You mean re-publish of course. Formally. Peer-reviewed and edited.
Splendid idea. Especially the editing.
Jan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAX
I.ORG] On Behalf Of Arthur Sale
> Sent: 28 February 2007 04:52
> To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> Subject: Re: Reply to Jan Velterop, and a Challenge to "OA"
> Publishers Who Oppose Mandating OA via Self-Archiving
>
> This is worthy of a published piece, Stevan. Edited of course.
>
> I don't know how your fingers can type so much! Best wishes.
>
> Arthur
>
> PS. Will you be in Canada in June if I come a-calling? I know
> it is difficult to predict, but I am exploring a
> Round-The-World ticket.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> [mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-
> > ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> > Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2007 1:46 PM
> > To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
> > Subject: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Reply to
> Jan Velterop,
> > and
> a
> > Challenge to "OA" Publishers Who Oppose Mandating OA via
> > Self-Archiving
> >
> > ** Cross-Posted **
> >
> > The online age has given birth to a very profound conflict
> of interest
> > between what is best for (1) the research journal
> publishing industry,
> > on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what is best for (2)
> > research, researchers, universities, research institutions,
> research
> > funders, the vast research and development (R&D) industry, and the
> > tax-paying public that funds the research.
> >
> > It is no one's fault that this conflict of interest has emerged. It
> > was a consequence of the revolutionary new power and potential for
> > research that was opened up by the Web era. What is at
> stake can also
> > be put in very concrete terms:
> >
> > (1) hypothetical risk of future losses in publisher revenue
> > versus
> > (2) actual daily losses in research usage and impact
> >
> > The way in which this conflict of interest will need to be
> resolved is
> > also quite evident: The research publishing industry is a service
> > industry. It will have to adapt to what is best for
> research, and not
> > vice versa. And what is best for research, researchers,
> universities,
> > research institutions, research funders, the R&D industry and the
> > tax-paying public in the online age is: Open Access (free online
> > access).
> >
> > The research publishing industry lobby of course does not
> quite see it
> > this way. It is understandable that their first commitment
> is to their
> > own business interests, hence to what is best for their
> bottom lines,
> > rather than to something else, such as Open Access, and
> what is best
> > for research and researchers.
> >
> > But what is especially disappointing, if not deplorable, is when
> > so-called "Open Access" publishers take exactly the same stance
> > against Open Access (OA) itself (sic) that conventional
> publishers do.
> > Conventional publisher opposition to OA will be viewed,
> historically,
> > as having been a regrettable, counterproductive (and eventually
> > countermanded) but comprehensible strategy, from a purely business
> > standpoint. OA publisher opposition to OA, however, will be seen as
> > having been self-deluded if not hypocritical.
> >
> > Let me be very specific: There are two ways to provide OA: Either
> > individual authors make their own (conventionally)
> published journal
> > article's final draft ("postprint") freely accessible on
> the Web, or
> > their journals make their published drafts freely
> accessible on the Web.
> > The first is called "Green OA" (OA self-archiving) and the
> second is
> > called "Gold OA" (OA publishing).
> >
> > In other words, one of the forms of OA (OA publishing, Gold
> OA) is a
> > new form of publishing, whereas the other (Green OA) is not: it is
> > just conventional subscription-based publishing plus author
> self-help,
> > a supplement. Both forms of OA are equivalent; both
> maximize research
> > usage and impact. But one depends on the author and the
> other depends
> > on the publisher.
> >
> > Now both forms of OA represent some possible risk to publishers'
> > revenue
> > streams:
> >
> > With Green OA, there is the risk that the authors' free online
> > versions will make subscription revenue decline, possibly
> > unsustainably.
> >
> > With Gold OA, there is the risk that either
> subscription revenue will
> > decline unsustainably or author/institution publication
> charges will
> > not generate enough revenue to cover expenses (or make
> a profit).
> >
> > So let us not deny the possibility that OA in either form may
> > represent some risk to publishers' revenues and to their
> current way
> > of doing business. The real question is whether or not that
> risk, and
> > the possibility of having to adapt to it by changing the way
> > publishers do business, outweighs the vast and certain
> benefits of OA
> > to research, researchers, universities, research institutions,
> > research funders, the R&D industry and the tax-paying public.
> >
> > This question has been addressed by the various interested
> parties for
> > several years now. And after much (too much) delay and debate with
> > publishers, research funders as well as research institutions have
> > begun to take OA matters into their own hands by mandating Green OA:
> >
> > http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
> >
> > As a condition for receiving grants, fundees must
> self-archive in
> > their Institutional OA Repositories (or Central OA
> Repositories) the
> > final drafts of all resulting articles accepted for
> publication: The
> > European Research Council (ERC), five of eight UK
> Research Councils,
> > the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Wellcome
> Trust have
> > already mandated Green OA self-archiving. In the US
> both the Federal
> > Public Research Access Act (FRPAA) and a mandated upgrade of the
> > NIH Public Access Policy are likewise proposing a self-archiving
> > mandate. Similar proposals are under consideration in Canada,
> > individual European countries, and Asia.
> >
> > In parallel, Green OA mandates have been adopted by a number of
> > universities and research institutions worldwide,
> requiring all of
> > their institutional research output to be self-archived in their
> > Institutional OA Repositories.
> >
> > http://roar.eprints.org/
> >
> > These Green OA mandates by research funders and
> institutions have been
> > vigorously opposed by some (not all) portions of the publishing
> > industry: these opponents have already succeeded in delaying the
> > adoption of Green OA mandates on a number of occasions.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cms
> ctech/399/3990
> 3.
> > htm
> >
> > Nevertheless, the benefits of OA to research are so great
> that these
> > attempts to delay or derail the Green OA mandates are proving
> > unsuccessful.
> >
> > The issue I wish to address here is the stance of (some) Gold OA
> > publishers on the Green OA mandates: Most Gold OA
> publishers support
> > Green OA mandates. After all, a Gold OA journal is also, a
> fortiori, a
> > Green journal (as are about 65% of conventional journals),
> in that it
> > explicitly endorses OA self-archiving by its authors.
> >
> > http://romeo.eprints.org/
> >
> > But endorsing individual author self-archiving is not the same as
> > endorsing self-archiving mandates by funders and
> universities. So it
> > is not surprising that although most conventional journal
> publishers
> > endorse individual author self-archiving, many of them oppose
> > self-archiving mandates.
> >
> > So what about those Gold OA journals that oppose Green OA mandates?
> > This is an extremely telling question, as it goes straight to the
> > heart of OA, and the rationale and justification for
> insisting on OA.
> >
> > Gold OA journals rightly represent themselves as differing from
> > conventional journals in that they provide OA. To put it
> crudely, what
> > they propose to authors is: "Publish in my journal instead of a
> > conventional journal if you want your article to be Openly
> Accessible
> > to all users." (And, for those Gold OA journals that charge
> > publication
> > fees: "Publish in my journal instead of a conventional
> journal and pay
> > my publication fee if you want your article to be Openly
> Accessible to
> > all users.")
> >
> > Apart from that, there is the usual competition between
> journals: OA
> > journals competing with non-OA journals, and journals of all kinds
> > within the same field, competing among themselves. For conventional
> > journals and for OA Gold journals supported by
> subscriptions, there is
> > competition for subscription fees. For all journals there is
> > competition for authors. And for Gold OA journals that charge
> > publication fees, the competition for authors is compounded by the
> > competition for publication fees.
> >
> > What about OA itself? In order to be successful over its
> competition,
> > a product-provider or service-provider has to provide and
> promote the
> > advantages of his product/service over the competition. In the
> > competition between OA and non-OA journals, the cardinal
> advantage of
> > the OA journal is OA itself: OA journals provide OA, maximizing
> > research usage and impact, conventional journals do not. For
> > subscription-based Gold OA journals, OA is a drawing point. For
> > publication-fee-based Gold OA journals, OA is a selling point.
> >
> > So what about Green OA mandates? For the 35% of
> conventional journals
> > that have not endorsed OA self-archiving by their authors, their
> > opposition to Green OA mandates is just an extension of their
> > opposition to OA: We know where they stand. "What matters
> is what is
> > best for our bottom line, not what is best for research."
> >
> > For the 65% of conventional journals that are "Green" in that they
> > have endorsed OA self-archiving by their authors, those of
> them (their
> > percentage is not yet clear) that oppose Green OA mandates are in a
> > sense in conflict with themselves: "It's ok if individual authors
> > self-archive to enjoy the advantages of OA, but it's not ok
> if their
> > institutions or funders mandate that they do so." (This is
> an awkward
> > stance, rather hard to justify, and will probably succumb to the
> > underlying premise that OA is indeed an undeniable benefit to
> > research.)
