Open Access Archivangelism

Open Access (OA) to research maximizes research usage, impact, applications, productivity and progress in the online era. Hence OA is optimal for researchers, for their institutions and funders, for the vast research industry, and for the tax-paying public that funds the research and for whose benefit the research is conducted. OA is accordingly inevitable.

The way to hasten and ensure this optimal and inevitable (and already overdue) outcome is for researchers' funders and institutions to mandate that researchers self-archive their published research articles in their OA institutional repositories, free for all users. (Without a mandate, about 15% of researchers self-archive spontaneously; with a mandate, over 90% comply.)

Self-archiving mandates are accordingly being adopted by a growing number of funders and institutions worldwide, and are being proposed by still more of them -- notably the European Commission for European research and the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) for most of US research.

The publishing industry lobby has been attempting to derail or delay the optimal and inevitable, prophesying, with no evidence whatsoever, that self-archiving mandates will destroy journals and a viable industry.

But in reality this doomsday prophecy is completely false, and in any case the publishing industry is merely the flea on the tail of the dog: The tax-paying public, the research community -- and the vast research and development industry that applies the fruits of research for the general public and for the national and international economy -- are the dog.

The flea has so far successfully wagged the dog, and is lately resorting to "pit-bull" tactics to try to continue doing so. But fortunately, the flea is fated to fail to forestall the optimal and inevitable outcome for research, researchers, their institutions and funders, the research applications industry, and the tax-paying public. OA self-archiving mandates are now imminent, as the sleepy dog is at last waking and coming to its senses about what is in its own best (and hence the public) interest in the online age.

The flea can and will, of course, successfully adapt to the new online reality; what it cannot hope to do is to continue to defer the optimal and inevitable indefinitely.

Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005) Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration.

Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007.

Hajjem, C., Harnad, S. and Gingras, Y. (2005) Ten-Year Cross-Disciplinary Comparison of the Growth of Open Access and How it Increases Research Citation Impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin 28(4) pp. 39-47.

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, Prof Colin, Eds. Proceedings National Scholarly Communications Forum 2005, Sydney, Australia.

Houghton, J., Steele, C. & Sheehan, P. (2006) Research Communication Costs in Australia: Emerging Opportunities 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

Sale, A. (2006) The Impact of Mandatory Policies on ETD Acquisition. D-Lib Magazine April 2006, 12(4).

Sale, A. (2006) Comparison of content policies for institutional repositories in Australia. First Monday, 11(4), April 2006.

Sale, A. (2006) The acquisition of open access research articles. First Monday, 11(9), October 2006.

Sale, A. (2007) The Patchwork Mandate D-Lib Magazine 13 1/2 January/February.

Swan, A. (2005) Open access self-archiving: An Introduction. Technical Report, JISC, HEFCE.

Swan, A. (2006) The culture of Open Access: researchers' views and responses, in Jacobs, N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects, chapter 7. Chandos.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

SUMMARY: The "DC Principles" Coalition is once again recycling old arguments that have already been repeatedly refuted:

(1) "Mandating self-archiving will destroy journals": There exists no evidence to date -- even in the subfields where self-archiving has been at or near 100% for years -- that author self-archiving ("Green OA") even causes cancellations; but if/when it ever does, publishing will adapt, quite naturally, first cutting costs, and then, if subscriptions become unustainable, converting to OA publishing ("Gold OA"). In other words, this doomsday scenario is a counterfactual myth, designed to stave off the obvious, demonstrated and reachable benefits of the online era for research and researchers through crude alarmist speculation, based on neither objective evidence nor rigorous reasoning.
(2) "Mandating self-archiving will force a conversion to OA publishing which will force money to be redirected from scarce research funds": No research funds need be redirected if OA publishing comes only after those self-same subscription cancellations that were hypothesized to force the conversion, for then institutions will pay for their researchers' OA publishing costs by redirecting part of their windfall subscription-cancellation savings, rather than redirecting them from scarce research funds, as they would have to do if they had to pay OA publishing charges now, when the money is still tied up in subscriptions, and subscriptions are still paying the costs of publication.
(3) "Mandating self-archiving will destroy peer review": Peers review for free. Publishers just manage the peer-review process and certify its outcome with their journal's name and reputation. That is the service that OA publishing charges will pay for, redirected from institutional subscription savings, if/when cancellation pressure ever forces a conversion to OA publishing; until and unless that happens, self-archiving mandates will simply do what they are intended to do: provide 100% OA.
(4) "Mandating self-archiving will destroy Learned Societies' other 'good works'": The research community was never consulted, and never agreed to subsidise Learned Societies' other 'good works' from researchers' own lost access and impact. Those 'good works' (publicity, meetings, scholarships, mentoring, etc.), will need to find other forms of support if/when Learned Society publishing revenue surpluses no longer cover them (at the expense of research access and impact).
(5) "Mandating self-archiving means government control of publication": Nonsense: Self-archiving means researchers' ensuring that their own research findings are accessible (online) to all their would-be users, in their own Institutional Repositories, rather than just to those users whose institution happens to be able to afford a subscription to the journal in which they happen to be published, as was the case before the online era made OA possible.
(6) "Mandated self-archiving is unnecessary because publishers already provide a lot of free access of their own accord": Self-archiving mandates are to ensure OA for all those articles to which publishers do not provide free access of their own accord.

---

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Martin Frank, Executive Director, American Physiological Society, wrote:

DC Principles: The following press release was posted to the DC Principles website.
"Nonprofit Publishers Oppose Government Mandates for Scientific Publishing"
Washington, DC (February 20, 2007) A coalition of 75 nonprofit publishers opposes any legislation that would abruptly end a publishing system that has nurtured independent scientific inquiry for generations.

And the evidence that mandating self-archiving -- as 5 of 8 UK research councils, the Wellcome Trust, Australian Research Council, NHMRC, CERN and a growing number of universities worldwide have already done, and EC, ERC, EURAB, CIHR and FRPAA are proposing to do -- "would abruptly end the publishing system"?

Or is this just the same doomsday prophecy we have heard (and heard refuted) over and over, simply being repeated louder and louder?

Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005)
Journal publishing and author self-archiving:
Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration.

DC Principles: One such measure, the Federal Research Public Access Act introduced in the 109th Congress would have required all federally funded research to be deposited in an accessible database within six months of acceptance in a scientific journal. Some open access advocates are pressing for the introduction of a similar measure in the 110th Congress.

A measure that, as noted above, is already being adopted worldwide, because of its vast benefits to research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, the vast research and development industry, and the tax-paying public that funds the research (see recent petition).

Are evidence-free doomsday prophecies from one service industry supposed to be grounds for denying these benefits to research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, the vast research and development industry, and the tax-paying public that funds the research?

Or is this just the flea on the tail of the dog, endeavouring to wag the dog?

DC Principles: In essence, such legislation would impose government-mandated access policies and government-controlled repositories for federally funded research published in scientific journals, according to members of the Washington DC Principles for Free Access to Science Coalition.

The self-archiving mandates require publicly funded research to be made publicly accessible to all users. The rhetoric of "government control" is shrill nonsense, in line with the data-free doomsday prophecies.

Is this the program of disinformation that the "DC Principles" Coalition have been counselled to disseminate by the esteemed public relations consultants of their STM confreres?

DC Principles: "We as independent publishers must determine when it is appropriate to make content freely available, and we believe strongly it should not be determined by government mandate" [said Martin Frank of the American Physiological Society and coordinator of the coalition]

The public funds it, researchers and their institutions conduct, write and peer-review it, all for free, but "publishers must determine when it is appropriate to make it freely available"? In exchange for having been given it free to sell, for having peer-reviewed it for free, and for having paid dearly for subscriptions in order to access it?

That's an awfully big price the public and the research community and research progress, and research applications are all expected to pay in exchange for the 3rd-party management of their free peer review service.

How much longer does the DC Principles Coalition imagine that the research community, the tax-paying public, and the vast research applications industry will keep giving this arbitrary assertion of right-of-determination, amplified by empty prophecies of doom, the undue credence it has enjoyed to date?

DC Principles: The Coalition also reaffirmed its ongoing practice of making millions of scientific journal articles available free of charge, without an additional financial burden on the scientific community or on funding agencies. More than 1.6 million free articles are already available to the public free of charge on HighWire Press.

Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles that their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to make freely available, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates?

DC Principles: "The scholarly publishing system is a delicate balance between the need to sustain journals financially and the goal of disseminating scientific knowledge as widely as possible. Publishers have voluntarily made more journal articles available free worldwide than at any time in history -- without government intervention," noted Kathleen Case of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles that their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to make freely available, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates?

DC Principles: The Coalition expressed concern that a mandate timetable for free access to all federally funded research would harm journals, scientists, and ultimately the public.

The doomsday prophecy again, repeated ever more shrilly to compensate for the complete absence of evidence in its support.

DC Principles: Subscriptions to journals with a high percentage of federally funded research would decline rapidly.

If and when the demand for a product declines, it is time to cut costs. If and when publishing downsizes to just the management of the peer review service, the institutional savings from the (hypothesized) subscription-declines will be more than enough to pay for peer review, per article published, on the open-access publishing model.

DC Principles: Subscription revenues support the quality control system known as peer review and also support the educational work of scientific societies that publish journals.

Subscription revenues will continue to flow as long as there is enough demand for the product. Once the only product needed is the peer review management service, the institutional savings will be enough to pay for its costs several times over.

At no time has the research community, its institutions or its funders, or the tax-paying public that funds its funders, been asked, nor has it ever agreed, to subsidise "the educational work of scientific societies" with its own lost research access and impact.

DC Principles: Undermining subscriptions would shift the cost of publication from the publisher who receives subscription revenue to the researcher who receives grants. Such a shift will: Divert scarce dollars from research. Publishers now pay the cost of publication out of subscription revenue; if the authors have to pay, the funds will come from their research grants.

No. Publication costs are currently being paid out of subscription revenues. On the hypothesis that institutions cancel those subscriptions, it is those same subscription revenue savings that can continue to pay for (what is left of) publication costs, per paper published. Not a penny of research grants need ever be redirected. The subscription savings will be redirected.

DC Principles: Nonprofit journals without subscription revenue have to rely on grants, which further diverts funding from research.

Journals that are subsidised today can continue to be subsidised tomorrow. Journals that are subscription-based today, if/when their subscriptions are cancelled, can be paid for (what is left of) their costs, per article, from the author's institutional subscription savings.

More than enough money is in the system. No doomsday scenario. Just downsizing and redirection of windfall savings.

DC Principles: Result in only well-funded scientists being able to publish their work.

Utter nonsense. See arithmetic above.

DC Principles: Reduce the ability of journals to fund peer review. Most journals spend 40% or more of their revenue on quality control through the peer review system; without subscription income and with limitations on author fees, peer review would suffer.

When there is no more demand for anything but peer review, institutions will have saved 100%, of which they need merely redirect 40% to pay for the peer review of their own publications. (Please do the arithmetic.)

DC Principles: Harm those scientific societies that rely on income from journals to fund the professional development of scientists. Revenues from scholarly publications fund research, fellowships to junior scientists, continuing education, and mentoring programs to increase the number of women and under-represented groups in science, among many other activities.

At no time has the research community, its institutions or its funders, or the tax-paying public that funds its funders, been asked, nor has it ever agreed, to subsidise "the professional development of scientists, research, fellowships to junior scientists, continuing education, and mentoring programs" with its own lost research access and impact.

DC Principles: Members of the DC Principles Coalition have long supported responsible free access to science and have made:
-- selected important studies immediately available online, in their entirety and at no charge
-- studies available at no cost to patients who request them
-- all abstracts immediately available online at no charge
-- full text of the journal available at no charge to everyone worldwide within months of publication, depending on each publisher's business and publishing requirements
-- all journal content available free to scientists working in many low-income nations
-- articles available free of charge online through reference linking between journals
-- content available for indexing by major search engines so that readers worldwide can easily locate information

Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles that their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to make freely available, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates?

DC Principles: "By establishing government repositories for federally funded research, taxpayers would be paying for systems that duplicate the online archives already maintained by independent publishers," Case noted.

With the slight difference that the contents of the OA archives will be freely accessible to all, as per the proposed and adopted self-archiving mandates.

DC Principles: "The implications of the U.S. government becoming the world's largest publisher of scientific articles have not been addressed," she added.

Self-archiving mandates are for providing access to published articles, not for publishing them. In an online world, publishing means certifying papers as having met a journal's peer-review quality standards. That means the peer review service. That's all.

The implied "government monopoly" subtext is again just empty rhetoric, designed to inflame, not to inform honestly.

DC Principles: According to Frank, "As not-for-profit publishers, we believe that a free society allows for the co-existence of many publishing models, and we will continue to work closely with our publishing colleagues to set high standards for the scholarly publishing enterprise."

Amen.

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/

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

My impressions of the Brussels EC Meeting:

(1) The petition demonstrating the very broad-based support for the proposed EC OA Self-Archiving Mandate was presented to the EU Commissioner for Science and Research, Janez Potocnik.

(2) The conference itself (which was organized before the petition) then proceeded with its programme, heavily weighted toward publishing and publishers' concerns rather than the access and impact concerns of the research community.

(3) Hence, predictably, most of the time and energy was spent on publishing finances rather than on research access and impact.

(4) Nevertheless, the overall impression (from the minority research and researcher representation at the meeting) was that the relentless focus on publishing finances was not their primary concern, Open Access was.

(5) The (rather bland) statement released at the beginning of the meeting had also been drafted before the meeting and the petition (and apparently with some involvement of the publishers, as there was evidence that they had seen it in advance).

(6) But my impression was that the EU Commissioners, Directors-General and Directors (or rather those of their delegates who were in attendance) were favorable to OA, and that concrete developments can be expected as a result of the conference and the petition.

Researcher and industrial support for OA and OA Self-Archiving Mandates will now be very vigorously consolidated.

Stevan Harnad

PS I think a bit of a storm is now brewing in the physics community over the CERN initiative to promote an immediate transition to Gold OA publishing in particle physics. The concern is that this will divert scarce funds from research. I think the concern is warranted: that it is indeed premature to push toward gold OA when most fields [including many parts of physics] don't yet have green OA. CERN should work to generalise its own admirable and successful green OA self-archiving mandate to the rest of the world, and meantime make use of the complementarity between conventional publication and green OA, co-existing in parallel, rather than needlessly pressing for an immediate transition to gold OA publishing at a time when gold OA is neither needed -- publication still being funded by (and potential publication funds still tied up in) subscription expenditures -- nor are funds available to pay for gold OA without taking them from elsewhere, most probably research. Gold fever also distracts from the pressing, immediate basic need for OA itself, as well as from green OA's immediate availability, at no cost. We need to stop fussing about publishing and publishing costs, and focus on access, and providing it in the fastest and surest way available: by mandating green OA self-archiving.

Below, Les Carr, head of University of Southampton's Eprints team announces the results of a poll of EC F6 projects on the EC Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate proposal (A1). The results are as overwhelmingly positive as those of the parallel petition.

These results are to be announced in Brussels tomorrow (February 15).

On the same time day in the United States, there will be a "National Day of Action" by students in support of the FRPAA Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate Proposal.

On the eve of the Brussels EC meeting, the Budapest Open Access Initiative celebrates its fifth anniversary in Brussels:

---

The European research and academic community has demonstrated overwhelming support for the European Commission's proposed Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate (A1). A petition, launched jointly on January 14th 2007 by research organisations in a number of European countries, has drawn over 24,000 signatures from Europe and worldwide in support of the EC's proposal. The response includes over 1,000 institutional signatories from National Academies of Sciences, Universities, Rectors' conferences, Learned Societies, national and private research funding councils, and industries that apply research.)

In conjunction with the petition, a separate poll has been conducted of the EC Open Access Mandate's specific target constituency. The administrators of currently active EU FP6 projects were asked to register a vote FOR or AGAINST open access to research results. The result was overwhelming: 85.8% in favour of open access, 14.2% against (based on a healthy 8.22% response rate from 2652 email invitations to vote).

Previous research has demonstrated the increased impact that Open Access to Research Results offers the research industry. The petition and the poll demonstrate that Open Access now receives broad-based and popular support as a mainstream requirement of the European research industry.

Les Carr, EPrints, University of Southampton

"Journalists,
like moths and drunks,
seem attracted,
irresistibly,
where the light
shines, not
where the key lies"

CRITIQUE OF: Goldacre, Ben (2007) Open access and the price of knowledge. The Guardian, Saturday February 10, 2007. (Also appeared in badscience.net)

Ben Goldacre has his heart in the right place, but:

(1) The Open Access (OA) movement is not the "Open Access Journal movement."

Trying to convert non-OA journals to OA journals (and to convert authors to publishing in them) is only one of the two ways to make articles OA ("Gold OA"), and the far more resistant and less certain way. The surer, faster way is just to convert authors to self-archiving their own articles (published in whatever journal they wish) on the web to make them OA ("Green OA").

It is Green OA that can be and is being mandated by researchers' funding councils and employers (universities). The research community has just signed a petition in support of the European Commission's proposal to mandate Green OA (20,000 individuals, 1000 institutions). Similar movements are afoot in the US. And mandates are already in place in the UK.

(2) It is not "two [Gold] OA publishing organisations" that have led the fight for OA, but one (Green and Gold) organisation -- the same one that first coined the term OA in 2002: the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI).

(3) The need for access to "medical literature", and in "developing countries" is just one small portion of the need for OA, which concerns all forms of research, and researchers all over the world.

(4) The primary need for OA is to make research (most of it specialised and technical) freely available not only to "part-time tinkering thinkers, journalists and the public" but to the researchers worldwide for whom it was written and who can use and apply it to the benefit of the public that paid for it.

(5) To demonize non-OA publisher Reed-Elsevier as the "sponsor of the DSEI international arms fair [that] needs police, security, wire fences, and the pitbull of PR [Dezenhall] to defend it" is to sink into the very same pit-bull tactics.

Reed-Elsevier journals are Green on OA: It is research funders and universities that now need to mandate Green OA.

Journalists and tinkerers should think more carefully before opining about OA: Good science needs more sense, not more sensationalism.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

Here is another brilliant incentive that all OA supporters are urged to put on their websites for yet another push to display the strength of the support for the petition in favour of the EC OA Self-Archiving Mandate Proposal, now fast approaching 1000 institutional and 20,000 individual signatories: (substituting : "<" for "{" and ">" for "}" )

{table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"}
{tr bgcolor="#ccffcc"}
{td align="center"}
{p}
Please sign the {a href="http://www.ec-petition.eu/"}EC
Open Access Petition{/a}
in support of the European Commission's proposed
{a
href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/198-guid.html"}Open
Access Self-Archiving Mandate{/a}
{/p}
{script
type="text/javascript"src="http://www.eprints.org/scroller-high.js"}{/script}
{/td}
{/tr}
{/table}

This banner (designed by Les Carr and Chris Gutteridge of University of Southampton's EPrints team) will scroll to show the highlights of the institutional signatories, a remarkable list.

The petition will continue to receive signatures indefinitely, but to sign in time to help the Brussels EU conference to display the will of the European and Worldwide Research community to the EC Science Commissioner, please sign within the next two days (research-related organisations especially -- universities, research institutes, academies of science and arts, learned societies, research funding agencies -- are encouraged to make a show of strength.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

Please pardon me a moment of Pannonian pride:

It is mete and fitting that the President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest, Professor E. Sylvester Vizi, has today signed the Petition in support of the European Commission's proposed Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate, on behalf of the Academy.

The Open Access Movement began in Budapest in December 2001 as the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), launched by the Hungarian philanthropist, George Soros and the Open Society Institute (OSI).

OA has since become a global movement and is now accelerating rapidly toward the critical step that will usher in Open Access to all research output worldwide, starting in Europe with the EC Self-Archiving Mandate, but inevitably to be followed in the US with the FRPAA Self-Archiving Mandate, and elsewhere in the world by kindred policies.

I cannot resist adding (though it includes an element of conjecture) that Pannonia even had a hand in formulating the optimal version of the European OA Self-Archiving mandate, in the form of the European Research Advisory Board's (EURAB) policy proposal.

On the EURAB committee that formulated that excellent policy was the Vice President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Professor Norbert Kroo.

The President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences has now closed the circle, in signing the EC OA petition on behalf of the Academy.

Many thanks also to Professor Csaba Pleh, Deputy General Secretary of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, who also played a critical mediating role, as did Barbara Kirsop, of EPT.

Más volt eddig, másképp lesz most!

Hernád István (Stevan Harnad)
External Member, Hungarian Academy of Sciences