On 12 Jan 2012, at 10:00, Thomas Krichel wrote:

> Steve Hitchcock writes
> 
>> calls to abandon library journal subscriptions
>> (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html?)
>  ...
>> are also ultimately antithetical to repositories.
> 
>  Why?


Thomas,    We are concerned here with peer-reviewed published papers, as that is what feeds open access on current definitions. The priority of researcher/authors is to be published above providing OA, that's clear from the numbers: the vast majority of published articles (80%, Bjork et al) are not yet made OA by their authors. Now the suggestion is that library journal subscriptions are cut, reducing the opportunities for authors to publish and reducing the ability of users to access published content even further. 

One alternative, which you have mentioned before, is that libraries should reinvest some of the savings from journal cancellations in IRs. I would agree there needs to be more investment in repositories by institutions, but that has to be justified by growing content. Where is it to come from? We'll get back to this point.

Consider why the idea for library journal cancellations is on the agenda now. It's in response to publishers' support for SOPA and RWA (the former is aimed at the Internet generally; RWA is targetted squarely at open access mandates, and so is of more direct concern). This seems to have unleashed a wave of vitriol against the publishers, ratcheted up with the revelation that some of these publishers are making high profits. A perfect recipe, in these sensitive and hard economic times, for the wrong diagnosis and the wrong response.

Let's deal with the issues directly. First, journal costs and profits. These are driven by exclusivity. For over a decade we have had the perfect opportunity to moderate these factors - green open access repositories. This places an open access author version of a paper against a value-added publisher version. Because these versions are in principle complementary but not equal they fulfil the criteria of moderation in the supply chain rather than direct competition. 

Now let's consider RWA and its real target, not open access but open access policies and mandates requiring open access via repositories. According to Sherpa 65% of journal publishers allow author self-archiving in repositories (green open access), but with RWA these publishers are against policies that might require authors to take advantage of that. In other words, they want to control the speed at which any route to open access is adopted, to control and maintain profitability.

The primary target of RWA is the NIH open access policy, the policy with the largest reach and impact, but any such policy would fall within its scope. Are people outraged now? They should be, but it would be ironic if they were on this specific point. After all, we have just over 300 OA policies, but at least 10000 institutions worldwide which ought to have one but so far do not. Hardly the basis for a sustained rebellion.

But consider, evidence shows that mandates lead to growing content in repositories, one of the factors that might justify further institutional investment in repositories, providing significantly more open access content and moderating publishing profits. Isn't this what the wave of objectors to RWA want?

To sum up. Publishers are targetting OA mandates because they know mandates make a difference. Objectors, having woken up to the value and importance of OA, have thus been given an apparently unmissable hint about how to get it. To spite publisher support for RWA, should we cancel the majority subscription journals, when journals are a priority for researchers? Instead, do what the publishers want to stop you from doing, demand an open access policy at your institution. Do it now. Respond to RWA by the weight of positive action rather than simply negative reaction.

Steve Hitchcock
WAIS Group, Building 32
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: [log in to unmask]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit
Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379    Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379