Open Access Archivangelism

---

SUMMARY: There are many things that are delaying the onset of the optimal and inevitable outcome for research in the online age (100% Open Access). Among them is over-reaching: 100% OA is already within our reach; we need merely grasp it, by mandating self-archiving. But if we insist instead on holding out for something beyond our immediate grasp -- OA + "X" (such as copyright reform, data-archiving, publication reform) -- then we simply keep delaying the optimal and inevitable, gaining next to nothing for our pains. Chris Armbruster hopes the February meeting of the European Commission on Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area: Access, Dissemination and Preservation in the Digital Age will reach for radical copyright reform rather than grasping immediate Open Access by mandating self-archiving. Let us hope this will not turn into yet another meeting that misses the opportunity to reach the optimal and inevitable at last. All other good things will follow, but not it we insist they come first.

---

Chris Armbruster seems to be a well-meaning supporter of OA + X (i.e., Open Access plus something else, "X," where in this case X seems to be: copyright reform, publishing innovation, and data-archiving).

The problem with well-meaning supporters of OA + X invariably arises when X gets in the way of OA. For then, support for OA + X becomes opposition to OA - X (especially when "X" turns out to be a bigger, more complicated, slower, vaguer or less certain agenda than OA itself).

But OA -- already long overdue, and now at last moving toward success via OA self-archiving mandates -- is not helped, at this point, by opponents of OA - X.

I reply to Chris Armbruster below, suggesting that with a little patience, he may find that the likelihood of the "X" he desires (copyright reform, publishing innovation and data-archiving) will be greatly enhanced by OA itself, and OA itself, 100% OA, is now within practical reach, via self-archiving and self-archiving mandates. It is unhelpful in the extreme to urge not grasping 100% OA at this point, and holding out instead for "X."

Failing to grasp the OA that is within reach already has a long history, alas (over a decade now), and the fallacy has a name -- "Zeno's Paralysis" -- and a long list of instances, which well-meaning supporters of OA + X would do well to consult, so as not to help history to repeat itself, inadvertently.

A point-by-point reply to Chris Armbruster (CA) follows:

CA:
"OA to Research Articles and Data Should Be Used To Foster Innovation for the Sake of the European Areas of Research and ofHigher Education"

OA (to research articles, as defined) first has to be reached, before it can help foster data-archiving and innovation. OA is now within reach, via self-archiving, mandated by research institutions and funders, now spreading worldwide. Let us speak about using OA to foster data-archiving and innovation once we have OA, rather than continuing to hold OA at arm's length any longer, for any reason.

(Research, and OA to research, by the way, are global, interdigitating matters, not European ones; all research benefits, reciprocally, from OA, not just European research.)

CA: "The programme of the European Commission Conference: Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area - Brussels, 15-16 February 2007 includes speakers from the publishing industry such as Reed Elsevier and Springer, but it is clear that the proponents of Open Access are having their day in Brussels (on top of this - from Springer it is Jan Velterop). This vindicates those that read the outcome of the earlier study as an unequivocal support of OA, at least among the authors of the study and - presumably - among those in DG Research that commissioned the study."

Let us hope it is so. Now why is an OA supporter, like Chris Armbruster, not happy about this?

CA: "Yet, it is far from certain that the conference will become a milestone on the way to OA. For the OA movement may be heading into a dead end. It is worrying to see the widespread incapacity to understand the importance of unblocking innovative capacities in scientific publishing, scholarly communication and access to data."

The immediate objective is OA, and 100% OA will contribute immeasurably to "unblocking innovative capacities in scientific publishing, scholarly communication and access to data." Blocking or delaying immediate OA will not.

CA: "And here is the problem with the prior study of scientific publishing in Europe, with the so-called green road to access and with the new approach of Science Commons. The study by Dewatripont et al failed to address the issue of copyright and thus missed the importance of shifting the dissemination of research articles AND data from an IPR to nonexclusive licensing."

The objective of the OA movement is OA. Copyright is addressed to the extent that it is pertinent to OA. Nonexclusive licensing of articles AND data is welcome and desirable, but it is not a precondition for OA, and insisting on it as a prerequisite for OA simply places further needless obstacles in the path of OA.

Self-archiving mandates require researchers to deposit their articles in their Institutional (or Central) Repositories. For the articles that are published in the 69% of journals that have already endorsed immediate OA self-archiving, access to the deposited article can be set to Open Access immediately upon acceptance for publication.

For the remaining 31%, access can be provisionally set to Closed Access during any allowed embargo interval, during which all research usage needs can be fulfilled via the semi-automatic EMAIL EPRINT button, whereby individual users, seeing the deposited article's globally accessible metadata, click to request an individual copy from the author via email, and the author can authorise the emailing via one click. That's not yet OA, but a close functional approximation, and will be followed by OA quite naturally once mandated depositing approaches 100% globally.

Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?

Hence, no need to await successful negotiation of nonexclusive licensing in order to self-archive, or mandate self-archiving, right now.

CA: "Many proponents of green OA seem to brazenly assume that they can go on self-archiving post-prints without paying attention to copyright"

Please see above.

CA: "At some point in the future (when OA pressure has abated somewhat)"

Why would it be imagined that OA pressure will abate rather than grow, as OA grows? Enjoying the benefits of OA will only increase the desire for and dependence upon OA by research and researchers, as well as their institutions and funders (the ones who mandate it), worldwide.

CA: "publishers will ask their authors to remove all openly accessible copies of the research article, word-wide, from all servers."

This is being hypothesised here rather confidently a-priori on the basis of a subjective impression. The objective probabilities are look rather the opposite.

CA: "Publishers are not to be blamed - for as long as their business model of regarding research articles and data as 'property' is accepted by researchers, universities and research funders. Shareholders have every right to insist that publishers maximise profits from the property that they have acquired."

On present evidence, publishers are to be praised, not blamed, for 93% of journals have already endorsed some form of self-archiving. There is also zero evidence to date that self-archiving causes cancellations. And even if it ever does, publishing can and will adapt. It is quite clear that maximising research usage and impact -- for research, researchers, their institutions and their funders, and for the tax-paying public that funds the funders and institutions, and for whose benefit the research is conducted -- takes precedence over insuring publishers' current revenues streams and current cost-recovery methods. Publishing can and will adapt; it will not be able to deny research the benefits of OA.

CA: "That Science Commons should now also be advocating self-archiving is unbelievable."

On the contrary, it is quite sensible and welcome that Science Commons should recognise that access is the end and CC-licensing is merely one of the means:

"On the Deep Disanalogy Between Text and Software and Between Text and Data Insofar as Free/Open Access is Concerned"

"Making Ends Meet in the Creative Commons" (Jun 2004)

"Open Access Data Archiving: A Complement to Article-Archiving" (Mar 2005)

CA: "It is no comfort that SC provides "author addenda" for copyright transfer contracts by which the author retains the right to self-archive. This is nonsense because it effectively legitimates the mistaken idea that the future of scientific publishing and data management should continue to be one in which the publishing house will own the IPR to the article."

No, Chris, it moots it, once one realizes that all the usage capabilities that researchers need already come with the (free, online) territory once the full-text is made freely accessible to all online:

All the usage rights that researchers and research harvesters need for full-text journal-article content come with the free online territory (including linking, downloading, viewing, storing locally, printing-off locally, and data-crunching).

Other "re-use" rights are neither part of, nor needed for, OA (e.g., republishing or redistributing online or on paper).

CC licenses are useful, desirable and welcome -- but not necessary for OA, and a deterrent to OA if needlessly insisted upon as an extra precondition.

CA: "The green road to OA and the Science Commons "author addenda" are not in the best interest of researchers and universities."

Does this mean that not self-archiving research, free for all online, is in the best interest of researchers and universities? (OA - X is bad? It should be deferred until/unless we can have OA + X?)

CA: "They are certainly detrimental to the interest of higher education institutions and their students."

It is bad for students to have free online access to the research output of higher education institutions?

CA: "And they are ruinous to the economic future of Europe."

Protecting the current revenue streams and cost-recovery models of journal publishers is more important for the economic future of Europe than maximising the usage, uptake, applications and impact of European research output (i.e., maximising research progress and productivity)?

CA: "Here is why: Given the expansion of research, the rise of the internet, the acceleration of innovation and the increasing importance of knowledge-based industry and services it is imperative that access to scientific knowledge (in the form of research articles and data that have been publicly funded and/or have been produced not-for-profit) be unrestricted and seamless."

Is that not precisely what OA provides? And is that not precisely why self-archiving is to be mandated?

CA: "This would not only increase the quality of research (ease of peer review, availability of results, transparency of knowledge claims), it would also unblock the market for the creative emergence of new services to readers and authors."

Note that all these benefits, on which there is full agreement with Chris, are benefits of OA, not of X. Yet it is against OA that Chris argues when he argues against OA - X.

CA: "Given the large number of knowledge claims, the enormous amount of publications in circulation and the requirement to handle ever more complex data, we urgently need services that help readers (be they researchers, students or companies) organize their activities more effectively and efficiently."

What we need most urgently is the 80-85% of annual research output that is not yet OA to be made OA. Self-archiving mandates will generate this.

Yes, search and navigation services on this growing OA database can and will become ever more powerful as the OA database grows. But what is missing now is not the overlay services, but the OA content itself.

CA: "The challenge to the European Commission is not to take sides for or against OA."

Isn't it? If immediate OA is reachable via mandated self-archiving, and its benefits to research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and the tax-paying public are substantial, should the European Commission not take sides in the conflict of interest between those benefits and the risks to the current revenue streams and cost-recovery models of research publishers, in deciding whether or not to mandate OA self-archiving?

Houghton, J., Steele, C. & Sheehan, P. (2006) Research Communication Costs in Australia: Emerging Opportunities and Benefits. Research Communication Costa in Australia: Emerging Opportinities and Benefits. A report to the Department of Education, Science and Training.

Houghton, J. & Sheehan, P. (2006) The Economic Impact of Enhanced Access to Research Findings. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Victoria University.

Harnad, S., Carr, L., Brody, T. & Oppenheim, C. (2003) Mandated online RAE CVs Linked to University Eprint Archives: Improving the UK Research Assessment Exercise whilst making it cheaper and easier. Ariadne 35 (April 2003).

Harnad, S. (2005) Making the case for web-based self-archiving. Research Money 19 (16).

Harnad, S. (2005) Maximising the Return on UK's Public Investment in Research.

Harnad, Stevan (2005) Australia Is Not Maximising the Return on its Research Investment. In Steele, Colin, Ed. Proceedings, National Scholarly Communications Forum 2005, Sydney, Australia.

CA: "It is to understand what legal, economic and technical regime would be best for the quality of research in the ERA, for the quality of higher education in the EHEA and for the economic prosperity of Europe as a whole."

This "X" sounds rather abstract, vague, and general. Mandating OA self-archiving in order to maximise European research access and impact, in contrast, is concrete, specific, practical, testable, tested, has been demonstrated to be both implementable and successful, and has already been sporadically implemented in the UK, Switzerland, Portugal, Australia, and India, with proposals pending in the US and Europe. It is time to implement it systematically in Europe, for the sake of OA.

Let us hope that the Brussels meeting will not instead be distracted by "X."

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

(All quotes are from "The death of peer review" by Natasha Gilbert in Research notes, The Guardian, Tuesday December 12, 2006)

Guardian: "The chancellor has decided to do away with the age-old, and trusted, system of peer review for assessing the quality of science coming out of the UK's universities - which has been used as the basis for carving up public funding."

(1) Peer review of research publications is conducted by the referees consulted by peer-reviewed journals.

(2) Peer review of competitive research grant applications is conducted by the referees consulted by research funding councils (RCUK).

(3) The RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) is neither a research journal nor a competitive research grant funding council.

(4) The RAE is part of a dual research funding system: (i) competitive research grant applications plus (ii) top-sliced funding based on RAE ranking of each university department's research performance.

(5) The RAE panel review is not peer review, and never has been peer review: It is a time-consuming, wasteful re-review of already peer-reviewed publications.

(6) "Metrics" are statistical indicators of research performance such as publication counts, citations, downloads, links, students, funding, etc.

(7) Metrics are already highly correlated with RAE rankings.

(8) What has (at long last) been replaced by metrics is the time-consuming, wasteful RAE panel re-review of already peer-reviewed publications.

We should be celebrating the long overdue death of RAE panel re-review, not prematurely feting the demise of peer review itself, which is alive and well.

A more worrisome question concerns which metrics will be used:

Guardian: "From 2010-11, science, engineering, technology and medicine (SET) subjects will instead be assessed using statistical indicators, such as the number of postgraduate students in a department and the amount of money a department brings in through its research."

The fallacy here is that the RAE is supposed to be part of a dual funding system. If competitive funding is used as a heavily weighted metric, it is tantamount to collapsing it all into just one system -- competitive grant applications -- and merely increasing the amount of money given to the winners: A self-fulfilling prophecy and a whopping "Matthew Effect."

Yet in the OA world there are a rich variety of potential metrics, which should be tested and validated and customised to each discipline.

Let 1000 RAE Metric Flowers Bloom: Avoid Matthew Effect as Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

"Metrics" are Plural, Not Singular: Valid Objections From UUK About RAE

Guardian: "This new system should solve the much-complained-about bureaucracy of the research assessment exercise (RAE). But some, such as the Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, are adamant that sounding the death-knell for peer review in SET subjects is a bad move."

Metrics will put an end to wasting UK researchers' time re-reviewing and being re-reviewed, allowing them to devote their time instead to doing research. But a biassed and blinkered choice of metrics will sound the death-knell of the dual funding system (not peer review).

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum