If archiving isn't taking off, it isn't primarily because
of=20
publishers. The SHERPA/ROMEO list of publishers=B9 policies
on=20
copyright and self-archiving show that many major
publishers=20
permit posting of preprints and/or postprints. These
include=20
Blackwell, British Medical Journal, Elsevier, Wiley,=20
Taylor&Francis, and many, many others.
The failure of the self-archiving movement stems mainly from
the=20
indifference or open opposition of the authors and
researchers=20
who are supposed to undertake it. And remember that
society=20
publishers are not controlled by greedy staff publishers;
they=20
are controlled by governing bodies comprised of the authors
and=20
researchers affected by OA. Advocates have failed utterly
to=20
convince societies of the merits of OA because society
volunteer=20
leaders do not believe the fundamental premise that
"the research=20
community and public need 100% OA now." Those
societies who=20
advocate against mandates for OA--and not all do--have
reasonable=20
doubts about the accuracy and quality of preprints and
postprints=20
(especially in medicine, where mistakes can have serious=20
consequences), the bibliographic confusion that archives
are=20
creating, and the difficulty archives cause for
accurately=20
tracking usage. They also doubt that OA archives are a
solution=20
to long-term preservation, as often (inaccurately) claimed.
In the 7 years I was publisher of two society journals, a
total=20
of zero (0) out of 18,000 members ever advocated for OA.=20
Colleagues in other societies report a similar experience.
It is=20
not surprising, therefore, that there is a little
foot-dragging=20
among authors to the governmental stampede you advocate.
Peter Banks
---2071850956-1587869716-1151712900=:9326--
|