I disagree with both Stevan Harnad and Sandy here. The real
point is that the academy lives inside the economy, not
outside
it.
Rather than call this thread "Certification and
Dissemination," I
would call it "Yesterday's Solutions, Tomorrow's
Problems."
The problem with the vision of the future of scholarly
communications promulgated here is that it is modeled on two
few
variables. What does the individual researcher (presumably
in
any field, though most of the examples apply primarily if
not
exclusively to the experimental sciences) need to get his or
her
work done? Well, obviously, access to the outputs of other
researchers. Hence the need for open access. Case closed.
Similarly, one could argue (as a college instructor of mine
did
many years ago) that the spur gave rise to the political
developments of the Middle Ages, that introducing a free
market
economy would put an end to despotism and terrorism in Iraq,
and
that in baseball, pitching wins the game. Whatever the
virtues of
technology, the principles of Milton Friedman, or a
fastball,
there is simply more going on than is dreamt of in Harnad's
ideology.
A case in point is the policy decision by many institutions
to
create repositories (great idea), and then to insist that
the
content, which is open, cannot be used for commercial
purposes.
Now, what in heaven's name is the point of that? Why would
anyone want to stand in the way of investment and the
innovations
that investment triggers? Better, in my view, for
institutions
to license the use of their content for commercial
applications,
bringing in revenue that could (for example) be used to
sponsor
other research programs or for financial aid. To advocate
an end
to restricted content is one thing, but to declare war on
the
economy?
The open access movement would benefit considerably if it
saw
itself not as an end in itself but as one facet of a broader
academic enterprise. There are competing visions for OA,
but one
of them, what I would term "conventional OA," will
increase
costs, reduce investment, and stifle innovation in
communications.
Joe Esposito
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Thatcher" <sgt3 psu.edu>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:54 PM
Subject: RE: Certification and Dissemination
>I agree with almost everything you say here, Stevan, but
I do
>wonder how many current publishers using a subscription
model
>will convert to Gold OA service-providers, mainly
because I
>don't think the fees for these services will ever get
high
>enough to provide the profit margins to which commercial
>publishers have become accustomed--and some will
probably decide
>to invest their capital elsewhere where it will get a
better
>ROI. University presses may be more likely to do so
because they
>will charge less and have more of a mission-oriented
focus
>anyway, being units of universities dedicated to the
same
>values.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
> Penn State University Press
>
>
>>On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ian.Russell [Chief Executive,
ALPSP] wrote:
>>
>>>As I said, if both repository dissemination and
peer review
>>>are being paid for by subscriptions, gold OA or
some other
>>>method then I personally have no problem. I
don't know how I
>>>could have been clearer on this.
>>
>>A bit of mix-up there. Journals and their expenses
(including
>>the cost of administering peer review) are being
paid for by
>>institutional subscriptions today.
>>
>>Institutional repositories pay their own IR and
deposit
>>expenses.
>>
>>I certainly hope that Ian is not suggesting that the
>>institutions and their authors should pay journals
*extra*
>>today in order to self-archive their own published
output in
>>their own IRs while all those journals' expenses are
being paid
>>by institutional subscriptions, for that would sound
very much
>>like double-dipping.
>>
>>>However, the Southampton University mandate (and
by extension
>>>other similar mandates) is unfunded because the
University has
>>>made no clear commitment to support the
scholarly
>>>communication system by continuing to subscribe
to journals;
>>>or to make a clear and unambiguous commitment to
meet gold OA
>>>fees; or to come up with some other method of
funding the
>>>system.
>>
>>(We were talking about subscription journals, so
let's leave
>>Gold OA journals out of it for now; we'll get back
to them in
>>moment.)
>>
>>Institutions are continuing to subscribe to
journals, but this
>>has nothing to do with institutions self-archiving:
They
>>self-archive their own refereed research output.
Their
>>subscriptions buy in the refereed research output of
other
>>institutions.
