JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Archives


JISC-REPOSITORIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES Home

JISC-REPOSITORIES  March 2007

JISC-REPOSITORIES March 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Mobilising Scholarly Society Membership Support for FRPAA and EC A1

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:25:42 +0100

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (173 lines)

                  ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **

The following exchange is posted with permission:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:21:48 +0100 (BST)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad --- ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Andrew A. Adams  <A.A.Adams --- reading.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Scholarly Society Publishers

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Andrew A. Adams  wrote:

> Dear Stevan,
> 
> On the subject of Scholarly Society Publishers, 
> you agree that it is likely that the heads of scholarly 
> societies will be lining up alongside the commercial publishers in lobbying 
> against OA mandates in the US. Since most scholarly societies are 
> semi-democratic bodies, we need to try to mobilise OA advocates to use those 
> democratic avenues to transform the Scholarly Societies into lobbyists for 
> instead of lobbyists against, OA. Of course, as always, this requires the 
> time of OA advocates.
> 
> I will have a think about how we can support each other in these efforts 
> (your slides on OA are one example of how we can support each other and by 
> sharing, reduce the burden on each of us), and then possibly put a message on 
> the general list with suggestions, the first of which is noting that 
> "decisions are made by those who turn up" and suggesting that at minimum OA 
> advocates need to make the time to attend their scholarly societies' AGMs, 
> and preferably to stand for election as officers of the societies on a 
> platform of OA advocacy (and business change to secure the future of the 
> societies IF Green OA were to undermine their publishing income).

Dear Andrew,

You are right that scholarly society members need to be specially
mobilised by OA advocates now, to get them aware and on-side. I think
David Prosser and Fred Friend in the UK and Heather Joseph and Peter
Suber in the US are in the best position to guide a systematic campaign
to mobilise support for EC OA and FRPAA from the society memberships.
Many of the societies have signed the EU or US petitions (although obviously
the most important membership targets are those whose officers have
*not* signed):.

    http://www.ec-petition.eu/index.php?p=signatories&show_institute=1
    http://www.publicaccesstoresearch.org/cgi-bin/petition.pl?action=view&type=organization

The specific goal would be to inform members about the great likelihood that
their own officers will be actively lobbying against Green OA mandates
(FRPAA and EC A1), and hence the need to make the will of the grassroots
membership known, heard and felt.

The core issue is that Scholarly Society officers are taking exactly the
same stance as commercial publishers (either opposing OA altogether, or
opposing the OA Green Mandates that are designed to reach OA), but they
are doing so in the name of protecting the society's publishing revenue
streams for the sake of the society's "good works" (which consist of
funding meetings, scholarships and lobbying) -- and they are doing so
in the name of their memberships, without consultation, disclosure,
or answerability.

    Trojan Horse from American Chemical Society: Caveat Emptor
    http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/213-guid.html

    Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/subject.html#4931

    Open Letter from Fellows of the Royal Society
    http://www.frsopenletter.org/

    A real tragedy
    http://poynder.blogspot.com/2005/12/real-tragedy.html

The membership has to be very clearly informed of this, and of the fact
that renouncing OA in favour of protecting their society's publishing
revenue streams in order to ensure that they can continue to subsidise
meetings, scholarships and lobbying would amount to the individual
members themselves agreeing to subsidise meetings, scholarships and
lobbying with their own lost daily research impact and income, lost
because would-be users of their work are being denied access to their
work because their institutions cannot afford subscription access to it
(the supplementary access that the Green OA Mandates are specifically
meant to provide).

The findings on the way self-archiving doubles research usage and impact
in all fields should be made very clearly known to the membership, so
they fully understand and appreciate the central causal contingency that
is actually at issue in all of this:

    Bibliography of Findings on the Open Access Impact Advantage
    http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html

    Houghton, J. & Sheehan, P. (2006) The Economic Impact of Enhanced
    Access to Research Findings. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
    Victoria University
    http://www.cfses.com/documents/wp23.pdf

    Harnad, S. (2005) Making the case for web-based
    self-archiving. Research Money 19 (16).
    http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11534/01/researchmoney.html
    http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html

The solution is very simple: Scholarly society meetings, scholarships and
lobbying should sustain themselves in other ways in the OA era, rather
than by reducing members' research impact. Reducing research access
is the exact opposite of the purpose of a scholarly society. Raising
the registration fee for meetings, and adjusting membership fees to the
level agreed upon for the funding of scholarships and lobbying makes the
system far more open and answerable to the real needs of the membership.

(I am certain that members will be appalled once the publishing books are
opened and they see how small a proportion of their society's publishing
profits is actually being used for these good works: The books will show
that those scholarly societies that have any sizeable publishing profits
to speak of tend to use them, like all other publishers, to increase
their publishing division's size, staff and perquisites, not to fund
"good works." The American Chemical Society is the prime example of this.
Publishing has become a state-within-a-state in the profitable societies,
and that is why they sound so much like commercial publishers, differing
only in the fact that they can add a specious note of self-righteousness
to their resistance to OA, citing their "good works." The remedy, of
course, is to remind the membership of the actual mandate of scholarly
societies, which is to promote the scholarship, not to profit from
limiting it.)

Moreover, a long period of peaceful coexistence between subscription
revenues and Green OA self-archiving mandates is still ahead of us,
because it takes time for the mandates to take effect, with OA growing
anarchically across all journals, not individually, journal by journal.
Even in fields that have had 100% Green OA for years now -- notably the
American Physical Society and the Institute of Physics, which have both
attested to this publicly -- Green OA self-archiving has not yet produced
any detectable decline in subscription revenues.

    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/

    Swan, A. (2005) Open access self-archiving: An Introduction.
    Technical Report, JISC, HEFCE.
    http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/

Stevan Harnad

AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
is available at:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
        To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
        Post discussion to:
        [log in to unmask]

UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
        http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php

UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
    BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
            http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
    BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when 
            a suitable journal and funds exist
            http://www.doaj.org/
AND  
    in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
            in your institutional repository.
            http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
            http://archives.eprints.org/
            http://openaccess.eprints.org/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
November 2005
October 2005


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager