then one > would also have to have a cycle of returning to those titles to be sure a > certain acceptable percentage was still available. This would be > necessary because author practices vary and there is no reason at all to > assume that because for one year, a good percentage of a journal was OA, > that will be true the next year. So perhaps a continuous sampling would be > required. We are now talking about a dramatic impact on staff resources, > so some other work would need to be stopped or slowed. **** > > ** ** > > Then, if one wants to continue to sample post cancellation, as would seem > to be necessary, in many cases one would need the version of record to > compare with, to be sure one is looking at the peer-reviewed version. Yet > this version would not be available once the cancellation had taken place. > So staff would be operating without solid information in future sampling, > as it can be difficult to tell a preprint from a postprint without the > version of record as a comparison point.**** > > ** ** > > Now we add in the practical reality that if any number of libraries > followed this labor-intensive workflow and reassigned staff from other > tasks to do it, within a year or two, the publishers would simply change > their green OA policy for authors, removing it entirely or adding an > embargo.**** > > ** ** > > So then the library has the problem of having to track these publisher > policy changes --- that in itself would require a labor-intensive workflow > I won’t try to lay out, as there is no reliable and targeted signaling > process for such changes—and then resubscribe. That could be tricky, as > possibly the necessary funds would have already been diverted. Even if > funds were available, it would be exceedingly labor intensive to > resubscribe and decide about and act upon filling any gaps in access, which > could create confusion if left as gaps, as well as updating relevant > metadata so useful services like SFX linking. Perhaps one would fill the > gaps/restore the access via pay-per-view, but now we are talking about > having to do another analysis about whether that is cost-effective.**** > > ** ** > > (Let’s also recall that while the journals were cancelled, SFX buttons > weren’t taking users from finding resources like Compendex, Inspec, Web of > Knowledge, etc. to journal articles. Known article searches may have been > functioning, but index-based searching that links to the actual documents > to assist those new to a topic area would have been limited to subscribed > titles.)**** > > ** ** > > When looking at how to operate in this evolving ecosystem, I imagine we > all agree it’s important to use funds and staff resources wisely, and to > look beyond a quarter or a year in thinking about the impacts of > decisions. Without considering any philosophical or social goals (no > matter how mission-relevant, or noble), and looking just at the practical > need of providing key research articles to a community, I do not see a > viable workflow that seems worth testing even on a trial basis.**** > > ** ** > > This is probably part of the reason you do not hear about libraries > cancelling journals based on availability of OA manuscripts. I would also > guess that if the numbers were run, there would not be any journals to > cancel, as author practices in this area are not consistent.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Ellen Duranceau**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > __________________**** > > ** ** > > Ellen Finnie Duranceau**** > > Program Manager, Scholarly Publishing and Licensing **** > > MIT Libraries**** > > P 617 253 8483**** > > efin...@mit.edu**** > > http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly**** > > ** ** > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Heather Morrison > *Sent:* Monday, September 16, 2013 5:13 PM > *To:* Stevan Harnad > *Cc:* Friend, Fred; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum; SPARC Open Access > Forum; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); Rick Anderson > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Cancelling because contents are > Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA**** > > ** ** > > Librarians are a much more collaborative profession than most, but > librarians do not all share the same opinions or work in the same > environments.**** > > ** ** > > At most academic libraries, librarians do not have the ability to > unilaterally cancel journals. If librarians did have this power, some of > the "big deal" publishers might have disappeared a long time ago. Physics > journals have not experienced cancellations in spite of near 100% > self-archiving in arXiv because physicists value their journals and will > not allow their libraries to cancel.**** > > ** ** > > Rick Anderson's approach to actively seek OA material in order to cancel > is unique, in my opinion. Even other librarians with a similar philosophy > are unlikely to undertake the work to figure out what percentage is free, > or risk the wrath of faculty members who value their journals and/or do not > wish to do the extra work of searching in repositories. **** > > ** ** > > It would be interesting to see how much money Rick's library would save, > and compare this with how much they could save by cancelling a single big > deal with a high-cost publisher.**** > > ** ** > > best,**** > > ** ** > > Heather Morrison**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On 2013-09-16, at 5:06 PM, Stevan Harnad <amscifo...@gmail.com>**** > > wrote:**** > > > > **** > > The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's > friend or foe. **** > > ** ** > > (1) Cancelling journals when all or most of their contents have become > Green OA is rational and constructive -- but we're nowhere near there; and > whether and when we get there is partly contingent on (2):**** > > ** ** > > (2) Cancelling (or even announcing the intention to cancel) journals > because they allow Green OA is irrational, extremely short-sighted, and > extremely destructive (to OA) as well as self-destructive (to libraries).* > *** > > ** ** > > But I already have enough to do trying to get institutions and funders to > adopt rational and constructive OA mandates that researchers can and will > comply with. **** > > ** ** > > If libraries are not allies in this, so be it; we already have publishers > whose interests conflict with those of OA. If it's to be the same with > libraries, it's better we know it sooner rather than later.**** > > ** ** > > I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community > that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are > Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned.**** > > ** ** > > Stevan Harnad**** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Rick Anderson <rick.ander...@utah.edu> > wrote:**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that > just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't > mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might > be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher > makes that allowance?**** > > Yes.**** > > ** ** > > See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion:**** > > ** ** > > Yes, you raise a valid point. Just because a publisher allows complete and > unembargoed Green OA archiving of a journal doesn't mean that all of the > journal's content will end up being archived. So I would adjust the > categorical statement I made in my original posting thus: "My library will > cancel our subscriptions to any such journal, once we have determined that > a sufficient percentage of its content is being made publicly available > promptly and at no charge — promptness being assessed on a sliding scale > relative to the journal's relevance to our needs."**** > > ** ** > > Obviously, this will be relatively easy to do for new Green journals or > for journals that make the shift in the future. As for existing > Green-without-embargo journals, I'm currently discussing with my collection > development staff how we might cost-effectively review the list of > Green-without-embargo journal publishers found at http://bit.ly/1aOetHB and > see which of their journals we currently subscribe to, and which of these > we might be able to cancel. This would be a relatively time-intensive > project, but we have students working at service desks in my library who > could probably help.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what > the problem is **** > > **** > > I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above..**** > > ** ** > > Here it is again:**** > > ** ** > > 1. 60% of journals are Green **** > > ** ** > > 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA > than articles from non-Green journals**** > > ** ** > > 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because > they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for > user needs).**** > > ** ** > > 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are > either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. > **** > > ** ** > > Depending on what our goals are, reality can sometimes be > counterproductive. It's a reality that a subscription is less needed when > the content of the journal in question is freely available online. (It > matters, of course, what percentage of the content really becomes available > that way, and how quickly it will become available. But the more its > content is free and the faster it gets that way, the less incentive there > is for anyone, including libraries, to pay for access to it. And the > tighter a library's budget, the more sensitive its cancellation response > will be to the Green-without-embargo signal.)**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 5. Publicly announcing (as you did) that journals are to be > cancelled because they are Green rather than because they are either > unneeded or unaffordable is certain to induce Green publishers to stop > being Green and instead adopt and Green OA embargoes.**** > > ** ** > > Discussing reality may not always help to advance an OA agenda (or any > other agenda, for that matter), but eventually reality will always win. > Scolding people for talking about reality is ultimately much more > counterproductive than figuring out how to deal with it.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > 6. Library cancellation of Green journals will slow the growth of OA, > thereby compounding the disservice that such an unthinking (sic) policy > does both to users and to OA.**** > > ** ** > > It doesn't seem to me that OA is something to which we owe allegiance. It > seems to me that our goal should be a healthy, vital, and sustainable > scholarly communication environment that brings the maximum possible > benefit to the world. Deciding up front that OA is the only road to such > an environment has two seriously debilitating effects: first, it makes the > questioning of OA, or even of specific OA strategies, into a thoughtcrime > (as we've seen here today), and second, it precludes the consideration of > other, possibly promising options. **** > > ** ** > > Why on earth would scholars look to those that can't or won't discuss > these issues in a rational, reasonably objective way for guidance on how to > conduct their own scholarly communication?**** > > ** ** > > ---**** > > Rick Anderson**** > > Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections**** > > Marriott Library, University of Utah**** > > Desk: (801) 587-9989**** > > Cell: (801) 721-1687**** > > rick.ander...@utah.edu**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group. > To post to this group, send email to sparc-oafo...@arl.org > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum > **** > > ** ** > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscr...@arl.org.**** > > ** ** >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
