On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, Sandy Thatcher wrote:
> You make it all sound so simple, Stevan, but there is
nothing
> simple about a transition from Green OA to Gold OA,
including
> the redirection of savings from journal subscriptions
to
> funding Gold OA journals, because as many wise people
like Jim
> O'Donnell have pointed out on this list, universities
don't
> work that way.
I make no wishes, wise or unwise. And I make no conjectures
--
only, when forced, counter-conjectures, to counter others'
conjectures.
The actual empirical evidence (neither wish nor conjecture)
is
that self-archiving is (1) feasible, (2) being done, (3)
beneficial, and (4) being mandated. Whether and when it ever
goes
on to generate cancellations and transitions and
redirections is
all pure speculation, based on no empirical evidence one way
or
the other (except that it hasn't happened yet, even in
fields
that reached 100% OA years ago). But if you insist on asking
a
hypothetical "what if?" question just the same, I
respond with an
equally hypothetical "then..." answer.
The factual part is fact. If wise men have privileged access
to
the future, so be it. I have none. I have only the available
evidence, and logic. (And logic tells me that where there's
a
will, there's a way, especially if/when the hypothetical
cancellation windfall savings that no one has yet seen
should
ever materialize. Till then, I'll just go with the
evidence-based
four -- self-archiving, self-archiving mandates, OA, and
their
already demonstrated feasibility and benefits -- leaving the
speculation to those who prefer that sort of thing.)
> Wishing it were so does not make it so. And by talking
about
> peer review only, you oversimplify what is involved in
journal
> publishing, which requires skills that go beyond simply
> conducting peer review and that are not most
economically
> carried out by faculty, who are not trained for such
tasks and
> whose dedication of time to them detracts from the
exercise of
> their main talents as researchers.
Well, I could invoke my quarter century as founder and
editor in
chief of a major peer-reviewed journal as evidence that I
know
what I am talking about.
But I'd rather just point out that the conjecture about
journal
publishing downsizing to just peer-review service-provision
is
part of the hypothetical conditional that I only invoke if
someone insists on playing the speculation game. It is
neither a
wish nor a whim. I am content with 100% Green OA. Full
stop.
Apart from that, I'll stick with the empirical facts of
self-archiving, self-archiving mandates, OA, and their
benefits,
and abstain from the hypothesizing.
> You are also wrong in interpreting PRISM as just
another
> repetition of the same old tired anti-OA rhetoric. As a
member
> of the publishing community whose press is a member of
the PSP
> (but not an endorser of PRISM), I can tell you that
this is not
> just more of the same.
If PRISM is making any new points -- empirical or logical --
I
would be very grateful if you point out to me exactly what
those
new points are. For all I have seen has been a repetition of
the
very few and very familiar old points I and others have
rebutted
many, many times before.
(You seem to have overlooked the linked list if 21
references I
included as evidence that these points have all been voiced,
and
rebutted, many times before. If you send me a list of new
ones,
it would be helpful if you first check that list to see
whether
they are indeed new. The list is also archived at:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/297-guid.html )
> Whether we are getting close to a "tipping
point" is of course
> a matter of conjecture, but then so is the overall
benefit from
> Green OA, which you always state as though it were an
> established fact rather than a hypothesis with some
evidence in
> support of it yet hardly overwhelming evidence at this
point in
> time.
Since we are talking about wishful thinking, I know full
well
that the OA self-archiving advantage in terms of citations
and
downloads is something that the publishing lobby dearly wish
were
nonexistent, or merely a methodological artifact of some
kind.
I'm quite happy to continue conducting actual empirical
studies
and analyses confirming the OA advantage, and demonstrating
that
it is not just an artifact (of either early access or
self-selection bias for quality). That ongoing question is
at
least substantive and empirical, hence new (especially when
the
challenges come from those with no vested interests in the
outcome). The doomsday prophecies and the hype about
government
control and censorship are not.
"Where There's No Access Problem There's No Open
Access
Advantage"
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/289-guid.html
(I expect that the tobacco industry did more than its share
of
wishing that the health benefits of not smoking would turn
out to
be nonexistent or a self-selection artifact too: When money
is at
stake, interpretations become self-selective, if not
self-serving, too!)
Stevan Harnad
|