>>
>>If and when Green OA self-archiving should ever make
>>subscriptions unsustainable (as I have already
pointed out
>>several times), *then* journals can downsize to
become
>>peer-review service-providers alone (and
institutions will have
>>plenty of windfall subscription savings out of which
to pay the
>>much-reduced Gold OA fees for their own article
output).
>>
>>But right now, while subscriptions are still
sustaining
>>journals, there is no question of extracting
additional fees
>>from author-institutions (double-dipping).
>>
>>>I think that you made the point about
subscription revenue
>>>providing compensation for peer review because
you misread or
>>>misunderstood my first paragraph. If it is paid
for by
>>>subscriptions as it has been for 350 years then,
of course, no
>>>problem. If you have an unfunded mandate like
Southampton
>>>University's where: 1) authors have to deposit a
version of
>>>the article after publishers have added value,
but 2) the
>>>University has not made a commitment to cover
gold OA fees,
>>>and 3) the University expects to make
'subscription savings'
>>>through cancellations then Southampton becomes a
free rider on
>>>the rest of the system and with enough free
riders the system
>>>will break down.
>>
>>I wonder where the connection between Southampton
University's
>>self-archiving mandate and Southampton University
'subscription
>>savings' came from? How can an author-institution
cancel
>>journals just because it is making its own *article*
output OA?
>>The subscriptions don't buy in the institution's own
article
>>output: The institution already has that! Its
subscriptions buy
>>in the article output of other institutions.
>>
>>But perhaps you are referring to what might
eventually happened
>>if all universities follow the cue from Southampton
(and the 41
>>other universities [including Harvard] and research
funders
>>[including RCUK, ERC and NIH] that have mandated OA
>>self-archiving, as the EUA has recommended for its
791
>>universities)?
>>
>>But I have already answered that: If and when
universal Green
>>OA should ever make subscriptions unsustainable,
then journals
>>can downsize and convert to the Gold OA
cost-recovery model to
>>cover the costs of administering and certifying the
outcome of
>>peer-review with their titles and track-records.
>>
>>That's the natural remedy for free riding (not
double-dipping).
>>
>>>This argument is really a side show though as we
simply don't
>>>know how the subscription journal / repository
relationship
>>>will work although we have both agreed in the
past that it
>>>will most likely result in journals going out of
business.
>>
>>I don't recall agreeing about that! I am certain
journal titles
>>will continue to exist, along with their editorial
boards,
>>referees, authors, and track-records. Some titles
may migrate
>>to Gold OA publishers if their subscription-based
publishers
>>don't want to stay in business, but that's not
*journals* (or
>>peer review) going out of business.
>>
>>>As regards the output of publicly funded
research: No, I am
>>>sorry you are quite wrong. If the output from
the university
>>>was 'peer-reviewed journal articles' then the
system would
>>>never have needed publishers to organize the
peer review. I
>>>believe I answered in my original post why this
is not 'free'.
>>
>>And I believe I answered how peer review is being
paid for
>>today.
>>
>>>Incidentally, 'certification' is one of a number
of areas
>>>where publishers add value and it really must be
noted that
>>>certification is much more that simply running a
peer review
>>>*process*.
>>
>>Much more? It seems to me that once the peer review
is done and
>>the article is accepted, certification simply
amounts to
>>affixing the journal title (and with it its track
record for
>>quality).
>>
>>>Anyway, it seems to me that the issue would
easily be solved
>>>if Southampton University makes a campus-wide
commitment to
>>>meet gold OA fees. Why hasn't it?
>>
>>Why should it? Most Southampton articles (like most
articles
>>everywhere) are being published in subscription
journals today,
>>not in Gold OA journals, and those subscriptions are
being paid
>>by the subscribing institutions today (and
Southampton is
>>subscribing to whatever journals it feels it needs
and can
>>afford today).
>>
>>Stevan Harnad
|
