Filibusters Flourish: Yet Another OA "Study" Commissioned By Biosciences Federation

The Biosciences Federation: "supports increasing access to science research articles, and sees Open Access publishing as a workable approach for most disciplines, provided that research funders can make sufficient money available... so that the viability both of journals, and of the various activities which are made possible by journals income - conferences, meetings and other educational events as well as grants, bursaries and research funding - are not threatened... Open Access publishing would also reduce the risks of self-archiving, which could otherwise damage the viability of journals and thus threaten the substantial other contributions which learned societies make to UK science. The Federation is commissioning a study to quantify these contributions in order better to understand what the impact might be... The results of the research studies will be published early in 2008."

The Biosciences Federation's statement is familiar, old, many times rebutted stuff, and another Trojan Horse. It's of course not at all about promoting Green OA Self-Archiving, or Green OA Self-Archiving Mandates, but about continuing to try to delay or derail them. This time what is instead being self-servingly invoked (Good Cop, Bad Cop) is Gold OA Publishing -- something that cannot be mandated, and is growing far too slowly of its own accord, for many practical and logistical reasons (which is why OA's fast-track is Green OA and Green OA Mandates, rather than waiting for Gold OA).

The Biosciences Federation is simply making the bland statement that if you pay us for it, and pay us enough, and guarantee that payment, we will not oppose Gold OA! Meanwhile, we will continue to oppose Green OA and Green OA mandates, and we will commission yet another study to "investigate" the damage they are likely to do. (This time, it will look at how hypothetical lost subscriptions will affect Learned Societies' "good works," such as the funding they provide for conferences and scholarships, and -- a new one! -- the funding they provide for research!)

Well, several of these self-serving studies (in reality just delay-tactics, in an ongoing filibuster) have already been commissioned and conducted by various sectors of the publishing industry (and others are still underway).

Meanwhile, there is no such spare money to be had, to pay for or guarantee advance payment for Gold OA, and no one to guarantee it. That potential money is all tied up right now in subscriptions. McDonalds would also happily commit itself to free burgers for anyone on the planet if all those who are currently paying for burgers would commit in advance to guarantee to keep paying for them all in advance, at an agreed flat rate, in perpetuum. (That formula always trumps Supply and Demand...)

Pretending not be opposed to OA is just one of the conscious (and unconscious) stratagems to which those who perceive their revenues to be at potential risk are resorting in order to try to stave off the optimal and inevitable (for research), and instead keep everything running on their terms.

We should not be taken in by this: Research is not funded, conducted and published as a service to the publishing industry, but vice versa. We need to stop letting the publishing tail wag the research dog!

"Learned Societies: By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them"

Peter Suber has done the decisive rebuttal to this latest delay strategy by the Biosciences Foundation here, raising (in a far gentler way) all the points that are raised above -- and have been raised countless times before.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum