Publishing Costs

Dana Roth (CalTech Library) wrote:

"Stevan: In fairness to responsible publishers, I think it would be appropriate to call George Monbiot to task for not differentiating between commercial and society journals. Wiley is especially egregious in increasing prices while publishing fewer and fewer articles (e.g. Biopolymers)."

Dana, I think it's wrong to demonize publishers at all, whether commercial or learned-society. Let them charge whatever subscription prices they can get.

The real culprits (to paraphrase Pogo) are researchers -- the 80% of them that don't yet make their refereed final drafts freely accessible online immediately upon acceptance for publication.

It's for that reason that "green" open-access self-archiving mandates from institutions and funders are the natural solution to the problem of making sure that refereed research is accessible to all potential users, not just those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in which they are published.

But apart from not demonizing publishers, it's also important to name and laud those publishers that have endorsed immediate, un-embargoed green open-access self-archiving. On the side of the angels in this respect are most of the major commercial publishers: Elsevier, Springer and, yes, Wiley.

(In contrast, some of the major society publishers -- notably the American Chemical Society -- are not yet on the side of the angels, and for that they deserve to be named and shamed. -- There are, however, work-arounds, even for such regressive cases.)

No, green OA self-archiving does not solve the journal affordability/over-pricing problem. But what gives that problem its urgency -- what makes it indeed a serials crisis -- will be completely remedied once green OA self-archiving is universally mandated by institutions and funders worldwide: For once the final drafts are accessible free for all, it becomes a far less critical matter to a university whether it can still afford to subscribe to any particular journal. What they cannot afford, their users can access in its green OA version. The real underlying problem -- research accessibility -- is completely solved by mandating green OA, even if the problem of journal affordability is not.

Let me close with the pre-emptive re-posting of the abstract of the paper that answers the habitual rebuttal to what I have just said, namely, that green OA self-archiving is "parasitic" on journal publishers:

Harnad, S. (2011) Open Access Is a Research Community Matter, Not a Publishing Community Matter. Lifelong Learning in Europe, XVI (2). pp. 117-118.

ABSTRACT: It is ironic that some publishers are calling Green OA self-archiving “parasitic” when not only are researchers giving publishers their articles for free, as well as peer-reviewing them for free, but research institutions are paying for subscriptions in full, covering all publishing costs and profits. The only natural and obvious source of the money to pay for Gold OA fees – if and when all journals convert to Gold OA -- is hence the money that institutions are currently spending on subscriptions -- if and when subscriptions eventually become unsustainable.

Dixit,

Your Weary Archivangelist (gone quite long of tooth during the past two wasted decades of inaction),
Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

Poynder, Richard (2011) PLoS ONE, Open Access, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing. Open and Shut. 7 March 2011.

ABSTRACT: Open Access (OA) advocates argue that PLoS ONE is now the largest scholarly journal in the world. Its parent organisation — Public Library of Science (PLoS) — was co-founded in 2001 by Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus. What does the history of PLoS tell us about the development of PLoS ONE? What does the success of PLoS ONE tell us about OA? And what does the current rush by other publishers to clone PLoS ONE tell us about the future of scholarly communication?

---

Comment:

Richard Poynder has written another timely and important eye-opener about Open Access. Although (as usual!) I disagree with some of the points Richard makes in his paper, I think it is again a welcome cautionary piece from this astute observer and chronicler of OA developments across the years.
 
(1) Richard is probably right that PLOS ONE is over-charging and under-reviewing (and over-hyping).
 
(2) It is not at all clear, however, that the solution is to deposit everything instead as unrefereed preprints in an IR and then wait for the better stuff to be picked up by an "overlay journal". (I actually think that's utter nonsense.)
 
(3) The frequently mooted notion (of Richard Smith and many others) of postpublication "peer review" is not much better, but it is like a kind of "evolutionarily unstable strategy" that could be dipped into experimentally to test what scholarly quality, sustainability, and scaleability it would yield -- until (as I would predict) the consequences become evident enough to induce everyone to draw back.

(4) Although there is no doubt that Harold Varmus's stature and advocacy have had an enormous positive influence on the growth of OA, in my opinion Richard is attributing far too much prescience to Harold's original 1999 E-biomed proposal. [See my 1999 criticisms. Although I was still foolishly flirting with central deposit at the time (and had not yet realized that mandates would be required to get authors to deposit at all), I think I picked out the points that eventually led to incoherence; and, no, PLOS was not on the horizon at that time (even BMC didn't exist).]
 
(5) Also, of course, I think Richard gives the Scholarly Scullery way too much weight (though Richard does rightly state that he has no illusions about those chefs' motivation -- just as he stresses that he has no doubts about PLOS's sincerity).
 
(6) Richard's article may do a little short-term harm to OA, but not a lot. It is more likely to do some good.
 
(7) I wish, of course, that Richard had mentioned the alternative that I think is the optimal one (and that I think will still prevail), namely, that self-archiving the refereed final draft of all journal articles (green OA) will be mandated by all universities and funders, eventually causing subscription cancellations, driving down costs to just those of peer review, and forcing journals to convert to institutional payment for individual outgoing paper publication instead of for incoming bulk subscription. The protection against the temptation to "dumb down" peer review to make more money is also simple and obvious: no-fault refereeing charges.

(8) Richard replied that the reason he did not dwell on Green OA, which he too favors, is that he thinks Green OA progress is still too slow (I agree!) and that it's important to point out that the fault in the system is at the publisher end -- whether non-OA publisher or OA. I continue to think the fault is at the researcher end, and will be remedied by Green OA self-archiving by researchers, and Green OA self-archiving mandates by research institutions and funders

Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8).

Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal. In: Cope, B. & Phillips, A (Eds.) The Future of the Academic Journal. Chandos.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
EnablingOpenScholarship

Another university has committed some of its (scarce) resources to subsidizing costly Gold OA publishing of some of its refereed research output without first mandating cost-free Green OA self-archiving of all of its refereed research output.

University of Michigan is the 9th university to commit to COPE. Only two (Harvard and MIT) of the nine COPE signatories to date are among the 170 institutions, departments and funders that have already mandated Green OA self-archiving for all of their refereed research output. The other seven COPE signatories should first emulate Harvard and MIT on providing Green, before provisioning Gold.

For the record: An institution or funder committing to COPE (or SCOAP3 or pre-emptive Gold OA "Membership" deals) is fine after the institution or funder has already mandated Green OA self-archiving of all of its refereed research output; but it is both wasteful and counterproductive before (or instead):

Please Commit To Providing Green OA Before Committing... 15 Sep 2009

Against Squandering Scarce Research Funds on Pre-Emptive Gold OA... 15 May 2009  

Pre-Emptive Gold Fever Strikes Again... 23 Apr 2009  

On Throwing Money At Gold OA Without First Mandating Green OA 28 Mar 2009

University of California: Throwing Money At Gold OA Without 8 Mar 2009  

Conflicts of Interest in Open Access... 1 May 2009  

Green OA is no threat to grants: Pre-emptive Gold OA, today, might 24 Jan 2007

More OA Somnambulism: Conflating the Journal Affordability and... 5 Mar 2009  

SCOAP3 and the pre-emptive "flip" model for Gold OA conversion 23 Jun 2008

Harvard's Stuart Shieber on Open Access at CalTech and Berkeley... 17 Apr 2009

Publisher anti-OA Lobby Triumphs in European Commission... 13 Jul 2007

Physics World: The CERN Gold OA Initiative 8 Mar 2007  

On "Open Access" Publishers Who Oppose Open Access Self-Archiving 3 Mar 2007  

Gold and Green Keynotes at IATUL 2007 11 Jun 2007  

Cliff Lynch on Open Access 12 Jan 2007 

Journal Affordability, Research Accessibility, and Open Access 14 Jun 2008  

Clarifying the Logic of Open Choice: I (of 2) 23 Mar 2007  

OA Primer for the Perplexed: I 25 May 2008  

Critique of EPS/RIN/RCUK/DTI "Evidence-Based Analysis of Data..." 8 Oct 2006

The University of California (UC) dispute with Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is about journal pricing -- an important topic, but one on which I have no expertise, hence take no position. It needs to be pointed out, however, that there are two points in UC's latest response to NPG's response that are incorrect:

(1) It is incorrect that "NPG has been a leader in adopting the 'green' publishing policies."

A green publishing policy on open access (OA) means explicitly endorsing authors providing OA to the peer-reviewed final drafts of their papers ("postprints") immediately upon acceptance for publication (as 63% of journals do, including the counterpart of NPG's Nature, AAAS's Science). NPG was once, in 2003, a leader in green OA, but it backslid in January 2005 to declaring that its authors should wait six months after publication before making their postprints OA.

(2) It is incorrect that "UC... libraries... pay... fees to get access to their own work."

UC libraries (like all other libraries) pay fees to access the work of other universities. If UC is concerned about providing access to its own work, it should mandate Green OA. When other universities do likewise, UC will gain access to their work too (though for the first six months, that access to Nature articles in particular may have to be "Almost OA" rather than OA, owing to Nature's regressive embargo...)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

On Mon, 10 May 2010 Joseph Esposito wrote in l-liblicense:

"Harnad is hoping to replace the small problem of access with the large problem of fiscal recklessness."

On May 14, 2010 Jim Stemper replied:

'The Research Information Network's 2009 study "Overcoming Barriers: Access to Research Information Content" goes to some lengths to show that the access problem is not "small." Some excerpts:'

"Of the 800 respondents, over 40% said that they were unable readily to access licensed content at least weekly; and two-thirds at least monthly. The key reasons for failing to secure access were perceived to be [...] that the library had not purchased a licence for the content, because of budgetary constraints (56%). Around 59 per cent of respondents thought that non-availability of content does have some impact on their research, while 18 per cent say the impact is 'significant' either in terms of timing and/or comprehensiveness and/or other quality impact."

---

And let's not forget the Open Access Impact Advantage: If journal affordability constraints are a direct indicator of the fact that the access problem is not small but large, the fact that in every field OA enhances both citation and download impact are indirect indicators of that same fact (apart from being benefits in their own right):

Hitchcock, S. "The effect of open access and downloads ('hits') on citation impact: a bibliography of studies"

To see efforts to give research access priority over publisher revenue as "fiscal recklessness" is (yet again) a symptom of the entrenched but fallacious Gutenberg-era assumption that the (publishing) tail somehow has the natural right to keep wagging the (research) dog…


Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

David Wiley's version of the double-payment objection is only partly correct. To the extent that both research funding and research library funding are paid by the tax-payer, there is indeed some double-paying — but the one who gets the free ride is the publisher, who gets to charge for access to material most of which was funded by the tax-payer.

(But not so for peer review, which the publisher manages, though the reviewing is again actually being done for free by the peers. Nevertheless, an honest broker is needed to manage the peer review, or else it’s vanity press. The cost of managing peer review is much less than the cost of publishing, but it will be an invariant expense that needs to be paid no matter what.)

The double-pay objection is incorrect, however, when it is made from the standpoint of the subscriber institution. (Private universities’ journal budgets are not paid by tax-payers; and even public universities cover it partly out of student fees or other sources.) The institutional librarians who say “Our institution takes the trouble and expense to provide the research, gives it to publishers for free, only to have to buy it back for subscrption fees” are mistaken: An institution has its own research output: It’s buying in the research output of other institutions with its journal subscriptions. (So unless one thinks the same argument ought to be applied to books, there’s no valid double-pay objection here.)

But, last, the real rationale for Open Access is not the fact that tax-payers feel a burning wish or need to read the peer-reviewed reports of the often highly specialized research they fund. It is that if the research they have funded is to provide the maximal benefits to the tax-payers who funded it, it should be accessible to all of its intended users: the researchers who are in the position to use, apply and build upon the scholarly or scientific findings, and not just those whose institutions can afford a subscription to the journal in which they happen to be punished.

But the moral is the same: Both research funders and universities should mandate that all their peer-reviewed research articles are made freely accessible to all their potential users online (“Green OA”). If and when making all this peer-reviewed research freely available online makes journal subscriptions unsustainable as the way of recovering the costs of peer review, institutions can pay those true costs, by the outgoing article, out of just a fraction of their annual windfall savings from their subscription cancellations.

Harnad, S. (2007) The “Double-Pay”/”Buy-Back” Argument for Open Access is Invalid. Open Access Archivangelism. Sep 9 2007

Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: Anna Gacs (Ed.). The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. L’Harmattan. 99-106.

Harnad, S. (2009) The PostGutenberg Open Access Journal. In: Cope, B. & Phillips, A (Eds.) The Future of the Academic Journal. Chandos.

Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallieres, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y, Oppenheim, C., Stamerjohanns, H., & Hilf, E. (2004) The green and the gold roads to Open Access. Nature Web Focus.

---

In response to the above comments, DW wrote that "we’re both on the same team," and we are! So readers should see the follwing exchange as fine-tuning the strategic details:

DW: "[SH] seems to think publisher free riding is a bigger problem than asking taxpayers to pay multiple times for access to research"

The access problem is the problem of publisher access-tolls (subscriptions, licenses) preventing research from being accessible to all of its intended users. Hence publisher free-riding (apart from peer review) is the problem.

What I said was that in those cases where there really is double payment by the tax-payer -- funding both the research itself and the subscription to the resulting published articles -- that subscription cost (apart from the peer review) is largely based on publisher free riding. The remedy for that is indeed to mandate that fundees make their articles free for all online. (We agree on all of this.)

But I also said that (a) not all or most journal subscriptions are paid with taxpayer funding and that the real problem is (b) neither double-payment nor (c) taxpayer access to the research but (d) researcher access to the research (so the research can be used and applied, to the benefit of the taxpayer).

DW: "My post doesn’t bring up the notion of institutions as objectors on the twice pay grounds. The objections [SH] raises above must be baggage... from previous conversations. My post is focused very clearly on taxpayers..."

The twice-pay argument is most frequently used by university librarians (that's why it's prior baggage to the twice-pay issue; see the references I cited).

But not all (perhaps not even most) research is taxpayer-funded, whereas virtually all research is university-produced (or research-institute-produced). Hence for global research access across all fields of research, funded and unfunded, OA mandates from the universal research-providers -- universities and research institutes -- are by far the biggest factor.

The rationale for university OA mandates is not based on twice-pay arguments at all; and the rationale for funder OA mandates is only partially based on the twice-pay argument. the rationale for both funder and university mandates is based on the need for research to be accessible to all of its intended users, in order to maximize the progress and benefits of research.

About this conclusion -- the primary rationale for providing OA is for the sake of uptake and usage by its intended users, namely, researchers -- you wrote that this was as if I had said:

DW: “Normal taxpayers aren’t capable of understanding research so it’s ok if only qualified, PhD-holding people have access... [This] smacks of Pre-Reformation ideas about restricting access to the scriptures..."

But that was neither what I said nor what I meant: In order to get researchers to make their research OA -- and in order to get their institutions and their funders to mandate that they make their research OA -- you have to find a rationale that is valid, and that applies to all research. The twice-pay argument applies only to a subset of funded research, and the taxpayer-access argument is hardly an argument at all, since most research isn't of the slightest interest to taxpayers, whereas researcher access to research is in the interest of all taxpayers (if funding the research in the first place was in their interest!).

Besides, making research OA makes it freely accessible to everyone anyway, researchers and taxpayers alike: That comes with the territory. (OA provides free access to all, even if the primary rationale for providing OA is to ensure that research is accessible to all the users for which it is primarily written.)

DW: “It's unclear to me why universities are acceptable actors here [mandating Green OA self-archiving] when they weren’t two paragraphs above."

Two paragraphs above I pointed out that the universities' version of the pay-twice argument was incorrect, that the taxpayer version of it was only partially correct (for a minority of funded research) and that the fundamental rationale for both funder and university OA mandates is the same: To ensure that all research, funded and unfunded, is made accessible to all of its intended users.

DW: "taxpayers (the research funders) should implement measures (legislatively, through their representatives) that guarantee them access to research findings"

Agreed! And universities should also implement measures (administratively, through their research auditing and performance evaluation procedures) that guarantee open access to their research findings.

And the primary rationale for both these mandates is so that all research should be accessible to all of its intended users, not just to those who can afford subscriptions to the journals in which it was published. Open access is optimal for all research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and the taxpaying public that funds the funders (and institutions).

Harnad, S. (2008) Waking OA’s' Slumbering Giant': The University's Mandate To Mandate Open Access New Review of Information Networking 14(1): 51 - 68

Harnad, S. (2008) How to Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates Open Access Archivangelism. March 2 2008.

Declan Butler's 7 April article in Nature -- "US seeks to make science free for all" -- says a lot about (1) "Gold" Open Access publishing fees (and about where the money will come from).

It also talks about (2) "Green" Open Access self-archiving mandates from research funders that require fundees to deposit the final, accepted drafts of published articles in an Open Access repository (and about how long they are embargoed before they are made Open Access).

But it says nothing at all about the biggest Open Access development of all: (3) Green Open Access deposit mandates from authors' universities and research institutions.

Not all research is funded, but virtually all of it originates from the world's universities and research institutions. And although MIT and Harvard have pledged to commit some funds to pay for some Gold Open Access fees for some of their authors, Declan Butler's article neglects to mention that both universities first mandated Green Open Access for all of their own institutional research output, funded and unfunded, across all disciplines-- and so have over a hundred other universities worldwide. See ROARMAP.

Harnad, S. (2008) Waking OA’s' Slumbering Giant': The University's Mandate To Mandate Open Access New Review of Information Networking 14(1): 51 - 68

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

In February 2010, University of Hong Kong signed a hybrid Gold OA "Open Choice" agreement with Springer.

In October 2008 in ROARMAP, University of Hong Kong proposed to the University Grants Committee (RGC/UGC) an Open Access Mandate for all RGC/UGC-funded research.

It is not yet clear whether in the meantime this mandate has actually been adopted, by either HKU or RGC/UGC. The proposed mandate itself was an almost-optimal one:

It was an Immediate-Deposit mandate, but it seems to have misunderstood the fact that a postprint can be deposited in the Institutional Repository without having to seek "permission" from the publisher. Permissions are only at issue at all for the date when the deposit can be made Open Access:

ii. [HKU RGC/UGC-funded researchers] should send the journal the Hong Kong author’s addendum (University of Hong Kong, 2008), which adds the right of placing some version (preprint or postprint) of the paper in their university’s institutional repository (IR). If necessary, seek funds from the RGC to pay open access charges up to an agreed limit; perhaps US$3,000...

iv. deposit all published papers in their IR, unless the journal refuses in writing. If the published version is refused, deposit the preprint or postprint, as allowed in number ii above...

The proposed mandate's language makes it sound as if HKU wrongly believes that it needs to pay the publisher for the right to deposit!

It is to be hoped that this will be clarified and that the deposit mandate will be adopted (both for RGC/HGC-funded research and for unfunded HKU research) before HKU begins to pay any publisher anything at all.

Otherwise, as the Houghton Report shows, HKU is gratuitously paying a lot more money for a lot less OA and its benefits.

---

On Not Putting The Gold OA-Payment Cart Before The Green OA-Provision Horse

SUMMARY: Universities need to commit to mandating Green OA self-archiving before committing to spend their scarce available funds to pay for Gold OA publishing. Most of the university's potential funds to pay Gold OA publishing fees are currently committed to paying their annual journal subscription fees, which are thereby covering the costs of publication already. Pre-emptively committing to pay Gold OA publication fees over and above paying subscription fees will only provide OA for a small fraction of a university's total research article output; Green OA mandates will provide OA for all of it. Journal subscriptions cannot be cancelled unless the journals' contents are otherwise accessible to a university's users. (In addition, the very same scarcity of funds that makes pre-emptive Gold OA payment for journal articles today premature and ineffectual also makes Gold OA payment for monographs unaffordable, because the university funds already committed to journal subscriptions today are making even the purchase of a single print copy of incoming monographs for the library prohibitive, let alone making Gold OA publication fees for outgoing monographs affordable.) Universal Green OA mandates will make the final peer-reviewed drafts of all journal articles freely accessible to all would-be users online, thereby not only providing universal OA, but opening the doors to an eventual transition to universal Gold OA if and when universities then go on to cancel subscriptions, releasing those committed funds to pay the publishing costs of Gold OA.

The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now

ABSTRACT: Among the many important implications of Houghton et al’s (2009) timely and illuminating JISC analysis of the costs and benefits of providing free online access (“Open Access,” OA) to peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journal articles one stands out as particularly compelling: It would yield a forty-fold benefit/cost ratio if the world’s peer-reviewed research were all self-archived by its authors so as to make it OA. There are many assumptions and estimates underlying Houghton et al’s modelling and analyses, but they are for the most part very reasonable and even conservative. This makes their strongest practical implication particularly striking: The 40-fold benefit/cost ratio of providing Green OA is an order of magnitude greater than all the other potential combinations of alternatives to the status quo analyzed and compared by Houghton et al. This outcome is all the more significant in light of the fact that self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas OA publishing depends on the publishing industry. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that this outcome emerged from studies that approached the problem primarily from the standpoint of the economics of publication rather than the economics of research.

Springer's Already on the Side of the Angels: What's the Big Deal?

SUMMARY: The Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) has made a deal with Springer that articles by VSNU authors will be made OA. But Springer is already on the side of the angels on OA, being completely Green on immediate, unembargoed author OA self-archiving. Hence all VSNU authors are already free to deposit their refereed final drafts of their Springer articles in their institutional repositories, without requiring any further permission or payment. So what in addition is meant by the VSNU deal with Springer? that the Springer PDF rather than the author's final draft can be deposited? That Springer does the deposit on VSNU authors' behalf? Or is this a deal for prepaid hybrid Gold OA? In the case of Springer articles, it seems that what the Netherlands lacked was not the right to make them OA, but the mandate (from the VSNU universities and Netherlands' research funders like NWO) to make them OA. There are some signs, however, that this too might be on the way...

University of California: Throwing Money At Gold OA Without Mandating Green OA

---

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus 28 (1): 55-59

ABSTRACT: Among the many important implications of Houghton et al’s (2009) timely and illuminating JISC analysis of the costs and benefits of providing free online access (“Open Access,” OA) to peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journal articles one stands out as particularly compelling: It would yield a forty-fold benefit/cost ratio if the world’s peer-reviewed research were all self-archived by its authors so as to make it OA. There are many assumptions and estimates underlying Houghton et al’s modelling and analyses, but they are for the most part very reasonable and even conservative. This makes their strongest practical implication particularly striking: The 40-fold benefit/cost ratio of providing Green OA is an order of magnitude greater than all the other potential combinations of alternatives to the status quo analyzed and compared by Houghton et al. This outcome is all the more significant in light of the fact that self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas OA publishing depends on the publishing industry. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that this outcome emerged from studies that approached the problem primarily from the standpoint of the economics of publication rather than the economics of research.

Houghton, J.W. & Oppenheim, C. (2009) The Economic Implications of Alternative Publishing Models. Prometheus 26(1): 41-54

Houghton, J.W., Rasmussen, B., Sheehan, P.J., Oppenheim, C., Morris, A., Creaser, C., Greenwood, H., Summers, M. and Gourlay, A. (2009). Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models: Exploring the Costs and Benefits, London and Bristol: The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)

Ironically, I'll have to leave it to Phil Davis (of the Society for Scholarly Publishing's "Scholarly Kitchen") to flesh out the futility and fatuity of this latest outbreak of pre-emptive gold fever.

(Only known antidote: Green OA Mandates, which Harvard and MIT had had the good sense and foresight to adopt first, before signing on to COPE; Columbia instead shadows the somnambulism of Cornell, Dartmouth and Berkeley.)

SSP (and STM and AAP and ALPSP) have been handed (on a gold platter) yet another free ingredient with which to roast OA.

Meanwhile, as we keep fiddling, our access and impact keep burning.