Stevan,

Of course you are correct in that 'self archiving' (your original 
proposal) in itself is not a publishing model BUT 'self archiving' in 
parallel with the current model is a possible 'open access publishing' 
model. However, for the reasons set out in my earlier note, I do not think 
it is a viable one.

BTW - There is an implied hypothesis in your 'self archiving' proposal. It 
is that self archiving will lead to a superior academic publishing 
situation (where refereed information is freely available) but this is not 
a necessary outcome of self archiving and is therefore 'hypothetical'.

Regards,

John Smith.


On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, J.W.T.Smith wrote:
>
>> My basic interpretation of the 'Harnad model' is that Stevan wants every
>> researcher to locally (or remotely) make available an open copy of either
>> the submitted draft, final draft or published version of their research
>> publications. It operates in parallel with the current journal model and
>> uses the quality control services of existing journals.
>>
>> However, by using this existing quality control service it is, in fact,
>> parasitic on the current model. What Stevan does not want to acknowledge
>> is that this parasitism will ultimately destroy the current journal model
>> (who is going subscribe to a journal when all its articles are available
>> for free?).
>>
>> From my above analysis it is clear that having mandates (for self
>> archiving) will not not only increase the number of research articles
>> freely available (a good thing) but will also accelerate the end of the
>> 'traditional' journal and force the evolution of a new form of academic
>> publishing to replace it (in my opinion also a good thing :-) ).
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Hypothesis non fingo.
>
> There is no Harnad model.
>
>    Research is published in c. 24,000 peer-reviewed journals (c. 2.5
>    million articles per year). (Datum, not hypothesis.)
>
>    Not all would-be users can access all those articles online. (Datum,
>    not hypothesis.)
>
>    Self-archiving supplements access, for those would-be users. (Datum,
>    not hypothesis.)
>
>    Self-archiving is correlated with higher and earlier download and
>    citation impact.  (Datum, not hypothesis.)
>
>    Only c. 15% of those annual articles are being spontaneously self-archived
>    today. (Datum, not hypothesis)
>
>    When self-archiving is mandated, it rapidly rises toward 100%. (Datum,
>    not hypothesis.)
>
>    No evidence has been reported to date that self-archiving causes
>    cancellations. (Datum, not hypothesis.)
>
>        *Self-archiving might eventually cause cancellations and a change
>        in journal publishing model. (Hypothesis)
>
>        4.2 Hypothetical Sequel
>        http://cogprints.org/1639/01/resolution.htm#4.2
>
> Mea culpa. Hypothesis non fingo.
>
> There is no Harnad model.
>
>    Berners-Lee, T., De Roure, D., Harnad, S. and Shadbolt, N. (2005)
>    Journal publishing and author self-archiving: Peaceful Co-Existence
>    and Fruitful Collaboration.
>    http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/
>
> Stevan Harnad
>