> >
> > But then what about opposition to Green OA mandates from Gold OA
> > publishers -- publishers that are presumably 100% committed to the
> > benefits of OA for research? This is the stance that is the
> hardest of
> > all to justify. For the fact is that Green OA is in a sense a
> > "competitor" to Gold OA: It offers OA without constraints on the
> > author's choice of journal, and without having to pay
> publication fees.
> >
> > The only resolution open to a Gold OA publisher who wishes
> to justify
> > opposing Green OA mandates is to adopt *precisely the same
> argument*
> > as the one being used by the non-OA publishers that oppose Green OA
> > mandates: that it poses a potential risk to subscription
> revenues --
> > in other words, again putting what is best for publishers' bottom
> > lines above what is best for research, researchers, universities,
> > research institutions, research funders, the R&D industry and the
> > tax-paying public.
> >
> > Perhaps this was bound to come to pass in any joint venture
> between a
> > producer who is not seeking any revenue for his product (i.e., the
> > researcher-authors, their institutions and their funders)
> and a vendor
> > who is seeking revenue for the value he adds to the (joint) product.
> >
> > I happen to think that this will conflict-of-interest will
> only sort
> > itself out if and when what used to be a product -- a
> peer-reviewed,
> > published journal article, online or on paper -- ceases to be a
> > product at all (or at least a publisher's product), sold to the
> > user-institution, and becomes instead a service (the 3rd-party
> > management of peer review, and the certification of its outcome),
> > provided by the publisher to the author's institution and funder.
> >
> > http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/
> >
> > I also happen to think that only Green OA mandates can drive this
> > transition from the current subscription-based
> cost-recovery model to
> > the publication service-fee-based model, with the
> distributed network
> > of institutional OA repositories making it possible for journals to
> > offload all their current access-provision and archiving burden and
> > its costs onto the repositories, distributed worldwide, thereby
> > allowing journals to cut publication costs and downsize to become
> > providers of the peer-review service alone, with its reduced cost
> > recovered via institutional publication fees paid out of the
> > institutional subscription-cancellation savings.
> >
> > http://cogprints.org/1639/01/resolution.htm#4.2
> >
> > Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt,
> N. (2005)
> > Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful
> Co-Existence
> > and Fruitful Collaboration.
> > http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/
> >
> > But this is all hypothetical: We are not there now. Right now, the
> > cost of publication is being amply paid by subscriptions.
> Publishers
> > are hypothesizing that OA self-archiving mandates will make that
> > revenue source unsustainable -- but no actual evidence at
> all is being
> > provided to show either that the hypothesis is true, or
> when and how
> > quickly subscriptions will become unsustainable, if the
> hypothesis is
> > true. Most important, publishers are giving no indications
> whatsoever
> > as to why the transition scenario described above will not be the
> > (equally hypothetical, but quite natural) sequel to
> unsustainable subscriptions.
> >
> > Instead, the only thing publishers are offering is hypothetical
> > doomsday
> > scenarios: the destruction of peer review, of journals, and of a
> > viable industry. Then, on the pretext of the need to protect their
> > current revenue streams and their current ways of doing
> business from
> > this hypothetical doomsday scenario, publishers try to block OA
> > self-archiving mandates, despite OA's substantial demonstrated
> > benefits to all the other parties involved, viz,
> researchers, research
> > institutions and funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public
> > that funds the research.
> >
> > This is indeed a conflict of interest, although the future revenue
> > losses to the publishing industry are completely
> hypothetical, whereas
> > the current access/impact losses to research are real and already
> > demonstrated (to the satisfaction of all except the publishing
> > industry).
> >
> > I close with a reply to Jan Velterop, of Springer's "Open Choice":
> > Springer is a subscription-based, hybrid Green/Gold publisher: It
> > sells journals by subscription, it endorses author
> self-archiving, it
> > offers authors fee-based Gold OA as an option, and Jan
> opposes Green
> > OA mandates.
> >
> > This exchange begins with an attempt to justify (some) publishers'
> > (unjustifiable) insistence on the transfer of *exclusive* rights
> > (rather than just publishing rights) to the publisher; Jan suggests
> > that transferring exclusive rights is a form of "payment" by the
> > author to the publisher. Jan never says why the rights need to be
> > exclusive. Then Jan goes on to oppose mandating Green OA
> > self-archiving, as providing OA without paying for it. (No
> mention is
> > made of the fact that that all publishing costs are currently being
> > paid for already -- via
> > subscriptions...)
> >
> > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Velterop, Jan, Springer UK wrote:
> > >
> > > transfer of exclusive rights to a publisher is a form of
> 'payment'.
> > > Payment for the services of a publisher.
> >
> > Is that so? And then what are subscription revenues? A
> fringe benefit?
> >
> > (I would have thought that assigning a publisher the right
> to publish
> > and the exclusive right to collect revenues for selling an author's
> > work, without even paying any royalties to the author, was "payment"
> > enough for the value added by the publisher...)
> >
> > > The publisher subsequently uses these exclusive rights to sell
> > > subscriptions and licences in order to recoup his costs
> >
> > Why exclusive rights?
> >
> > > The advantage is seemingly for the author, who
> > > (mistakenly) has the feeling that he doesn't have to pay for the
> > > services of formal publication of his article, but who seldom
> > > realizes why he is asked to transfer exclusive rights.
> >
> > Authors are naive, but not quite as foolish as that. They know the
> > publisher needs to sell subscriptions to make ends meet.
> But what you
> > haven't explained is why the publisher needs *exclusive* rights in
> > order to do that.
> >
> > > The disadvantage is that payment in the form of exclusive rights
> > > limits access, because it needs a subscription/licence model to
> > > convert this form of 'payment' into money.
> >
> > Disadvantage or no disadvantage, subscriptions are currently making
> > ends meet quite successfully.
> >
> > And you still haven't said why the rights transferred need to be
> > exclusive.
> >
> > > And subscriptions/licences are by definition restrictive
> in terms of
> > > dissemination.
> >
> > No problem, once the author supplements the access provided by
> > subscriptions with free online access to his own
> self-archived draft
> > (Green OA), providing eprints to would-be users who cannot
> afford the
> > published version, exactly as authors had provided reprints
> in paper
> > days.
> >
> > > Article-fee supported open access publishing, where the
> transfer of
> > > exclusive rights is replaced by the transfer of money,
> consequently
> > > doesn't have the need for subscriptions and can therefore abolish
> > > all restrictions on dissemination.
> >
> > Yes. But where is the need for "article-fee supported open access
> > publishing" (Gold OA) at a time when (a) most journals are
> > subscription-based, (b) subscriptions are paying the costs of
> > publishing, and (c) all the author need do is self-archive
> (Green OA)
> > (and all the author's funder or institution need do is mandate it)?
> >
> > > Stevan Harnad c.s. will argue that none of this matters, because
> > > there is 'green', meaning that whatever 'exclusive'
> rights have been
> > > transferred, authors can still disseminate their articles via
> > > self-archiving in open repositories. In that model, having
> > > transferred 'exclusive' rights is meaningless, and that
> implies that the 'payment'
> > > that exclusive rights transfer actually is, has become worthless.
> >
> > (1) You have not yet replied about why the transferred
> rights need to
> > be exclusive.
> >
> > (2) Nor about what the problem is, as long as subscriptions
> are paying
> > for publication costs, as they are.
> >
> > (3) If you choose to invoke the hypothetical "doomsday" scenario --
> > that mandated self-archiving will cause cancellations and drive
> > subscriptions down to unsustainable levels -- by way of response,
> > kindly first cite
> > (3a) the evidence that self-archiving causes subscription
> > cancellations and (3b) the arguments and evidence as to why
> publishing
> > will not quite naturally make the adaptive transition to
> the Gold OA
> > cost-recovery model that you favor, if and when self-archiving
> > mandates ever *do* cause subscriptions to become unsustainable.
> >
> > > In mandates with embargos, the 'payment' may not be completely
> > > worthless (depending on the length of the embargo) but is
> at least
> > > severely devalued.
> >
> > You seem to be singularly fixated (for an OA advocate) on payment
> > rather than access (at a time when all payments are being made, but
> > much access and impact is being lost).
> >
> > You also seem to be more concerned about payments than
> access delays,
> > and you seem to be expressing some sympathy for embargoed
> access over
> > immediate access in your (unsupported) defense of exclusive
> rights as
> > a form of "payment."
> >
> > > I am a great fan of open access, but not a great fan of 'green'.
> >
> > Translation: I am a great fan of OA as long as it is paid Gold OA.
> > (The accent seems to be on the "paid" rather than on the "OA".)
> >
> > But what is missing today is not publisher payment, but OA...
> >
> > > 'Green' is a kind of appeasement by publishers (some of
> who, it must
> > > be said, themselves didn't [and sometimes still don't]
> realise the
> > > 'payment'
> > > nature
> > > of exclusive rights transfer).
> >
> > Perhaps my interpretation is more charitable: 92% of
> journals did not
> > endorse Green OA (65% for immediate postprint OA) merely to
> "appease"
> > or "placate," but because they recognized that OA is indeed a great
> > benefit to research and researchers, and that trying to oppose OA
> > would be neither creditable nor successful.
> >
> > Jan seems to prefer the less charitable idea that endorsing Green
> > self-archiving was merely a cynical sop, granted on the assumption
> > that it would not be used, and perhaps even to be taken
> back, "Indian-Giver"
> > Style, if too many researchers actually went ahead and
> self-archived:
> >
> > http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
> >
> > (But let us not forget that Jan is not speaking here of
> Springer, but
> > of the competition...)
> >
> > > Appeasement is often regretted with
> > > hindsight. Instead of allowing the nature of exclusive rights
> > > transfer to be compromised, publishers should much earlier have
> > > offered authors the choice of payment either transfer of
> exclusive rights, or cash.
> > > The
> > > appeasement, the 'green', now acts as a hurdle to structural open
> > > access, perhaps even an impediment.
> >
> > In other words, publishers should have refused to endorse Green OA
> > self-archiving unless they were paid extra for it. Never
> mind that all
> > publication costs were and still are being fully paid via
> subscriptions.
> > No OA without extra pay (Gold).
> >
> > Because of this impetuous Green appeasement, Springer (a Green
> > publisher) is now stuck with only being able to ask payment
> for Gold,
> > not for Green too...
> >
> > > Harnadian orthodoxy will dismiss this. It holds that subscription
> > > journals will survive, that they will be paid for by
> librarians even
> > > if the content is freely disseminated in parallel via open
> > > repositories, and that it doesn't matter anyway
> >
> > Shorn of the above rhetoric, my position is much simpler:
> >
> > Mandate self-archiving now, for immediate Green OA. If and
> when 100%
> > Green OA ever does cause universal subscription
> cancellation, then use
> > the self-same windfall subscription savings to pay for Gold OA. But
> > not now, when there is next to no OA and no Green-induced
> subscription
> > cancellations.
> >
> > > (the guru is tentatively beginning to admit that large
> scale uptake
> > > of self-archiving, for instance as the result of mandates, may
> > > indeed destroy journals)
> >
> > Nothing of the sort. There is no guru, but all I say is what I have
> > been saying all along: if and when OA self-archiving makes
> > subscriptions unsustainable, journals can and will adapt by
> converting
> > to Gold OA, and institutions will pay the Gold OA fees out of (a
> > portion of) their windfall subscription cancellation
> savings. (Only a
> > part, because journals will have down-sized to peer-review
> > service-provision alone.)
> >
> >
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cms
> ctech/399/399w
> e1
> > 52.htm
> >
> > > because a new order will only come about after the complete
> > > destruction of the old order.
> >
> > No destruction: merely a natural adaptation to the optimal and
> > inevitable, made possible by the online medium.
> >
> > > After all, morphing the old order into the new, without complete
> > > destruction, entails a cost in terms of money, which
> "isn't there",
> > > and anyway, the cost that comes with complete destruction
> of the old
> > > order is preferred to spending money on any transition, in that
> > > school of thought.
> >
> > Translation, shorn of Jan's rhetoric:
> >
> > Harnad (and many others) are objecting to needlessly (and
> > wastefully) redirecting scarce research funds
> toward paying for
> > Gold OA *now*, when (1) 100% Green OA is reachable
> without it,
> > when (2) subscriptions are still covering
> publishing costs, and
> > when (3) it is still a speculative matter whether
> and when Green
> > OA will ever cause subscriptions to become
> unsustainable. The
> > time to redirect funds toward paying for Gold OA is when
> > the hypothesized subscription cancellations have actually
> > materialized, so the new savings can be redirected
> to pay for
> > the new Gold OA publishing costs.
> >
> > And the objection isn't primarily to the redirection of scarce
> > research funds to pay for needless Gold OA costs. If the research
> > community is foolish enough to want to do that, it is welcome to do
> > so. The objection is to any further delay in mandating Green OA,
> > wasting still more time instead on continued bickering about paying
> > pre-emptive Gold publishing fees. Let research funders and
> > institutions mandate OA Green self-archiving, now, thereby
> > guaranteeing 100% OA, now, and *then* let them spend their
> spare time and money in any way they see fit.
> >
> > > I doubt that a complete wipe-out will come. But there are quite a
> > > large number of vulnerable journals and a partial wipe-out as a
> > > result of mandated self-archiving is entirely plausible.
> >
> > If what Jan is saying here is that journals will continue
> to be born
> > and die, as they do now, I agree. Green self-archiving
> mandates don't
> > affect journals individually, they affect them all,
> jointly, and the
> > effects are gradual. No one funder or institution generates the
> > contents of an individual journal. So as the percentage of
> > self-archiving rises, there will be a (possibly long)
> uncertain period
> > when it is unclear how much of the contents of any given
> journal are accessible online for free.
> >
> > If and when a point is reached where journal subscriptions
> do become
> > unsustainable, there will be a natural mass transition to Gold OA.
> > Before that time, it is a matter of the sheerest of sheer
> speculation
> > whether Green OA will or will not alter either the rate or the
> > direction of spontaneous journal births and deaths.
> >
> > > Although there seems
> > > to be a myth that journals are very, even extremely,
> profitable, the
> > > fact is that a great many journals are not profitable or
> 'surplus-able'
> > > (in not-for-profit parlance). In my estimate it is the majority.
> > > Within the portfolio of larger publishers these journals
> are often
> > > absorbed and cross-subsidised by the journals that are
> profitable.
> > > Smaller (e.g. society-) publishers cannot do that.
> Marginal journals
> > > do not have to suffer a lot of subscription loss before they go
> > > under. Some of these, especially society ones, will be
> 'salvaged' by
> > > being given the opportunity to shelter under the umbrella of the
> > > portfolio of one of the larger independent publishers.
> Others will
> > > just perish if they lose subscriptions. They could of
> course convert
> > > to open access journals with article processing fees, but setting
> > > those up is no sinecure, and requires a substantial financial
> > > commitment, as the experience of PLoS and BMC has shown. Journals
> > > that are run for the love of it, by the commendable voluntary
> > > efforts of academics, are mostly very small, and are the
> first to be
> > > affected, unless, of course, they do not need any income because
> > > they are crypto-subsidised by the institutions with which their
> > > editors are affiliated. Such journals have always been there and
> > > there are probably more now than ever (and some are very good
> > > indeed, or so I'm told), but to imagine scaling them up
> to deal with
> > > the million plus articles per year published as a result
> of global research efforts seems far-fetched, indeed.
> >
> > Part of this speculative account had some plausibility:
> Yes, journals
> > are born and die. Yes some struggle to make ends meet
> (irrespective of
> > OA). Yes some are subsidised. None of this has anything at
> all to do
> > with OA.
> >
> > The causal influence of OA on this already ongoing
> > birth/death/survival process, however, is pure speculation: Some
> > titles will die; some will migrate (possibly to OA Gold publishers
> > like Jan's former employer, BioMed Central -- which, I note in
> > passing, has signed the EC petition in support of the EC OA
> > Self-Archiving Mandate, whereas Jan's current employer,
> Springer, did
> > not); some will survive, with or without subsidy, just as before.
> > Nothing to do with Green OA, either in terms of rate or direction.
> >
> > http://www.ec-petition.eu/
> >
> > But where on earth did Jan get to the non-sequitur of
> "scaling... up
> > the [border-line and subsidised journals] to deal with the million
> > plus articles per year"?
> >
> > Journals will continue to make ends meet as they did before, on
> > subscriptions or subsidies; some will die, as they always
> did; others
> > will migrate. Then, if and when subscriptions become unsustainable,
> > there will be a transition (and downsizing) to OA Gold,
> paid for out
> > of (a portion of) the very same subscription cancellation
> savings that
> > drove the transition, redirected toward paying for Gold OA fees.
> >
> > Jan's own speculation only sounds like an Escher impossible-figure
> > because he chooses to portray it that way. Without the
> imposition of
> > that arbitrary distortion, the transitional landscape looks
> perfectly
> > natural.
> >
> > > Open access is the inevitable future, and it is worth
> working on a
> > > truly robust and sustainable way to achieve it.
> >
> > OA means free online access, and that is indeed worth reaching for
> > right now, via Green OA self-archiving mandates, which are
> reachable
> > right now. Jan instead recommends continuing to sit and wait for a
> > hypothetical outcome, while meanwhile refraining from
> reaching for a
> > sure outcome: 100% OA via Green mandates. Jan urges the research
> > community instead to "work on" finding a way to pay
> pre-emptively for
> > Gold OA now, when Gold OA is neither needed, nor are the funds
> > available for paying for it (without poaching them from research)
> > because the funds to pay for publishing are still paying
> for subscriptions.
> >
> > Caveat pre-emptor.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-
> Access-Forum.h
> tml
>
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 19:07:34 GMT