On Fri, 2 May 2008, Ian Russell [Chief Executive, ALPSP]
wrote:
> No, I am not talking about "double dipping"
(the only way that
> could possibly be relevant is in the context of hybrid
journals
> which have not previously been mentioned in this
exchange).
Fine. We are agreed on this. You are not talking about
double-dipping. But read on:
> I am talking about clearly and unambiguously making a
> commitment to fund the certification function in the
scholarly
> journal publishing system rather than acting as a
parasite on
> the current funding mechanism.
But then, Ian, can you please specify exactly what you mind
by a
"clear commitment to fund rather than act as a
parasite"?
Are the current institutional subscribers to subscription
journals not making a clear (annual) commitment (as
always)?
Or do you mean a commitment to subscribe in perpetuo, come
what
may? (That would be something rather new!)
And what does an institution's subscription annual
commitment,
for its *incoming* subscribed content -- consisting of the
refereed research output of *other* institutions -- have to
do
with its own *outgoing* refereed research output? (They may
not
even be in the same journals!)
Or are you, again, thinking of some sort of advance
commitment to
the effect that -- if and when self-archiving makes 100% of
all
institutions' refereed research output freely available to
all
other institutions -- those institutions will all continue
subscribing to journals, in perpetuo?
For that is a rather tall order, in order to escape being
called
a "parasite"! For if and when 100% self-archiving
generates 100%
OA, and if and when that in turn generates cancellations
sufficient to make subscription-based cost-recovery
unsustainable, the natural (and entirely unparasitic)
outcome
that I keep pointing out (and you keep ignoring) is this:
Publishers cut obsolete costs (e.g. print), downsize to
providing
peer review only, and convert to Gold OA publishing, with
text
production, dissemination and archiving offloaded onto the
institutional repositories, and the sole remaining
publication
costs (peer review) paid for on the Gold OA cost-recovery
model,
by the author-institution, per outgoing article, out of the
institutional windfall savings from by the institution's own
subscription cancellations on (what used to be) its own
former
incoming subscription content.
http://www.publications.parl
iament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
> As I said, though, to some extent this is a side
show.
Perhaps, but it might save us repeating ourselves and
bypassing
one another if you did not keep systematically ignoring the
natural transition scenario I have just described (yet
again),
which answers your point about "commitment" and
"parasitism."
> IR: Regarding our previous agreement on self archiving
causing
> subscription cancellations, I refer to the quote
attributed to
> you at:
> http://www.libraryjournal.com/clear/CA6392242.h
tml?nid=2673#news2
>
>> SH: "it is possible, indeed probable, that
self-archiving will cause
>> some cancellations".
I have indeed said that, and I reaffirm it here. But does
that
sound like an affirmation of what you cited me as having
said:
>>> IR: we've both agreed in the past that it will
most likely
>>> result in journals going out of business.
What I said was that if/when 100% Green OA should eventually
make
subscriptions unsustainable, journals will simply downsize
and
convert to Gold OA and institutions will pay for peer review
on
the Gold OA model out of their cancellation savings. No
parasitism, then or now.
I also pointed out that journals will not go out of business
(though some titles might migrate to other publishers, if
some
publishers decide they do not wish to continue publishing
them on
the Gold OA model).
Still no parasitism.
It sounds like what you are asking for is an advance
commitment
that this transition will never take place. The only way to
make
a commitment to that is for institutions to commit
themselves
*not* to self-archive their own refereed research output, in
order to sustain publishers' current subscription model, at
the
cost of their own lost research usage, impact, applications
and
progress.
If so, Ian, I am afraid you are asking for too much.
Research is
not funded, conducted and published in order to sustain the
publishing industry's current subscription model. It is
funded,
conducted and published in order to maximise research usage,
impact, applications and progress.
> IR: The real issue is unfunded mandates - like the one
imposed
> by Southampton University on its researchers. Going
back to my
> original post:
>
>> IR: Whilst I agree with the argument that the
output of
>> publicly funded research (or from a research
institution) -
>> which is the author's original article - should be
freely
>> available to the public, I do not believe that the
'refereed
>> postprint' (to use your terminology, I prefer
'accepted
>> manuscript') should necessarily be freely given
away. That
>> decision should be up to the organization that
added the value
>> by peer reviewing it and associating it with its
brand."
I have also fully answered that several times, but let me
try to
paraphrase the logic above, cutting to the quick:
You agree that unrefereed research should be free online,
but you
think refereed research should not be (even though the
referees,
too, referee for free).
Your reason is that administering the refereeing costs money
(to
publishers).
I reply that that (and more) is all being paid for today by
institutional subscriptions.
You think institutions mandating that their refereed
research be
made free online is parasitic.
I repeat that the institutional subscriptions are still
paying
the bill.
You say you want a "commitment" -- but that you do
*not* mean
"double-dipping" (yet you do not state exactly
what that
commitment is meant to be:
I suspect you are asking institutions to cease and desist
from
mandating the self-archiving of refereed research
altogether,
lest it eventually generate a transition to the Gold OA
cost-recovery model).
But let me save you the trouble:
I much prefer robust OA self-archiving mandates of the form:
Immediate Deposit (of the refereed postprint, immediately
upon
acceptance for publication) AND setting of access privileges
to
that deposit as Open Access, likewise immediately upon
deposit.
However, I (and many others) are in fact advocating a
compromise
as the default OA self-archiving mandate (called the
"IDOA
Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access" mandate -- and the
"DDR Dual
Deposit Release" Mandate by Peter Suber).
IDOA/DDR merely requires immediate deposit (of the refereed
postprint) but it leaves OA-setting optional (sometimes
capping
the permitted delay or embargo at 6 months or 1 year):
Access
during the embargo can be provisionally set as Closed
Access,
which means only the bibliographic metadata are accessible
webwide, not the postprint itself.
To tide over the world's usage needs for embargoed deposits,
the
IRs have a Button, in which anyone who has retrieved the
metadata
for a Closed Access deposit can cut/paste their email
address and
click, in order to send an instant automatic email to the
author,
requesting a single copy for research purposes. With one
click on
a URL in the email message received, the author can
automatically
email the postprint instantly to the requester.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/274-guid.html
This is merely the online-age automatization of a practice
that
all researchers have used for decades. It is not OA, but (as
you
see) it is almost-OA, it is a natural development of the
online
medium, and all it needs to make it universal is IDOA
mandates -
*Deposit* mandates.
The handwriting is on the wall, Ian, and it is very simple:
Free
online access to refereed research is optimal and inevitable
for
research, researchers, their institutions, their funders,
the
vast R&D industry, and the tax-paying public for whose
benefit
the research is being conducted.
The refereed research journal publishing industry is a
*service*
industry. Research is not being conducted as a service to
the
publishing industry. What will prevail is not what is best
for
the publishing industry, but what is best for research, and
the
publishing industry will have to adapt to it. The online
medium
has made OA optimal for research, and hence inevitable. Get
used
to it. It is for the best, and journals will survive, and
thrive.
http://eprints.
ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/
> and that is why I believe it is unacceptable for
Southampton
> University to announce its mandate without also making
a
> commitment to fund OA fees.
I wonder why you are particularly exercised by Southampton's
mandate, since there are now 43 mandates worldwide, from 21
universities (including Harvard) and 22 funders (including
NIH,
ERC, and all but one of RCUK)?
http:
//www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
But, for the record, exactly what "commitment" are
you asking
for, from Southampton, given that you say you are not
talking
about double-dipping, and given that Southampton (like all
other
universities) subscribes to whatever journals it feels it
can
afford -- and the fact that Southampton is making its own
research output OA has absolutely no bearing on their choice
of
which journals to subscribe to?
Stevan Harnad
|
