Harnad replies to Harnad's 14 prima facie objections

Well, either everyone was so inspired by my 14 points on "What is open access and how to provide it?" that they are busy implementing them right now, or else my 14 points did not even succeed in inspiring objections!

In any case, here are the replies to the 14 prima facie objections to my own 14 points that I myself raised:

1. What evidence is there that "research is losing potential usage and impact" because "articles are only accessible to users at institutions that can afford to subscribe to the journal in which they were published"?

The evidence (longstanding) that institutions can only afford to subscribe to a small and shrinking fraction of journals is here.

The evidence that making articles OA significantly increases both downloads and citations is here.

2. Who says "there are two ways to provide OA" [green OA self-archiving of non-OA journal articles or publishing in a gold OA journals]? Why can't researchers just post articles online instead of publishing them in a journal at all?

Because OA's target content is peer-reviewed research publications, not unrefereed self-publication

3. Why is only green OA "in the hands of the research community"? Can't the research community just stop publishing in and subscribing to journals that don't convert to gold OA?

34,000 biologists tried the latter, 10 years ago, and it failed (predictably, because there was no viable alternative -- and there still isn't one).

4. Why is it that only "green OA can be mandated by the research community"? Can't the research community just stop publishing in and subscribing to journals that don't convert to gold OA?

See 3, above.

5. Why are publication costs paid only by "institutions, through journal subscriptions." What about individual subscribers?

Individual subscriptions provide a only a small fraction of journal income; it is institutional subscriptions that sustain peer-reviewed journals.

6. What ensures that the "funds to pay for gold OA" will be used for that purpose, if they are no longer "locked into institutional journal subscriptions"?

Necessity is the mother of invention. If and when mandated green OA makes subscriptions unsustainable, some of the annual windfall cancellation savings will be spent on books and other institutional necessities, but paying for publication will become an institutional necessity too. Its cost, however -- my guess is about $200 per round of refereeing, with "no-fault peer review" -- will be low enough so the solution will be a no-brainer.

7. Why is it "a waste of… funds to pay pre-emptively for gold OA today." OA is OA, isn't it?

OA is OA, but publication is already being paid for by institutional subscriptions. And green OA can be provided for free, by mandating it, whereas the money to pay for gold OA is still locked in subscriptions.

(But if an institution or funder has the extra cash to spare, there's no harm in paying pre-emptive gold OA fees for as much research output as they can afford today -- as long as they mandate green OA for all of it first.)

8. Why does "the research community… need to… mandate green OA"? If they need/want OA so much, can't they just provide it, unmandated?

This is a fair question -- indeed it amounts to a koan. The malady is known as " Xeno's Paralysis." There are at least 38 known causes, all easily curable. The problem is rampant symptom transfer, and pandemic recidivism... The virus seems to be a rapidly mutating one. Oa difficile.

9. How is it that "universal green OA" makes "journal affordability… far, far less important and urgent"? Journals still need to be paid for, don't they?

Institutional subscriptions are paying the cost of journal publication today. If and when mandated green OA makes subscriptions unsustainable, it will release those funds to pay for gold OA.

10. How do institutions know whether "users find universal green OA sufficient for their usage needs" so they can "cancel the subscriptions in which they were locked"?

When their users tell them they don't need the subscriptions any more, because they can access the free green OA versions online, and that is enough for their purposes. (This will not happen journal by journal, because green OA grows anarchically, across journals; it will only happen once green OA is at or near 100%, globally.)

11. How do we know that all "institutions will have the… subscription [cancelation] savings [to] pay the gold OA publishing costs for their individual outgoing articles"? Won't those that have more "individual outgoing articles" be paying more?

After green OA has becomes universal, the essential publication costs will shrink radically (no more need for paper edition, online edition, access-provision, or archiving). The sole remaining essential cost will be peer review. Once this is charged on a no-fault basis (per round of review) rather than per publication (charging all the rejected papers to the accepted authors, like a shop-lifting surcharge). Its annual cost -- my guess is about $200 per round of refereeing, with "no-fault peer review" -- will be far lower than the annual windfall subscription cancelation savings of even the most research-active universities.

12. If publishers "phas[e] out… print editions… and offload access provision and archiving (and their costs) onto… institutional repositories…[and] the green OA version… becom[es] the… version of record," don't institutions still bear the costs? And is the author's final draft fit for the record?

Institutions pay only the costs of peer review. The costs of producing the publisher's print and online editions are gone. And the costs of access-provision and archiving are distributed across the global network of institutional repositories, which are a part of essential institutional online infrastructure (serving many other purposes besides OA). The fraction of that infrastructure cost per paper will be negligible.

13. "If publishing costs… scale down to just… peer review," what keeps those costs from rising -- and keeps the peer review quality standards from falling?

Peers review for free. Charging for peer review on a no-fault basis (per round of review) rather than per publication (charging all the rejected papers to the accepted authors) eliminates the publisher's temptation to lower standards so as to publish more papers and make more money. The charge per round of no-fault peer review (about $200) will be kept fair by inter-journal competition. If anything, it will be the higher-standard peer review that will cost more, because meeting the standards of the higher quality journals will confer more value.

14. Why do "institutions and funders [need to] mandat[e] green OA first, rather than [just] paying… for gold OA? Can't the research community just stop publishing in and subscribing to journals that don't convert to gold OA?

See 3, above.

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship