Monday, December 19. 2011Gratis Open Access Vs. Libre Open AccessThe following commentary on Mike Carroll's GOAL posting on Taylor & Francis's press release is intended neither as an endorsement nor as a critique of T&F's (or any publisher's) gold OA offerings. It is just an attempt to clarify an important point about OA needs from the standpoint of researchers, who are both the providers and the primary intended users of peer-reviewed research articles: ![]() MC: "[The T&F] press release is misleading and should be corrected. You say that T&F is now publishing " fully Open Access journals", but unless I've misread the licensing arrangements this simply is not the case."As far as I know, there is no such thing as "fully OA." There is Gratis OA and there is Libre OA: T&F are selling Gratis OA. That means (1) immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web -- to peer reviewed research journal articles. (Note that along with free online access, the following also automatically comes with the territory: (2) clicking,as well as global harvesting and search by engines like google.) Mike Carroll is speaking about Libre OA, which means immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web (i.e., Gratis OA) plus certain further re-use, re-publication and re-mix rights. (Note that many peer-reviewed journal article authors may not want to allow others to make and publish re-mixes of their verbatim texts. Journal article texts are not like music, videos, software or even research data, out of which creative modifications and remixes can be valuable. All scholars and scientists desire that their findings and ideas should be accessed, re-used, applied and built-upon, but not necessarily that their words should be re-mixed or even re-published -- just accessible free for all online, immediately and permanently.) Today, the only peer-reviewed research journal articles to which researchers have access are those to which their institutions can afford subscription/licensed access. That means research is losing the uptake and impact of all those potential users who are denied access to it. All researchers want free online access to all research they may need to consult or use, not just the research to which their institutions can afford subscription access. All researchers want their research to be accessible to all researchers who may need to consult or use it, not just to those whose institutions can afford subscription access. It is not at all it clear, however, that researchers want and need the right to make and publish re-mixes of other researchers' verbatim texts. Nor is it clear that all or most researchers want to allow others to make and publish re-mixes of their verbatim texts. Hence Gratis OA clearly fulfills an important, universal and longstanding universal need of research and researchers. But it is not at all clear that this is true of Libre OA -- at least not for the very special case of the peer-reviewed research journal article texts that are the primary, specific target content of the OA movement. Hence it is not at all clear that there is anything T&F need to correct. MC: "A fully open access journal is one that publishes on the web without delay and which gives readers the full set of reuse rights conditioned only on the requirement that users provide proper attribution."I believe that is not the definition of a fully OA journal but of a Libre OA journal. MC: "T&F's "Open" program and "Open Select" offer pseudo open access."Gratis OA is not pseudo open access. It is the difference between night and day for researchers who are denied access to the publisher's version of record because their institutions cannot afford access. And night is the current state of affairs for 80% of research, and has been for the past 20 years, even though the means to provide Gratis OA (fully) have been available for at least that long. Gratis OA can be provided in two different ways: Gold OA journals like the T&F journals offer Gratis Gold OA, for which the author -- meaning the author's institution or funder -- must pay a publication fee. But most journals are not Gold OA journals, and hence the potential funds to pay for Gold OA are still locked up in institutional subscriptions to non-OA journals. That means that not only can most research not be made OA by publishing it in Gold OA journals (since most journals are non-OA), but even for the Gold OA journals, the money to pay the publication fees (of those,like T&F, that charge a publication fee) is tied up in paying for non-OA subscription journals). (This is equally true irrespective of whether the Gold OA journals offer Gratis OA or Libre OA.) The second way to provide Gratis OA is through Green OA self-archiving (i.e., depositing the author's peer-reviewed final draft in the author's Institutional OA Repository immediately upon acceptance for publication). Unlike Gold OA, Green OA does not require paying a publication fee. And Green OA can be provided for all articles, not just articles published in Gold OA journals. And, most important, Green OA self-archiving can be mandated by researchers' institutions and funders, whereas publishing in Gold OA journals cannot be mandated. (Publishers cannot be compelled to convert to Gold OA; reserchers cannot be told which journal to publish in; and the money to pay for Gold OA is locked into journal subscriptions, which cannot be cancelled until and unless the contents of those subscription journals are otherwise accessible.) Most Green OA (and Green OA mandates) are Gratis Green OA -- free online access. But that is still the difference between night and day for researchers. And Gratis Green OA self-archiving (but not Libre Green OA self-archiving) is already endorsed by over 60% of journals -- including the top journals in most fields. So please let us not belittle Gratis OA as not "fully" OA (and certainly not before we have it!). Let us provide it, and mandate providing it. And let us not keep focusing on Gold OA: The fastest, surest and cheapest way to full OA is for institutions and funders to mandate Gratis Green OA self-archiving. (And, as a bonus, that's also the fastest, surest and cheapest way to Gold OA as well as Libre OA, thereafter.) This question is valid -- but it is beside the point for the first and most important objective of the OA movement (still not reached in over a decade of trying), namely, immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web (i.e., Gratis OA).Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age, pp. 99-105, L'Harmattan.MC: "Could you please explain why T&F needs to reserve substantial reuse rights after the author or her funder has paid for the costs of publication?" T&F's Gratis Gold OA would provide that; but even if T&F provided Libre Gold OA, that would not be the fastest, surest or cheapest way to reach full OA -- by which I mean free online access to all 2.5 million articles published annually in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals. See the growth curves in Richard Poynder's "Open Access By Numbers." Free online access is what research and researchers need most. Mandating Gratis Green OA self-archiving will provide just that -- and Gold OA, and as much Libre OA as researchers actually need and want -- will be not far behind. But not if we keep over-reaching for Libre OA or Gold OA instead of providing and mandating Gratis Green OA. MC: "If your response is that the article processing charge does not represent the full cost of publication, what charge would? Why aren't authors given the option to purchase full open access?"Even the money to pay for Gratis Gold OA is still tied up in subscriptions, while subscriptions are still being paid for (and thereby paying for publication costs in full). And mandating Gratis Green OA can provide free access at no extra cost, while subscriptions are still being paid for (and thereby paying for publication costs in full). So why think about paying even more for Libre Gold OA today, when it's not at all clear that researchers want or need it -- whereas it's certain that they want and need Gratis OA (and they don't yet have it, even though it's fully within reach)? Stevan Harnad EnablingOpenScholarship American Scientist Open Access Forum Has Migrated to GOAL (Global Open Access List)![]() The vote is for (1) continuing the Forum, under (2) the moderatorship of Richard Poynder. The AmSci list has now been migrated to http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal where the BOAI list is also being hosted. AmSci Forum members need not re-subscribe. All subscriptions have been automatically transferred to the new host site. The name of the list has been changed to the Global Open Access List (GOAL) to reflect the fact that Open Access is no longer just an American or a Scientific matter. It has become a global movement. The old AmSci Forum Archives (1998-2011) will stay up at the Sigma Xi site (indefinitely, I hope -- though we do have copies of the entire archive). The new GOAL archive is at: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/ Stevan Harnad Below are the complete results of Straw Poll on whether to continue the Forum, and on who should be the new moderator: AGAINST CONTINUING AMSCI: ARIF JINHA: I believe it would be better to have one forum, the BOAI. This forum has developed a doctrinal bias defined by the values and personality of its leadership. Though the leadership is to be commended for its credibility and vigour, it is not without its blind spots. It has not always OPEN to a diversity of perspectives. AMSCI is driven by assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing. The rush to conclusion on the right path is premature and overly authoritative in its expression, therefore it is alienating. In truth, we have only really got started with the web in the last 10 years and authority is completely flattened by the learning curve. The BOAI is much wider in its representation of Open Access alternatives, it is therefore more neutral as well as having a wider reach for the promotion of Green OA. It means less duplication and less work devoted to instant communication, giving more time to develop a rigorous and scientific approach to meta-scholarship in the digital age. FOR CONTINUING AMSCI: DANA ROTH: I would disagree with Arif Jinha, in that it is the 'assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing' that make AMSCI such an interesting listserv. Tuesday, December 6. 2011Is Harvard's No-Opt-Out Deposit-Requirement Clear Enough?![]() Stuart Shieber's reply to Matt Welsh's worries about the Harvard Open Access policy is spot-on in every respect. No one could be a more fervent well-wisher for the success of the Harvard OA policy than I am. But the crucial criterion for the success of an OA policy is how much OA it actually generates. It is splendid that 95% of Harvard authors have not opted out of the copyright reservation clause. But what percentage have been complying with the no-opt-out deposit clause by actually depositing or providing a deposit-copy of their articles? Stuart is certainly right that it is hard to imagine that providing the articles is "a huge pain." But is it clear to Harvard authors that they are required to do it? Here are the relevant portions of the the FAS OA Policy: I. Copyright Reservation Clause: "Each Faculty member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and to exercise the copyright in those articles….The Dean or the Dean’s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by a Faculty member explaining the need."II. Deposit Clause: "To assist the University in distributing the articles, each Faculty member will provide an electronic copy of the final version of the article at no charge to the appropriate representative of the Provost’s Office in an appropriate format (such as PDF) specified by the Provost’s Office."Is it clear to Harvard authors that a formal opt-out from Clause I is not an opt-out from Clause II (i.e., that deposit must be done in any case)? The answer to this question would be implicit in the annual percentage of Harvard's refereed research output that is actually being deposited in DASH. If that percentage does not approach or match the 95% non-opt-out rate for Clause I, then perhaps the contingencies need to be made a lot clearer. Here's are four suggestions: 1. Place the Deposit Clause first, and state explicitly that there is no opt-out or waiver from this deposit requirement, only from the copyright-reservation clause that follows. All articles must be deposited in DASH. Access to those for which the Copyright Reservation Clause has been waived will be set as Closed Access instead of Open Access. (And, to prevent the deposit requirement from being a vague, open-ended one that can be left to be complied with in 2022, state explicitly that the deposit must be done immediately upon acceptance for publication.)This clarification is all the more important, since universities are beginning follow Harvard's example by adopting the Harvard model as their OA policy: This makes it all the more crucial to make sure that the policy model is clear, understood, and actually works. Here are the three further suggestions, that have both already been demonstrated to make an immediate-deposit (ID/OA) requirement more attractive and better complied with: 2. Designate deposit in DASH as henceforth the sole mechanism for submitting refereed research for performance review (the "Liège Model" OA mandate.) Stevan Harnad EnablingOpenScholarship Tuesday, November 29. 2011Harvard Open Access Policy Benchmark Needed![]() It is important to calculate what percentage of the total annual refereed journal article output of Harvard (participating Faculties) is represented by the c. 6457 deposits to date in Harvard's DASH Repository since adoption of Harvard's OA Policy?That is the objective measure of the success of an OA policy, and hence of whether it provides a model ready for other universities to emulate -- or whether it still needs some tweaks (e.g., to make it more like the U. Liege ID/OA policy, which (1) requires immediate deposit with no waiver, (2) only requests (but does not require) that the deposit be made immediately OA, (3) designates repository deposit as the sole means of submitting journal articles for research performance review, and has generated 67,631 deposits to date). The global baseline rate of making articles OA (without any OA policy) is about 20% (varying by discipline). The target is of course 100%. And about 60% is a benchmark, because that is the percentage of journals that already endorse immediate OA deposit (hence do not require Harvard-style rights retention in order to make deposits OA immediately). It is extremely important to get a clear idea of exactly how well Harvard's policy is doing after nearly 4 years: If the deposit rate is near 100%, it is doing as well as or better than all other kinds of OA mandates. If it is close to 60%, that's still good, but it's not clear whether its rights-retention clause is the cause, or its deposit clause. And if it's closer to 20%, then Harvard's deposit clause is not working and needs upgrading to ID/OA. This is all the more important since it is the Harvard model that other universities are likely to follow, come what may. Stevan Harnad EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS) Friday, November 25. 2011Stepping down as Moderator of American Scientist Open Access Forum![]() Subscribers will vote on whether to continue the AmSci Forum or whether the other two OA Forums (SOAF and BOAI) are now sufficient to air views on OA. I will of course remain active in OA and will be posting to the existing Forums (and AmSci, if it continues) and/or the OA Archivangelism blog whenever the spirit moves or the occasion calls! Stevan Harnad Sunday, November 20. 2011WikiWeakPoints: Notability vs. Noteworthiness, Anonymity vs. Answerability![]() Just a small sample of the patently obvious and persistent fallacies in the notion that anonymous global cloud-writing can produce reliable information on anything that's more than skin-deep (I could go on and on and on): Thursday, November 17. 2011Open Access First, Copyright Reform After [LSE Global IPR Reform Nov 18]Tuesday, November 15. 2011The Liège ORBi model: Mandatory policy without rights retention but linked to assessment proceduresBerlin 9 Open Access policy development Workshop by: Bernard Rentier (Rector, U. Liege) & Paul Thirion (Repository Manager, U. Liege) PDF OF PRESENTATION
Friday, November 11. 2011Open Access Principles and Open Access Practice![]() Since then, thirty two more North American Universities have so far followed suit. But not all of the signatories have yet mandated Open Access -- and that's really the only thing that counts. The rest is just apple-pie approbation in principle, until and unless it is put into practice, as spelled out at Berlin 3 in 2005 at the University of Southampton. Sunday, October 30. 2011Fool's Gold Journal Spam![]() They just keep coming, almost daily, pre-emptively spamming all the people we had been hoping to win over to Open Access. Not only is it regrettable that OA is so unthinkingly identified in most people's minds with gold OA publishing in general, but this growing spate of relentless fool's-gold junk-OA spamming in particular is now coalescing with that misconception -- and at the same time more and more universities and funders are reaching into their scarce funds to pay for this kind of thing, thinking this is the way to provide OA. (Meanwhile, green OA mandates, the real solution, are still hovering at about 200 out of about 10,000 (2%!) -- and mostly needlessly watered-down mandates. I wish I could figure out a way to turn this liability -- fool's-gold spam and scam -- into an asset for spreading green mandates, but I'm afraid that even Richard Poynder's critical articles are being perceived mostly as critical of OA itself rather than just of fool's-gold OA.) The real culprits are not the ones trying to make a buck out of this current spike in pay-to-publish-or-perish/gold-fever co-morbidity, but the researchers themselves, who can't put 2+2 together and provide green OA on their own, cost-free; and their institutions and funders, who can't put 2+2 together and mandate that they do it. Instead of thinking, it's easier to shell out for fool's gold... Richard's exposés are helpful, but I think they are not enough to open people's eyes. So all we can do is hope that the spamming itself will become so blatant and intrusive that it will wake people up to the fact that this is not the way to provide OA... Stevan PS Not only do I not work on anything faintly resembling "proteomics/bioinformatics" but I have no "relationship with OMICS Group" (except possibly prior complaints about spam)! These spam disclaimers are a lark. They seem to be using professional spam services that try to appear respectable.
« previous page
(Page 32 of 113, totaling 1129 entries)
» next page
|
QuicksearchSyndicate This BlogMaterials You Are Invited To Use To Promote OA Self-Archiving:
Videos:
The American Scientist Open Access Forum has been chronicling and often directing the course of progress in providing Open Access to Universities' Peer-Reviewed Research Articles since its inception in the US in 1998 by the American Scientist, published by the Sigma Xi Society. The Forum is largely for policy-makers at universities, research institutions and research funding agencies worldwide who are interested in institutional Open Acess Provision policy. (It is not a general discussion group for serials, pricing or publishing issues: it is specifically focussed on institutional Open Acess policy.)
You can sign on to the Forum here.
ArchivesCalendar
CategoriesBlog AdministrationStatisticsLast entry: 2018-09-14 13:27
1129 entries written
238 comments have been made
Top ReferrersSyndicate This Blog |