Green OA:
Cost: Negligible
Value: Doubles research impact
How: Mandate Green OA
When: Now
(Then, afterward, go back to debating and speculating about
the
future of publishing and the Green, Gold and Other options;
not
now; not instead; not while Green OA is already fully within
reach and there is nothing to lose and everything to gain --
a
and time is passing and passing and... )
P.S. OA is not about publishing costs, it's about research
access
and impact loss, needlessly continuing day upon week upon
month
upon year, year in and year out, as we just keep on
rehashing the
same old hypothetical conditionals instead of doing the
obvious,
practical, doable, and grotesquely overdue...
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:28 PM, Armbruster, Chris wrote:
> Much debate about the value and cost of OA seems to
rest on the
> shared assumption that the Oldenbourg model of
scholarly
> communication (conjoining peer review and
dissemination) was
> suitably transposed from to paper to electronic format
and might
> now be switched to OA (free to readers).
>
> Will this assumption hold in the internet galaxy?
>
> Notions of "Gold" and "Green" OA
seem to reinforce this
> assumption. Officially, Green OA is premised on the
Oldenbourg
> model and merely aims to duplicate publications in
open
> repositories (which would increase overall costs by the
factor
> "green"). Gold OA does away with duplication
and will lead to a
> reallocation of funds to pay publication charges.
Whether this
> will reduce overall cost depends on whether a) much
Gold OA
> publishing might be not-for profit (as there is
evidence that
> not-for-profit publishers charge less) and/or b) a more
efficient
> market might emerge in which journal might be
substitutes for
> each other (this is likely to be the case only for the
B-list,
> but that is the vast majority of journals).
>
> One can understand the reluctance of "content
holding" publishers
> to consider Gold OA - for their shareholders would
surely not be
> pleased if profits were sacrificed voluntarily. As
regards Green
> OA, the argument is whether this threatens the
Oldenbourg model
> (in sense of enabling publishers to recoup their costs
and/or
> make a profit). In detail, the argument is then about
the length
> of the embargo.
>
> But, is this the only, or best, way to look at the
issue?
>
> Take the argument about Green OA leading to
cancellations. To
> claim that cancellations are likely in future is to
make an
> argument about the logic of the internet galaxy. But if
you do
> so, should you then not recognise that several large
and
> important scholarly communication platforms are free to
authors
> and readers? ArXiv, RePEc and SSRN do cost something,
but their
> successful growth over the past ten years signals that
a
> cost-efficient way of organising dissemination is
available. Part
> of the logic of the internet galaxy is to make
dissemination
> cheap -- and in this sense Green OA would indeed
threaten those
> publishers that believe their mission to be to hold (or
own)
> content
>
> Yet, another part of the logic of the internet would
seem to be
> that in scholarly communication "content
holding" is a shrinking
> business model. It is so, because toll-access reduces
inclusion
> and impact in scholarly communication. Once Open Access
is
> possible, then the toll-access publishers needlessly
impede
> scholarly communication. That is why the argument
against content
> holding publishers will never go away.
>
> Moreover, cyberscience (or eScience) and related
developments
> make open access to research publications and data
intrinsically
> desirable. In this case OA is not a matter of cost, but
a
> prerequisite to the future advancement of science.
>
> Is Gold OA the best way forward?
>
> In the life sciences a good case can be made for
releasing only
> peer-reviewed information. But ArXiv, RePEc and SSRN
demonstrate
> that for other sciences this is not the case. The
technological
> and economic logic of the internet galaxy favours the
severance
> of certification from dissemination.
>
> Indeed, if we were utilise the internet to maximise
savings for
> dissemination, then relatively large sums of money
could be
> redirected to where most needed: improved
certification, enhanced
> literature awareness tools and the development of
overlay
> services such as text mining. Such services cost money
and one
> possible business model might be to recoup costs
through
> subscriptions (please note that BMC as OA publisher
also has
> subscriptions to pay charges) that, depending on the
service,
> charge funders, authors, readers or libraries.
>
> Indeed, if we follow through with the switch in vision
from
> "content" to "service" then we see
that there is not a shrinking
> market (of higher prices, more cancellations) but much
terrain
> for business development. In this context, early
estimates of the
> impact of OA in terms of economic growth and market
value
> indicate that certification and services for the
readers and
> users of research articles and data -- in science,
higher
> education, knowledge-based industries and so on --
will
> experience growth over the coming years.
>
> What to do?
>
> I think it is time to take another look at the
technological and
> economic logic of the internet. What model of
certification and
> publishing is complementary to the advancement of
cyberscience?
> How can compatibility be ensured with the need of
seamless
> integration of research articles and data with the
digital
> workflow of scientists? What are the needs of authors,
readers
> and users in the internet galaxy if they have to handle
steadily
> increasing amounts of research publications and data?
How to
> better enable the utilisation of scientific knowledge
in higher
> education, industry and government?
>
> I would be happy to hear from anyone interested in
pursuing these
> questions further.
>
> Chris Armbruster
|
