Self-Archiving Mandates

I like my friend Jan Velterop's good-natured replies (even though, I cannot, of course, agree with most of what he says). I am also more than happy for Jan to invoke my "ceterum censeo" to anticipate my likely response, that being precisely what I myself have been calling it for years!

But let us cut to the quick, because this is all in reality exceedingly simple, once shorn of the ideology, wishful thinking and non-sequiturs:

(1) Jan is for OA; so am I.

(2) 100% OA can be had by (i) converting journals from subscriptions to publication charges, with (ii) author/institutions paying the publication charges, and (iii) the journals providing the OA (Gold OA).

(3) Or 100% OA can be had by (i) leaving journals as they are, (ii) with user/institution subscriptions paying the publication costs, and (iii) the author/institutions providing the OA (Green OA), by self-archiving their published articles.

(4) If and when Green OA ever makes subscriptions unsustainable, then the journals can convert to Gold and institutions can redirect their subscription savings to pay for their author' publication charges.

(5) But Green-driven conversion to Gold requires Green first.

(6) Neither Gold OA nor Green OA is happening spontaneously fast enough, despite their substantial demonstrated benefits to research.

(6) Green OA can be (and is being) accelerated by research funder/employer self-archiving mandates that are already being adopted, proposed and petitioned for.

(7) These Green OA mandates are being delayed by lobbying from some publishers.

(8) One would have expected Green OA mandates to be opposed by (some) non-OA publishers, but supported by all OA advocates, including (all) Gold OA (and hybrid Green/Gold) publishers.

(9) So the anomaly is the failure of (some) Gold OA or hybrid Green/Gold publishers to support the Green OA mandates, in some cases even actively opposing them.

Jan "challenges" me, in return, to say whether as an OA advocate I would support a Gold OA mandate that would forbid fundee institutions to use research funds for subscriptions, allowing them to be used only to pay OA publishing costs.

I can answer quite explicitly: If such a Gold OA mandate were also coupled with a Green OA mandate, and were ensured of wide, quick adoption, whereas a simple Green mandate alone was not, then I would definitely support the Green/Gold mandate.

But that is not the reality at all. The reality is that not even stand-alone Green OA mandates are being adopted sufficiently widely and quickly yet (although there are grounds for optimism), and that the two reasons they are not being adopted widely and quickly enough are (a) publisher opposition and (b) worries about whether, at the current (arbitrary) asking price, Gold OA would be viable and affordable.

I think simple Green OA mandates alone will be able to overcome the opposition and delays, whereas burdening the efforts to get an OA mandate adopted at all with still further handicaps (such as complicated and unnecessary constraints on funding budget overheads, uncertain interactions with library budgets, and uncertainty about the current viability -- or even the necessity -- of Gold OA publishing) would simply increase resistance and delay or derail adoption of any OA mandate at all.

So I support and promote simple Green OA mandates, not Green OA mandates with budgetary constraints pre-emptively redirecting research funds that are currently used for subscriptions toward paying instead for Gold OA publishing charges. I don't think that is necessary or even makes sense now, though it might eventually make sense if and when it is needed, i.e., if and when Green OA is ever exerting significant cancellation pressure on subscriptions.

What we need right now is OA -- and mandating Green OA is the fastest, surest way to generate 100% OA.

Ceterum censeo...

Cato the Elder