** Cross-Posted **
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, Martin Frank wrote:
> The following press release was posted to the DC
Principles website at
> http://www.d
cprinciples.org/press/2.htm.
>
> Nonprofit Publishers Oppose Government Mandates for
Scientific
> Publishing
>
> Washington, DC (February 20, 2007) A coalition of 75
nonprofit
> publishers opposes any legislation that would abruptly
end a
> publishing system that has nurtured independent
scientific
> inquiry for generations.
And the *evidence* that mandating self-archiving -- as 5 of
8
British research councils, the Wellcome Trust, Australian
Research Council, ANHMRC, CERN and a growing number of
universities worldwide have already done, and EC, ERC,
EURAB,
CIHR and FRPAA are proposing to do -- "would abruptly
end the
publishing system"?
Or is this just the same doomsday prophecy we have heard
(and
heard refuted) over and over, simply being repeated louder
and
louder?
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/
> One such measure, the Federal Research Public Access
Act
> introduced in the 109th Congress would have required
all
> federally funded research to be deposited in an
accessible
> database within six months of acceptance in a
scientific
> journal. Some open access advocates are pressing for
the
> introduction of a similar measure in the 110th
Congress.
A measure that, as noted above, is already being adopted
worldwide, because of its vast benefits to research,
researchers,
their institutions, their funders, the vast research and
development industry, and the tax-paying public that funds
the
research.
http://www
.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
Are evidence-free doomsday prophecies from one service
industry
supposed to be grounds for denying these benefits to
research,
researchers, their institutions, their funders, the vast
research
and development industry, and the tax-paying public that
funds
the research?
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/key-perspect
ives.pdf
Or is this just the flea on the tail of the dog,
endeavouring to
wag the dog?
> In essence, such legislation would impose
government-mandated
> access policies and government-controlled repositories
for
> federally funded research published in scientific
journals,
> according to members of the Washington DC Principles
for Free
> Access to Science Coalition.
The self-archiving mandates require publicly funded research
to
be made publicly accessible to all users. The rhetoric of
"government control" is shrill nonsense, in line
with the
data-free doomsday prophecies.
Is this the program of disinformation that the "DC
Principles"
Coalition have been counselled to disseminate by the
esteemed
public relations consultants of their STM confreres?
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html
> "We as independent publishers must determine when
it is
> appropriate to make content freely available, and we
believe
> strongly it should not be determined by government
mandate"
> [said Martin Frank of the American Physiological
Society and
> coordinator of the coalition]
The public funds it, researchers and their institutions
conduct,
write and peer-review it, all for free, but "publishers
must
determine when it is appropriate to make it freely
available"? In
exchange for having been given it free to sell, for having
peer-reviewed it for free, and for having paid dearly for
subscriptions in order to access it?
That's an awfully big price the public and the research
community
and research progress, and research applications are all
expected
to pay in exchange for the 3rd-party management of their
free
peer review service.
How much longer does the DC Principles Coalition imagine
that the
research community, the tax-paying public, and the vast
research
applications industry will keep giving this hollow assertion
of
right-of-determination, amplified by empty prophecies of
doom,
the undue credence it has enjoyed to date?
> The Coalition also reaffirmed its ongoing practice of
making
> millions of scientific journal articles available free
of
> charge, without an additional financial burden on the
> scientific community or on funding agencies. More than
1.6
> million free articles are already available to the
public free
> of charge on HighWire Press.
Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles
that
their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to
make
freely available, as per the proposed and adopted
self-archiving
mandates?
> "The scholarly publishing system is a delicate
balance between
> the need to sustain journals financially and the goal
of
> disseminating scientific knowledge as widely as
possible.
> Publishers have voluntarily made more journal articles
> available free worldwide than at any time in history --
without
> government intervention," noted Kathleen Case of
the American
> Association for Cancer Research.
Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles
that
their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to
make
freely available, as per the proposed and adopted
self-archiving
mandates?
> The Coalition expressed concern that a mandate
timetable for
> free access to all federally funded research would harm
> journals, scientists, and ultimately the public.
The doomsday prophecy again, repeated ever more shrilly to
compensate for the complete absence of evidence in its
support.
> Subscriptions to journals with a high percentage of
federally
> funded research would decline rapidly.
If and when the demand for a product declines, it is time to
cut
costs. If and when publishing downsizes to just the
management of
the peer review service, the institutional savings from the
(hypothesized) subscription-declines will be more than
enough to
pay for peer review, per article published, on the
open-access
publishing model.
http://www.publications.parl
iament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
> Subscription revenues support the quality control
system known
> as peer review and also support the educational work of
> scientific societies that publish journals.
Subscriptions revenues will continue to flow as long as
there is
enough demand for the product. Once the only product needed
is
the peer review management service, the institutional
savings
will be enough to pay for its costs several times over.
At no time has the research community, its institutions or
its
funders, or the tax-paying public that funds its funders,
been
asked, nor has it ever agreed, to subsidise "the
educational work
of scientific societies" with its own lost research
access and
impact.
> Undermining subscriptions would shift the cost of
publication
> from the publisher who receives subscription revenue to
the
> researcher who receives grants. Such a shift will:
>
> * Divert scarce dollars from research. Publishers now
pay the
> cost of publication out of subscription revenue; if the
authors
> have to pay, the funds will come from their research
grants.
No. Publication costs are currently being paid out of
subscription revenues. On the hypothesis that institutions
cancel
those subscriptions, it is those same subscription revenue
savings that can continue to pay for (what is left of)
publication costs, per paper published. Not a penny of
research
grants need ever be redirected. The subscription savings
will be
redirected.
> Nonprofit journals without subscription revenue have to
rely on
> grants, which further diverts funding from research.
Journals that are subsidised today can continue to be
subsidised
tomorrow. Journals that are subscription-based today,
if/when
their subscriptions are cancelled, can be paid for (what is
left
of) their costs, per article, from the author's
institutional
subscription savings.
More than enough money is in the system. No doomsday
scenario.
Just downsizing and redirection of windfall savings.
> * Result in only well-funded scientists being able to
publish
> their work.
Utter nonsense. See arithmetic above.
> * Reduce the ability of journals to fund peer review.
Most
> journals spend 40% or more of their revenue on quality
control
> through the peer review system; without subscription
income and
> with limitations on author fees, peer review would
suffer.
When there is no more demand for anything but peer review,
institutions will have saved 100%, of which they need merely
redirect 40% to pay for the peer review of their own
publications. (Please do the arithmetic.)
> * Harm those scientific societies that rely on income
from
> journals to fund the professional development of
scientists.
> Revenues from scholarly publications fund research,
fellowships
> to junior scientists, continuing education, and
mentoring
> programs to increase the number of women and
under-represented
> groups in science, among many other activities.
At no time has the research community, its institutions or
its
funders, or the tax-paying public that funds its funders,
been
asked, nor has it ever agreed, to subsidise "the
professional
development of scientists, research, fellowships to junior
scientists, continuing education, and mentoring
programs" with
its own lost research access and impact.
> Members of the DC Principles Coalition have long
supported
> responsible free access to science and have made:
>
> * selected important studies immediately available
online, in
> their entirety and at no charge
>
> * studies available at no cost to patients who request
them
>
> * all abstracts immediately available online at no
charge
>
> * full text of the journal available at no charge to
everyone
> worldwide within months of publication, depending on
each
> publisher's business and publishing requirements
>
> * all journal content available free to scientists
working in
> many low-income nations
>
> * articles available free of charge online through
reference
> linking between journals
>
> * content available for indexing by major search
engines so
> that readers worldwide can easily locate information
Commendable. Now what about all the rest of the articles
that
their authors, funders and institutions likewise want to
make
freely available, as per the proposed and adopted
self-archiving
mandates?
> "By establishing government repositories for
federally funded
> research, taxpayers would be paying for systems that
duplicate
> the online archives already maintained by independent
> publishers," Case noted.
With the slight difference that the contents of the OA
archives
will be freely accessible to all, as per the proposed and
adopted
self-archiving mandates.
> "The implications of the U.S. government becoming
the world's
> largest publisher of scientific articles have not been
> addressed," she added.
Self-archiving mandates are for providing access to
published
articles, not for publishing them. In an online world,
publishing
means certifying papers as having met a journal's
peer-review
quality standards. That means the peer review service.
That's
all.
The implied "government monopoly" subtext is again
just empty
rhetoric, designed to inflame, not to inform honestly.
> According to Frank, "As not-for-profit publishers,
we believe
> that a free society allows for the co-existence of many
> publishing models, and we will continue to work closely
with
> our publishing colleagues to set high standards for the
> scholarly publishing enterprise."
Amen.
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/
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-f
orum.amsci.org/archives/
|
