I welcome these contributions by Eric van de Velde and Stevan Harnad because
we do not hear enough from the research community. Some librarians have been
very supportive of OA, but even those who support OA do not appear able to
break away from the current toll-access system in the collection development
decisions they take. My impression is that many researchers would like to
see open access to publicly-funded research outputs but as individuals feel
that they are powerless to change an entrenched system. I agree with
Stevan's view that all researchers should as a matter of course deposit
their research outputs in a repository, and I also agree with him that
institutional mandates are needed to give researchers the backing of their
institution. It would strengthen the hand of individual researchers if
institutional mandates also included a requirement to reserve some rights
instead of assigning all rights to a publisher. Many authors currently feel
powerless when faced with a publisher's copyright agreement.
And yet Eric is also right that "site licenses are market-distorting
products that preserve paper-era business products of publishers,
aggregators and libraries". The "big deals" are locking up funds which could
be spent more efficiently in opening up access to research outputs, and
there is no sign that the site license model is any less prevalent than it
was ten years ago - in fact it seems more prevalent. It seems as though some
members of every section of the scholarly communication community -
researchers, librarians and institutions - feel powerless to change to
models which would provide greater access, benefits for researchers, a
higher impact for institutionally-based research and better value for the
taxpayer. Collectively do we not have the power to make those changes, or is
the will not there to do so?
Fred Friend
-----Original Message-----
From: Stevan Harnad
Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Open Access Doubts
On 2011-10-28, at 5:47 PM, Eric F. Van de Velde wrote:
> My most recent blog may be of interest to this list. It starts as follows,
> the rest is available at
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2011/10/open-access-doubts.html
There are very simple answers to each of Eric's doubts, which arise mostly
from a library-based rather than a research-based perception of the open
access (OA) problem and its solution.
There is only one doubt that is most definitely justified, though Eric has
not expressed it: Researchers themselves -- even though they and their
research are the primary losers because of access-denial, and the primary
beneficiaries of providing OA -- are not providing OA in sufficient numbers
until and unless it is mandated by their institutions and funders.
That does raise some doubts, but not about the feasibility or benefits of
OA -- only about the alertness of researchers to their own needs and the way
to meet them.
Open Access Reassurances
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).http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/
ABSTRACT:
Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of Open Access
Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature. Funds are short; 80% of journals
(including virtually all the top journals) are still subscription-based,
tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold
OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to publish may inflate
acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is needed now is for
universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of authors' final
peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for publication) ("Green
OA"). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA
should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are
satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals
to cut costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving),
downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the
Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will
have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The natural way
to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a "no-fault basis,"
with the author's institution or funder paying for each round of refereeing,
regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection).
This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates
and decline in quality standards.
Harnad, S. (2011) Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard
the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving. Logos 21(3-4): 86-93
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21818
ABSTRACT:
Universal Open Access (OA) is fully within the reach of the global research
community: Research institutions and funders need merely mandate (green) OA
self-archiving of the final, refereed drafts of all journal articles
immediately upon acceptance for publication. The money to pay for gold OA
publishing will only become available if universal green OA eventually makes
subscriptions unsustainable. Paying for gold OA pre-emptively today, without
first having mandated green OA not only squanders scarce money, but it
delays the attainment of universal OA.
Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS)
