Prior American Scientist Open Access Forum Topic Thread
(started September 16, 2005):
"Critique of Research Fortnight article on RCUK policy proposal"
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEMStevan Harnad
This is a critique of the second unsigned article about the proposed RCUK self-archiving mandate that has appeared in
Research Fortnight (the first appeared
September 14):
"The Dangers of Open Access, RCUK Style"
Unsigned Article, Research Fortnight (RF):
RF: "Research Fortnight does not publish learned journals and has no reason to defend commercial publishers, but the publishers are right when they say that self-archiving as proposed by Research Councils UK will stop new journals being launched and cause existing journals to close."
Someone evidently has
Research Fortnight's unsigned article's author's ear (and it's certainly not your humble archivangelist):
RF: "Stevan Harnad, professor of cognitive science and one of the most vocal advocates of open access, believes the UK is not maximising the benefits of its research spend. In his words: 'the UK is losing £1.5 billion annually, in the potential impact of its scientific research spending.'
"His argument, set out in a recent paper, goes like this: self-archiving increases citation impact by between 50 and 250 percent; the UK research councils spend £3.5 billion annually; so far only 15 per cent of researchers self-archive, meaning another 85% could; therefore 50% x £3.5.bn x 85% = £1.5.bn.
"This argument is so ludicrous it would be a waste of space bothering to knock it down."
In place of this risibly unnecessary knock-down counter-argument, we accordingly have this:
RF: "What is interesting, though, is that Harnad's paper has been self-archived on the University of Southampton's own e-print site and shows no signs of having been peer-reviewed or published elsewhere."
It is interesting that a transparent match-box calculation whose outcome seems to be uncongenial to some ears is discounted by our anonymous author for not having been "peer-reviewed." One wonders if, following the same logic,
Research Fortnight would have discounted the following unrefereed observation:
"Prior (published) evidence has shown that placing unused batteries (cost, £1 apiece) in the refrigerator increases their hours of usage by 50%, but only 15% of users refrigerate them. We accordingly point out here the following match-box calculation: The 85% of battery-users who are not refrigerating their batteries are losing 50p's worth of potential usage, hence 50p's worth of value for their money."
Ludicrous? In need of peer review? A waste of space to bother refuting? Or dismissed only as a consequence of having listened only to the battery-makers who say that self-refrigerating "will stop new battery-makers being launched and cause existing battery-makers to close"?
RF: "This demonstrates one of the problems of a switch to open access publishing [sic]: the pollution of the corpus of scholarship by papers that have not been subject to sufficient quality control."
Is
Research Fortnight having difficulty distinguishing between research content and trivial, transparent arithmetic? And does the ironic call for "peer review" come from
Research Fortnight or the disgruntled battery-makers to whom they have lent their ear, monaurally? (Should the anonymous statement "the publishers are right when they say that self-archiving as proposed by
Research Councils UK will stop new journals being launched and cause existing journals to close" likewise have been subjected to peer review?)
RF: "It also shows that advocates of open access have not thought through their arguments."
I leave it to the research community to decide who is not thinking arguments through, or even listening to them disinterestedly.
(The rest of the unsigned
Research Fortnight article is an echolalic transcript -- uncritical and unfiltered -- of the by now very familiar arguments we have kept hearing from certain (non-research) lobbyists against OA and self-archiving, with no sign of having been thought through [let alone peer-reviewed] by
Research Fortnight, or anyone else.)
My advice to
Research Fortnight, if it has any wish to play the role of honest broker in this important issue for research and researchers:
Audi Alteram Partem. So far,
Research Fortnight has now failed deplorably in that role, twice.
Stevan Harnad
