On 2012-07-19, at 10:13 AM, Prof. T.D. Wilson wrote:

While I agree with virtually all that Stevan Harnad has to say about Finch
and Willets, I doubt that repositories can be regarded as "cost free": in
addition to the costs of providing and maintaining the appropriate database
software (even if it is open source, it still needs maintenance), there is the
cost of up to one full-time cataloguer/librarian to monitor quality, etc.

Many thanks to Tom for raising this point, and for giving me the opportunity
to make this very explicit reply:

1. When I say that Green OA is cost-free, I am referring to cost
per paper deposited
. This per-paper cost (as a proportion of the
institutional  repository's (IR's) set-up and maintenance cost) is tiny
(and for a full, successfully mandated OA IR it is vanishingly tiny -- and
is already a joke, per OA paper deposited, in IRs that have countless
other kinds of contents and functions aside from -- or instead of -- OA).

2. The point of comparison is the cost per paper for publishing in
a fee-based Gold OA journal.

3. The publication cost per paper in a subscription journal is already
covered (in full, generously, several times over) by the journal's 
composite institutional subscription revenues.

4. Hence Green OA self-archiving entails no further costs, to anyone.

Having said that, I want to also add that it is becoming
increasingly evident that a lot of the unmandated IRs (which means
most IRs today) are wasting a lot of money on functions that are
diminishing in instead of increasing the number of OA papers deposited
(hence spuriously raising the cost per paper): I mean specically
"the cost of... one full-time cataloguer [or more!] to monitor
quality, etc."

What OA IRs need today, urgently, is not cataloguers to monitor
quality, nor IP specialists to monitor rights, etc. etc. No intermediary
is needed between the author and the IR "monitor", retard, block or
otherwise impede deposits (though help is always welcome to 
encourage depositors and facilitate and speed their deposits!).

What OA IRs need urgently today instead of needless, costly and
counterproductive monitoring and mediation is effective Green OA 
mandates (ID/OA). That is what will generate deposits (and further 
minimize the negligible cost per paper deposited).

In a recent study of the repository of a Swedish university, we found
that quality control was a major issue, with academic staff reporting
conference papers for which no source could be found and, indeed,
at times, not even the conference could be found. So - definitely cheaper,
but not cost free.

The problem of IRs today is not fraudulent researchers depositing
bogus content, it is legitimate researchers failing to deposit OA's
target content (refereed research publications).

And the solution is not to spend extra money on IR staff but to
adopt an effective, cost-free OA mandate (ID/OA) and designate
deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for 
academic CV generation, performance review, and research
assessment, as Liege and other universities have done. (For
policy guidance, please consult EnablingOpenScholarship, EOS.)

As to the composition of the Finch working party, I imagine it was
determined by the Minister, and who lobbies the Minister...?

The same interests that were lobbying the Minister in 2004 -- but the
RCUK and many of the UK's universities (as well as the EC, NIH,
and a growing number of universities worldwide) have had the good
sense to ignore the lobbying.

(Thanks also to Tom for giving me this occasion to see his brilliant
series of photos on his website, as well as his adorable abyssinians,
s & s. No one who loves cats -- and all other critters -- can be
all bad!) 

Stevan Harnad

On 19 July 2012 04:36, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On 2012-07-18, Anthony Watkinson on LIBLICENSE wrote:
> There were three publishers on the Finch committee (out of seventeen
> members)... [1]
>
> I do not know of any evidence that they had a special line to Finch
> herself or any special privileges. I do not know of any special
> influence that representative bodies for publishing might have had.
> Does Professor Harnad? [2]
>
> Some years ago Professor Harnad had a lot of influence on the
> conclusions of a Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in the
> UK. Perhaps he expects the same special channel he had then [3]
[1]
There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three
publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing
open access to publicly funded research.
[2]
The recommendations of the Finch committee were identical to the
ones for which publishers have been lobbying aggressively for years
(ever since it has become evident that trying to lobby against OA itself
in the face of the mounting pressure for it from the research community is
futile and very ill-received by the research community).
The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:
"Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA."
The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of
publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:
Finch on Green: "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders
nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that
researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories…
[so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead]
be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing,
particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and
in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"
Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be
seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public
funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements"
to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open
access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions]
for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and
health sectors…"
But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,
instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates
the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations
of the Finch committee:
"[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that
is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be
published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option
[Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional
repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo
period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and…
ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…"
http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/
[3]
The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Science and Technology were based on
23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one
of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the
outcome, it was evidence and reasons.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm
The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this:

“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions
establish institutional repositories on which their published output
can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.
It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government
funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all
of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that
the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded
researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm
At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under
pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select
Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and
many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.

As a  result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to
Open Access.
If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade
repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and
unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.
Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,
reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.
 
Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,
instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly
for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA
by mandating it.
If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role
in the global transition to universal OA.
Stevan Harnad

> ________________________________
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400
>
> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not
> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the
> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are
> pointedly rejecting them!
>
> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.
>
> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have
> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce
> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.
>
> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the
> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They
> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,
> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)
>
> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's
> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and
> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.
>
> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.
>
> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's
> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.
>
> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted
> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping
> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will
> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the
> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)
>
> Stevan Harnad
The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:
"Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA."
The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of
publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:
Finch on Green: "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders
nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that
researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories…
[so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead]
be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing,
particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and
in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"
Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be
seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public
funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements"
to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open
access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions]
for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and
health sectors…"
But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,
instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates
the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations
of the Finch committee:
"[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that
is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be
published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option
[Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional
repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo
period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and…
ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…"
http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/
[3]
The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select
Committee on Science and Technology were based on
23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one
of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the
outcome, it was evidence and reasons.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm
The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this:
“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions
establish institutional repositories on which their published output
can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.
It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government
funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all
of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that
the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded
researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm
At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under
pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select
Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and
many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.

As a  result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to
Open Access.
If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade
repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and
unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.
Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,
reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.
 
Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,
instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly
for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA
by mandating it.
If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role
in the global transition to universal OA.
Stevan Harnad

> ________________________________
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400
>
> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not
> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the
> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are
> pointedly rejecting them!
>
> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.
>
> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have
> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce
> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.
>
> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the
> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They
> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,
> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)
>
> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's
> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and
> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.
>
> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.
>
> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's
> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.
>
> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted
> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping
> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will
> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the
> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)
>
> Stevan Harnad
“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions
establish institutional repositories on which their published output
can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.
It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government
funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all
of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that
the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded
researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm
At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under
pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select
Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and
many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.
As a  result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to
Open Access.
If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade
repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and
unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.
Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,
reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.
 
Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,
instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly
for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA
by mandating it.
If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role
in the global transition to universal OA.
Stevan Harnad

> ________________________________
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400
>
> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not
> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the
> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are
> pointedly rejecting them!
>
> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.
>
> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have
> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce
> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.
>
> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the
> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They
> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,
> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)
>
> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's
> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and
> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.
>
> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.
>
> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's
> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.
>
> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted
> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping
> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will
> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the
> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)
>
> Stevan Harnad
As a  result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to
Open Access.
If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade
repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and
unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.
Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,
reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.
 
Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,
instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly
for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA
by mandating it.
If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role
in the global transition to universal OA.
Stevan Harnad
> ________________________________
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400
>
> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not
> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the
> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are
> pointedly rejecting them!
>
> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.
>
> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have
> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce
> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.
>
> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the
> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They
> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,
> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)
>
> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's
> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and
> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.
>
> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.
>
> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's
> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.
>
> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted
> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping
> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will
> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the
> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)
>
> Stevan Harnad

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor T.D. Wilson, PhD, PhD (h.c.)
Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information Research
http://informationr.net/ir/
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------