On 2013-11-17, at 2:27 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblice...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Sandy Thatcher <s...@psu.edu> > Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:02:15 -0600 > > Why should Green OA not apply to books if and when the authors are > receiving no royalty payments? What difference is there in the > intellectual content that justifies treating them any differently? If > money is not involved as a reward to authors, why should they not be > under the same mandate as journal article authors? It seems artificial > to create this digital divide between books and journals. Both > contribute to the advance of knowledge, and access to both is > important.
One thing at a time, Sandy: Green mandates have not yet prevailed for journal articles,where the case is more clearcut and exception-free. (Let's not, like Stephen Leacock's fabled horseman, jump on a horse "and gallop off in all directions" (articles, books, data, software, Green, Gold, CC-BY.) There is one priority, and it will usher in all the rest: mandate Green for journal articles (Liège model immediate-institutional-deposit, whether or not embargoed, as a condition for funding, employment, evaluation). Do that, and we'll soon have 100% OA for articles, and then all the rest will follow too. Keep running off in all directions, as we've been doing for 10 years now, and we'll keep getting nowhere, fast… A word to the wise, from the wizened... Chrs, Stevan > > Sandy Thatcher > > > At 9:40 AM -0500 11/15/13, Stevan Harnad wrote: > > Commentary on "Open Access and Academic Freedom" in Inside Higher Ed > 15 November 2013, by Cary Nelson, former national president of the > American Association of University Professors > > ________________________________ > > If, in the print-on-paper era, it was not a constraint on academic > freedom that universities and research funders required, as a > condition of funding or employment, that researchers conduct and > publish research -- rather than put it in a desk drawer -- so it could > be read, used, applied and built upon by all users whose institutions > could afford to subscribe to the journal in which it was published > ("publish or perish"), then it is not a constraint on academic freedom > in the online era that universities and research funders require, as a > condition of funding or employment, that researchers make their > research accessible online to all its potential users rather than just > those whose institutions could afford to subscribe to the journal in > which it was published ("self-archive to flourish"). > > However, two kinds of Open Access (OA) mandates are indeed constraints > on academic freedom: > > 1. any mandate that constrains the researcher's choice of which > journal to publish in -- other than to require that it be of the > highest quality whose peer-review standards the research can meet > > 2. any mandate that requires the researcher to pay to publish (if the > author does not wish to, or does not have the funds) > > The immediate-deposit/optional-access (ID/OA) mandate requires authors > to deposit their final refereed draft in their institutional > repository immediately upon acceptance for publication, regardless of > which journal they choose to publish in, and regardless of whether > they choose to comply with an OA embargo (if any) on the part of the > journal. (If so, the access to the deposit can be set as Closed Access > rather than Open Access during the embargo, and the repository > software has a facilitated copy-request Button, allowing would-be > users to request a copy for research purposes with one click, and > allowing the author the free choice to comply or not comply, likewise > with one click.) > > Since OA is beneficial to researchers -- because it maximizes research > downloads and citations, which universities and funders now count, > along with publications, in evaluating and rewarding research output > -- why do researchers need mandates at all? Because they are afraid of > publishers -- afraid their publisher will not publish their research > if they make it OA, or even afraid they will be prosecuted for > copyright infringement. > > So OA mandates are needed to embolden authors to provide OA, knowing > they have the support of their institutions and funders. And the ID/OA > mandate is immune to publisher embargoes. Over ten years of experience > (of "performing a useful service by giving faculty a vehicle for > voluntary self-archiving") have by now shown definitively that most > researchers will not self-archive unless it is mandatory. (The only > exceptions are some fields of physics and computer science where > researchers provide OA spontaneously, unmandated.) So what is needed > is a no-option immediate-self-archiving mandate, but with leeway on > when to make the deposit OA. This is indeed in a sense "optional Green > OA," but the crucial component is that the deposit itself is > mandatory. > > Funding is a red herring. Most universities have already invested in > creating and maintaining institutional repositories, for multiple > purposes, OA being only one of them, and the OA sectors are vastly > under-utilized -- except if mandated (at no extra cost). > > The ID/OA mandate requires no change in copyright law, licensing or > ownership of research output. Another red herring. > > There are no relevant discipline differences for ID/OA either. Another > red herring. And the need for and benefits of OA do not apply only to > rare exceptions, but to all refereed research journal articles. > > OA mandates apply only to refereed journal articles, not books. > Another red herring (covering half of Cary Nelson's article!). > > As OA mandates are now growing globally, across all disciplines and > institutions, it is nonsense to imagine that researchers will decide > where to work on the basis of trying to escape an OA mandate -- and > with ID/OA there isn't even anything for them to want to escape from. > > The ID/OA mandate also moots the difference between journal articles > and book chapters. And it applies to all disciplines, and publishers, > whether commercial, learned-society, or university. > > Refereed journal publishing will adapt, quite naturally to Green OA. > For now, some publishers are trying to forestall having to adapt to > the OA era, by embargoing OA. Let them try. ID/OA mandates are immune > to publisher OA embargoes, but publishers are not immune to the rising > demand for OA: > > Paying for Gold OA today is paying for Fool's Gold: Research funds are > already scarce. Institutions cannot cancel must-have journal > subscriptions. So Gold OA payment is double-payment, over and above > subscriptions. And hybrid (subscription + Gold) publishers can even > double-dip. If and when global Green OA makes journal subscriptions > unsustainable, journals will downsize, jettisoning products and > services (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving) > rendered obsolete by the worldwide network of Green OA repositories) > and they will convert to Fair Gold, paid for peer review alone, out of > a fraction of the institutions windfall subscription cancellation > savings. > > It is not for the research community to continue depriving itself of > OA while trying to 2nd-guess how publishers will adapt. That -- and > not OA mandates -- would be a real constraint on academic freedom: The > publishing tail must not be allowed to continue to wag the research > dog. _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal