My reaction to the Royal Society statement is one of disappointment that a
Society with such a high reputation for academic rigour should produce a
statement containing so many conclusions based upon inaccurate assumptions,
not facts. Some examples:
1. For no organisation supporting open access is concern about publisher
profit levels the "primary factor guiding future developments in the
exchange of knowledge between researchers". The support for open access is
based upon principles for the dissemination of scholarly outputs, expressed
in the draft RCUK statement and similarly in statements from other
organisations. The Royal Society may disagree with the practical steps
proposed to apply those principles but it should not misrepresent the
motives of other organisations.
2. The statement that "it is assumed that the charges levied on authors ...
do not create a profit or surplus for the publisher" has no foundation in
fact. Certainly open access supporters argue for greater transparency in
costing and accountability when taxpayers' money is used for publication,
but the role of commercial open access publishers is recognised, as is the
value of a surplus to a learned society. Competition between open access
publishers will determine the level of profit or surplus the academic
community can afford.
3. The paragraph regarding the risk that many journals may cease to exist
links that risk to the use by authors of open access alternatives. There is
no evidence to support this analysis.
4. The next paragraph links the reduction in income from subscriptions to
the cessation of learned society activities. The evidence from a recent JISC
study is that learned societies cannot rely upon subscription income for
much longer, whatever happens about open access. Open access is not to blame
for falling subscriptions. If learned societies want to continue their
existing programmes, they have to look to alternative business models.
Fred Friend
JISC Consultant
OSI Open Access Advocate
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
E-mail ucylfjf_at_ucl.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ward, Bob" <Bob.Ward_at_ROYALSOC.AC.UK>
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society
Forum members who would rather read the text of the Royal Society's
statement themselves, rather than relying on Stevan Harnad's
misrepresentation of it, can do so at:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3882
Bob Ward
Senior Manager
Policy Communication
Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 04:14
To: AmSci Forum
Cc: Watson, Tim
Subject: Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society
NOT A PROUD DAY IN THE ANNALS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY
Stevan Harnad
The Royal Society's statement (below, with comments) is not only
ill-informed, failing even to grasp what either Open Access or the
proposed RCUK policy is about and for, but it is a statement for which
the Royal Society (RS), a venerable and distinguished institution, will
have profound reason to be ashamed in coming years.
The RCUK proposed to require RCUK-funded -- i.e., publicly-funded,
tax-payer-funded -- research journal articles to be made freely
available online to all those would-be users world-wide who cannot
afford access to the journal in which they were published. This is
called Open Access (OA) self-archiving; it is a supplement to -- not a
substitute for -- the existing peer-reviewed journal publishing system.
And it has already been practised, and has co-existed peacefully, with
the journal system for over a decade and half now (for researchers have
been self-archiving their articles for at least that long), even in
certain areas -- notably some branches of physics -- in which 100% of
the articles are being self-archived immediately upon publication or
even earlier, and have been for years. The physics publishers -- the
American Physical Society and Institute of Physics Publishing -- have
both reported publicly that they have detected no subscription decline
at all as a result of self-archiving.
"we asked the American Physical Society (APS) and the Institute of
Physics Publishing Ltd (IOPP) what their experiences have been over
the 14 years that arXiv has been in existence. How many
subscriptions
have been lost as a result of arXiv? Both societies said they could
not identify any losses of subscriptions for this reason and that
they do not view arXiv as a threat to their business (rather the
opposite -- in fact the APS helped establish an arXiv mirror site
at the Brookhaven National Laboratory)." [IOPP has since established
one too.]
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/
So why is the RS objecting? Because they are mixing up what the RCUK
*is* proposing to mandate -- which is Open Access (OA) self-archiving of
articles published in conventional, non-OA journals -- with what it is
*not* proposing to mandate, which is publishing in OA journals. (RCUK is
merely offering to help cover author costs for publishing in OA journals
if they wish to publish in OA journals.)
This crucial distinction is completely clouded over in the RS statement,
and the self-archiving mandate keeps being treated as if it were an OA
publishing mandate. The result is a large number of rather shrill and
intemperate non sequiturs that do the RS no credit, and will be recorded
to its shame in the same annals of scientific publishing that saw the
second scientific journal emerge from the same institution about 350
years ago. (France's Journal des Scavans was earlier, and the French,
to their credit, are not casting a shadow on its noble origins: The
CNRS, INSERM, INRA and INRIA are all supporting self-archiving -- but
perhaps they are closer to being the counterparts of the RCUK than the
RS, which seems here to have lost contact completely with the primary
raison d'etre of a learned society, which is to foster learned research.
RCUK, CNRS and the rest have seen clearly that maximising research
access in the online age maximises research progress, productivity and
impact. The Royal Society seems to be able to do nothing but worry about
something for which there exists no evidence whatsoever (and it is not
clear whether it would be a bad thing even if there were evidence for
it), namely, that self-archiving is tantamount to, or leads to, a
transition to OA publishing.
Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry into Scientific Publication (Mar
2004)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3618.html
"The Royal Society's contribution will, I believe, prove to be a bit
of a historic embarrassment for that venerable institution, the
first
of the scientific journal publishers (along with the French [Journal
des Scavans]). The RS's testimony is alas rather short-sighted and
not
very well-informed, and repeats many of the familiar canards about
OA:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/statements/StatementDetails.cfm?stat
ementid=252
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/press/showpresspage.cfm?file=510.txt
The RCUK policy proposal is about research, and what is optimal for
research and researchers. The Royal Society seems to feel its first
allegiance is to publishers, and what is optimal for them. And so strong
is this allegiance, that the RS does not even realise that it is
drubbing Peter (self-archiving) to pox Paul (OA publishing), even though
Paul is not what the RCUK is proposing to mandate.
In this misinterpretation (whether wilful or merely woolly, I cannot
presume to say) the RS is not alone. It makes common cause with other
publisher lobbies (such as ALPSP and STM) as well as the UK Science
Minister, Lord Sainsbury:
"Drubbing Peter to pox Paul"
Thursday December 2, 2004
Guardian Education
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higherfeedback/story/0,11056,1364556,00.
html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/43-guid.html
"The Royal Society and Open Access"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4196.html
> From: "Watson, Tim" <Tim.Watson_at_royalsoc.ac.uk> NOT FOR PUBLICATION OR
> BROADCAST BEFORE 00.01 GMT THURSDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2005 Royal Society
> warns hasty open access moves may damage science
>
> Funders may be forcing scientific researchers to change the way they
> publish scientific papers so quickly that disastrous consequences
> could result, the Royal Society warns today (Thursday 24 November
2005).
The RCUK self-archiving mandate has absolutely nothing to do with the
way researchers publish. They publish exactly as they always did. They
merely maximise access to their publications, by self-archiving them, to
maximise their usage and impact.
> In a position statement on the open access debate, the Royal Society
> welcomes advances in technology where the aim is to improve the
> exchange of knowledge between researchers and with wider society . But
> it calls for funders to undertake a proper study before making
> researchers deposit papers about their work in open access journals,
> archives and repositories.
In conflating into what it is that RCUK is "making" researchers do "open
access journals, archives and repositories," the RS effectively obscures
what the mandate is about and for.
What is being mandated is the deposit, in the fundee's institutional or
central web archive/repository, articles published in
*conventional* journals. There is no mandate to publish in an OA journal
(and one does not "deposit" in journals).
It is only this common-grave conflation that is giving even the
appearance that the RS is making a coherent, let alone justifiable, case
for its opposition to either Open Access or the RCUK proposal.
> The statement concludes: Careful forethought, informed by proper
> investigation of the costs and benefits, is required before
> introducing new models that amount to the biggest change in the way
> that knowledge is exchanged since the invention of the peer-reviewed
> scientific journal 340 years ago. Otherwise the exchange of knowledge
> could be severely disrupted, and researchers and wider society will
> suffer the resulting consequences.
No "new model" is being introduced (and certainly not the OA publishing
model); years of informed investigation have already gone on (but the RS
appears too concerned about hypothesised risks to its publishing
revenues to even pay attention and get it clear what is actually being
proposed); and all evidence is that what *is* being proposed -- which is
the self-archiving of all research journal articles resulting from RCUK
funded research -- will bring great benefits to research, researchers,
their institutions, their funders, and the tax-paying public that is
funding the funders and for whom the research is being done.
The RS seems preoccupied with only one thing: A hypothetical risk (for
which there exists no evidence) to the revenue streams of the publishers
of that research.
> The statement points out a number of problems that could arise from
> rushing towards untried and untested models which have not been shown
> to be sustainable and which could force the closure of existing
> peer-reviewed journals.
To repeat: No models are being mandated; self-archiving has been tried
and tested for a decade and half, has already reached 100% in several
subareas of physics years ago, and has not diminished publishers'
revenues at all.
OA publishing and the OA publishing model are not being mandated. This
is pure conflation, as well as counterfactual speculation (about dire
consequences for which there exists nothing but contrary evidence).
"Journal Publishing and Author Self-Archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence
and Fruitful Collaboration"
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/20-guid.html
"Maximising the Return on the UK's Public Investment in Research"
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html
> It adds: At least a third of all journals are published by
> not-for-profit organisations. The Royal Society and other learned
> bodies currently use their publishing surpluses to fund activities
> such as academic conferences and public lectures, which are also
> crucial to the exchange of knowledge. A loss of income by
> not-for-profit publishers would lead to a reduction in, or cessation
> of, these activities.
Is the RS then proposing that the activities that it funds with its
publishing surpluses should be subsidised by researchers' lost research
impact?
> The statement stresses that some funders want to force all researchers
> in all disciplines to adopt the same practice, without recognising
> crucial differences that exist across the range of scientific
> disciplines.
The practice in question is self-archiving, not OA publishing. And it
would be very useful if the RS were to point out which disciplines do
*not* benefit from maximising their the usage and impact of their
research output, and why.
> It states: Current practice in the publication of research results
> varies from discipline to discipline and from country to country. That
> is why publication practices vary across science and across the world.
> A young post-doctoral researcher in mathematics at an Ethiopian
> university has different needs and different means compared with an
> established senior research fellow in pharmacology at a UK company s
> laboratory. Increasing proportions of papers have authors from more
> than one discipline or more than one country. A one-size-fits-all
> model is unlikely to benefit everybody, and may cause significant
problems.
This is all supremely irrelevant. None of this is touched by RCUK's
proposed self-archiving mandate. There is no model, and certainly not
the OA publishing model that the RS is obsessed with fending off here.
At issue is a *practice*, a new one, born of the Web era and the new
possibilities it has opened up for research access and usage, and that
practice is to supplement the access that is already enjoyed by
researchers to the publisher's proprietary version of articles in the
journals that their institutions can afford (most institutions can
afford only a small fraction, none can afford most or all), with access
to the self-archived author's draft for those who cannot afford access
to the publisher's proprietary version -- in order to maximise research
usage and impact.
None of this knows either disciplinary or national differences:
maximising research access by supplementary self-archiving maximises
research impact everywhere, and in every field -- and a wealth of
growing studies is repeatedly confirming this:
http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
> The worst-case scenario is that funders could force a rapid change
> in practice, which encourages the introduction of new journals,
> archives and repositories that cannot be sustained in the long term,
> but which simultaneously forces the closure of existing peer-reviewed
> journals that have a long-track record for gradually evolving in
> response to the needs of the research community over the past 340
> years. That would be disastrous for the research community.
Again, this is a wholesale conflation of self-archiving with OA
publishing, and counterfactual speculation about a disaster scenario
that all existing evidence to date contradicts.
> The statement highlights the Royal Society s concern that the approach
> of some organisations to the open access debate is threatening to
> hinder rather than promote the exchange of knowledge between
researchers .
There is not the slightest hint that self-archiving in particular, nor
those who promote it, hinder the exchange of knowledge; but there is
plenty of face-valid evidence that blinkered efforts like the RS's to
oppose self-archiving hinder the exchange of knowledge between
researchers hugely.
> It continues: This is partly because some participants in the debate
> appear to be trying to pursue another aim, namely to stop commercial
> publishers from making profits from the publication of research that
> has been funded from the public purse. While some companies do appear
> to be making excessive profits from the publication of researchers
> papers, this should not be the primary factor guiding future
> developments in the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
The Gaussian distribution is such that it guarantees participation from
its extrema in any large enough population (and the OA movement is a
large, global one): But the RCUK merely proposes to mandate that
researchers self-archive their RCUK-funded research to maximise its
access and impact, and the RS detects a concerted attack on publishers'
profits.
(It is true that librarians have been making a lot of [justifiable]
noise about the high price of journals. But self-archiving is by and for
research and researchers and has nothing to do with attacks on
publishers, commercial or royal!)
> The full text of the position statement follows. The Royal Society is
> also publishing today its response to RCUK s proposals on open access
.
>
> NOTES FOR EDITORS
>
> 1. The Royal Society is an independent academy promoting the
> natural and applied sciences. Founded in 1660, the Society has three
> roles, as the UK academy of science, as a learned Society, and as a
> funding agency. It responds to individual demand with selection by
> merit, not by field. The Society s objectives are to:
> * strengthen UK science by providing support to excellent
individuals
> * fund excellent research to push back the frontiers of knowledge
> * attract and retain the best scientists
> * ensure the UK engages with the best science around the world
> * support science communication and education; and communicate and
> encourage dialogue with the public
> * provide the best independent advice nationally and
internationally
> * promote scholarship and encourage research into the history of
> science For further information contact:
>
> Tim Watson or Bob Ward
> Press and Public Relations
> The Royal Society, London
> Tel: 020 7451 2508/2516 Mobile: 07811 320346
>
> Royal Society position statement on open access
>
> One of the founding purposes of the Royal Society in 1660 was to
> promote the exchange of knowledge between scholars. Fellows of the
> Royal Society introduced the practice of scientists independently
> evaluating each other s work, a practice now known as peer review, and
> in 1665 established the first peer-reviewed scientific journal,
> Philosophical Transactions , which the Society still publishes today.
>
> The Society remains as committed now as it was when it was founded to
> promoting the exchange of knowledge,
I would say that the stance of the RS on the RCUK's proposed
self-archiving mandate belies either the RS's commitment to promoting
the exchange of knowledge, or its own grasp of what it is doing, why.
> not just between scholars, but with
> wider society. The Society carries this out through lectures,
> meetings, conferences and publications, including seven peer-reviewed
journals.
>
> Recent technological advances are leading to dramatic changes in the
> exchange of knowledge, and particularly the publication of journals.
> One of the most important changes is the publication of articles and
> papers on the world wide web, rather than solely in the form of
> printed journals. Most journals now have electronic versions on the
> world wide web and this has increased access to scientific papers.
Why are we being told these pious period platitudes?
And another conflation is creeping in: Virtually all the major journals
now have both print and online editions: Is that what is meant by
"publishing on the web"? Or does it mean online-only journals (there are
a few)? Or OA journals? Or is it being conflated with the web
self-archiving of published journal articles (irrespective of whether
the journals were paper-only, paper and online, as most are, or online
only)?
This is pure equivocation, in the service of blurring the distinction
between OA self-archiving and OA publishing.
> Further advances in technology, and the growth in the use of the
> internet, has now prompted a wider debate about access to research
> results. Among the issues is whether publication on the world wide web
The equivocation again: What is this? The dual publishing that most
journals already practice? Or OA publishing? Or OA self-archiving (which
is *no* kind of publishing)?
> might allow even more people both within and outside the research
> community to access research results if they were allowed to do it
> free of charge rather than have to pay for subscriptions to journals.
> A number of different sources of access through the world wide web are
> currently in development, commonly referred to under the collective
> term of open access.
It would be nice to clearly and forthrightly distinguish the two main
ones of them: OA self-archiving (of articles published in conventional
journals) and publishing in OA journals. Otherwise the "collective term"
becomes a common-grave, marked "OA publishing" (conflating Peter and
Paul).
> The Royal Society welcomes the exploration of these new developments
> where the aim is to improve the exchange of knowledge between
> researchers and with wider society. At present, all papers appearing
> in Royal Society journals can be accessed free of charge 12 months
> after their publication.
That's splendid, But research progress does not wait 12 months to to
access, apply, and build upon published findings: Why should published
findings wait 12 months to be used by those who cannot afford access?
What is the RS's justification for this 12-month embargo on research
access and impact? That that lost research impact is needed to
subsidise the RS's other activities? That's a good justification for the
RS not becoming an OA publisher, but what sort of justification is it
for the RS's attempt to prevent (immediate) OA self-archiving by RCUK
fundees?
> However, the Society believes that the approach of some organisations
> to the open access debate is threatening to hinder rather than promote
> the exchange of knowledge between researchers. This is partly because
> some participants in the debate appear to be trying to pursue another
> aim, namely to stop commercial publishers from making profits from the
> publication of research that has been funded from the public purse.
> While some companies do appear to be making excessive profits from the
> publication of researchers papers, this should not be the primary
> factor guiding future developments in the exchange of knowledge
> between researchers.
As noted above, the RS is here conflating (1) the librarian community's
struggle against high journal prices with (2) the movement for a
transition to OA publishing as well as (3) the RCUK self-archiving
mandate (which has nothing to do with either the librarians' struggle to
lower journal prices (1) nor the OA publishing advocates' efforts to
effect a transition to OA publishing (2). It is only about maximising
the impact of RCUK-funded research (3).
> The process of disseminating research results through peer-reviewed
> papers costs time and money. Authors must invest time in preparation
> of the paper, and in some cases must pay journal charges for
> typesetting and other services. Journals incur charges through the
> process of reviewing papers and then publishing those that are
> accepted. Journals recover these costs primarily by charging
> subscription fees, and occasionally through sponsorship and selling
> advertising space. Most journals make profits for commercial
> publishers, and surpluses for academic publishers, such as learned
> societies and professional associations, which are invested in
science-related charitable activities.
Why are we being told this? This is not about changing publishing
models, it is about maximising research access.
> Some of the new models for publishing papers on the world wide web
> involve charging authors for the submission and/or publication of
> papers, but not charging anybody for access to the papers. Some of
> these author-pays models are in the form of open access journals which
> still carry out the reviewing and publishing process. A number of
> journals operating on these author-pays models have now been launched.
And they have absolutely nothing to do with the RCUK self-archiving
mandate.
> Other models include online repositories and archives for electronic
> versions of papers that are deposited by authors themselves. Not all
> of these papers have been subjected to a quality control process, such
> as peer review and acceptance for publication by a journal. Some
> authors choose to deposit papers in online archives and repositories
> without submitting to journals for peer review or waiting until they
> have completed peer review.
This too is completely irrelevant. The RCUK is mandating the
self-archiving of peer-reviewed, published journal articles. Whatever
else researchers may or may not choose to self-archive is none of the
RCUK's business, or the RS's. Why is it being cited here? To conflate
journal article self-archiving with the self-archiving of wedding photos
and vanity texts?
> For many of these new models, it is assumed that the charges levied on
> authors cover the costs of reviewing and publishing, and do not create
> a profit or surplus for the publisher. A number of web-based open
> access journals, repositories and archives currently exist, having
> been developed in specific disciplines. No overall survey of their
> success has been carried out, and although some appear to be working
> quite well (such as the arXiv archive for papers in physics,
> mathematics, non-linear science, computer science, and quantitative
> biology), others appear to be having trouble balancing the books and
> their long-term survival is not ensured.
What on earth does the longevity of an archive have to do with the
longevity of a journal, OA or otherwise? In 350 years, is the RS going
to look back with pride on this self-interested double-talk?
> Ultimately the long-term success of any journal, repository or archive
> will depend on whether researchers use it for publishing and accessing
> papers, and whether it can balance the books.
The RS's self-induced and groundless anxieties about the future of its
own account-books has made it conflate publishing expenses and
institutional repository expenses: Does the RS wish to reckon in web
infrastructure costs and research staff life insurance too?
> However, pressure is being applied by some funders, particularly in
> biomedicine, who are lobbying for a substantial increase in the pace
> at which web-based open access journals, repositories and archives are
> being developed, with the emphasis on immediate open access, and who
> are promoting the idea that all research results in all fields should
> be published in this way. As a result, the Royal Society believes that
> there is a lack of consideration of the potential impact of the open
> access models, and there is a danger that the overall aim of improving
> the exchange of knowledge between researchers and with wider society
> will not be realised.
The RS is here doing battle against the advocates of OA publishing. It
would be a good idea to leave advocates of OA self-archiving out of
this. It's not the same battle.
> Among the potential dangers are that researchers will stop submitting
> papers or subscribing to existing journals, particularly if they
> choose only to deposit papers in repositories and archives.
There is zero evidence for submission loss as a result of
self-archiving, just as there is zero evidence for subscription loss.
These are counterfactual fantasies being proposed as if all the evidence
to the contrary from over a decade and a half of self-archiving did not
exist to refute them.
> If many journals
> cease to exist, without any guarantee that open access alternatives
> will offer the same range of options, for instance in terms of serving
> all sub-disciplines, the opportunities for publishing research results
> might diminish.
We get deeper and deeper into a counterfactual conditional argument
here, and one not only contrary to all evidence but contrary to logic,
in treating (1) OA publishing and (2) author OA self-archiving of
articles published in non-OA journals as if both were OA publishing.
> If existing journals suffer a reduction in income from subscriptions,
> this could have a severely detrimental effect on learned societies and
> professional associations which invest their publishing surpluses in
> activities and services for the research community. At least a third
> of all journals are published by not-for-profit organisations. The
> Royal Society and other learned bodies currently use their publishing
> surpluses to fund activities such as academic conferences and public
> lectures, which are also crucial to the exchange of knowledge. A loss
> of income by not-for-profit publishers would lead to a reduction in,
> or cessation of, these activities.
First, the doomsday scenario is counterfactual speculation. Second, does
the RS really believe that it serves the interests of research and
researchers if it expects them to knowingly subsidise the RS's surpluses
and activities with their own continuing impact losses?
> Few of the proposed new models for open access publishing appear to
> have been properly assessed financially and shown to be sustainable.
> Although many are being set up initially with grants, it is not clear
> that they could continue to operate for any length of time. The
> introduction and then loss of new open access publications could
> result in an overall reduction in the opportunities for researchers to
publish their results.
We are clearly in the midst of an attack by the RS on OA publishing
here:
Why? Or, rather, why has OA self-archiving been dragged into it?
> One cost, both financially and in terms of the time invested by
> members of the research community, that will exist for any model is
> the process of peer review. Without high quality peer review as a
> quality control mechanism and process through which papers are
> improved before publication, the exchange of knowledge between
> researchers would be greatly hampered. Any viable new open access
> model must adequately cover the costs of high quality, independent
peer review.
>
> Although much concern has been expressed about the profits gained by
> commercial publishers from the results of publicly-funded research
> under current practices, it is not often clear whether new models will
> deliver better value for money. New models that rely on public funds
> to operate open access journals or repositories could even cost the
> public purse more overall if they operate less cost-effectively and
> efficiently than existing alternatives.
Again, this argument against OA publishing (much of it easily answerable
by OA publishing advocates) is being levied in the same breath against
OA self-archiving ("or repositories"). Why? Drubbing Peter to pox
Paul...
> Furthermore, models in which researchers are charged to submit or
> publish papers introduce a new disincentive to the exchange of
> knowledge. Such financial barriers will be more acute for researchers
> with the least amount of funds, such as those at the very early or
> late stages of their careers or in developing countries. One
> consequence might be that the primary criterion for publication of
> results may become whether they are produced by researchers who can
> pay, rather than whether they are of wide interest to the rest of the
research community.
> A move towards a system that relies mainly on ability to pay rather
> than quality would profoundly undermine the exchange of knowledge.
>
> Current practice in the publication of research results varies from
> discipline to discipline and from country to country. That is why
> publication practices vary across science and across the world. A
> young post-doctoral researcher in mathematics at an Ethiopian
> university has different needs and different means compared with an
> established senior research fellow in pharmacology a UK company s
> laboratory. Increasing proportions of papers have authors from more
> than one discipline and more than one country. A one-size-fits-all
> model is unlikely to benefit everybody, and may cause the significant
problems outlined above.
Does any discipline or country differ from the rest in that it would
*not* benefit from maximising its research access and impact? If the
answer is no (as all evidence indicates), why, again, is this rhetorical
question being asked -- insofar as OA self-archiving is concerned?
> The worst-case scenario is that funders could force a rapid change in
> practice, which encourages the introduction of new journals, archives
> and repositories
Here goes the tireless conflation again...
> that cannot be sustained in the long term, but which simultaneously
> forces the closure of existing peer-reviewed journals that have a
> long-track record for gradually evolving in response to the needs of
> the research community over the past 340 years. That would be
> disastrous for the research community.
The counterfactual disaster scenario again: Like Pascal's Wager: "Do it
my way, as I have conjectured apocalyptic consequences otherwise."
(Should we not be making decisions based on objective evidence rather
than subjective scare-mongering, at mounting decibel levels?
> In view of this, the Royal Society welcomes an open debate between
> funders, researchers, institutions and publishers (both commercial and
> not-for-profit) about, the likely consequences of new models for the
> publication of research results, before they are introduced. To inform
> discussion, the Royal Society recommends a thorough study of proposed
> new models, including an assessment of the likely costs and benefits
> to all. Funders should resist the temptation to act before being
> informed by such a study, and should not introduce policies that force
> researchers to adopt new models that are untried and untested. In
> considering new models, funders should remember that the primary aims
> should be to improve the exchange of knowledge between researchers and
> wider society.
The RCUK is not forcing any new models! Models can be studied at
everyone's leisure. What should not be held up by this is something that
has nothing to do with it: immediately maximising research access and
impact by mandated self-archiving. That has already been demonstrated to
work, and to deliver the benefits promised, with no evidence to date of
any untoward consequences for anyone, including publishers.
> Careful forethought, informed by proper investigation of the costs and
> benefits, is required before introducing new models that amount to the
> biggest change in the way that knowledge is exchanged since the
> invention of the peer-reviewed scientific journal 340 years ago.
> Otherwise the exchange of knowledge could be severely disrupted, and
> researchers and wider society will suffer the resulting consequences.
No new models are being proposed, hence no grounds whatsoever have been
adduced by the RS for opposing what *is* being proposed: OA
self-archiving (Peter, not Paul).
Stevan Harnad
Professor of Cognitive Science
Department of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Highfield, Southampton
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
phone: +44 23-80 592-388
fax: +44 23-80 592-865
harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be
subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named
above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy,
disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this e-mail.
*************************************************************************
Received on Fri Nov 25 2005 - 01:11:50 GMT