Hi Stevan,
I have used Southampton University's mandate as an example
since
I am a Southampton alumnus and as such I am particularly
disappointed by the detail of their unfunded mandate.
I'm not so sure that "the handwriting" really is
on the wall -
otherwise mandates and lobbying wouldn't be needed, but as
ever
we'll see as things play out.
Just so that my position is clear, I'll go through your
summary
points and respond again but that will be it for me on this
exchange - I suspect that the general readers of this list
have
had enough and we should continue, if necessary, off-list.
> SH: 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).
IR: Correct, but I have already stated why refereeing is not
free
and that peer review is much more than a process. It also
relates to the authority bestowed by a journal brand etc.
In my
opinion it is a grave mistake to try to reduce down the
value
added in this way to a mere 'process'.
> SH: Your reason is that administering the refereeing
costs
> money (to publishers).
IR: That is certainly part, but by no means all, of it.
There is
more to it than that as I have touched on above.
> I reply that that (and more) is all being paid for
today by
> institutional subscriptions.
IR: Today? But we are not talking about a "steady
state". If we
can agree that wide-spread archiving will mean that
established
subscription income will decline, then surely funds have to
be
unambiguously made available for the only other show in
town:
author-side payment. I commend the Wellcome Trust for the
clarity of their statements on this in the past. Why has
Southampton University not done the same?
> You think institutions mandating that their refereed
research
> be made free online is parasitic.
IR: Correct. It relies on journals to certify, bestow
authority,
for provenance etc. I am sorry if the term causes offence,
but I
do believe it describes the relationship well. If there is
a
less pejorative term with the same meaning then I'd be happy
to
use that instead.
> I repeat that the institutional subscriptions are still
paying
> the bill.
IR: I repeat that we are not talking about a "steady
state". I
can understand why you are trying to make this an argument
about
subscription journals but it is not. We can't have it both
ways
and say that subscriptions will still pay the bills AND that
cancellations (and hence cost savings) are inevitable.
> 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:
IR: With respect I have stated exactly that already - in
Southampton University's case a clear, campus wide
commitment to
meet author side payment fees. As regards
"double-dipping", it
is important not to conflate the issues for an individual
journal
or research institution with those of the system as a whole.
I
don't believe that the PLoS journals could be accused of
double-dipping, nor journals that reduce their subscription
prices in line with the number of articles published under
an
author-side payment system. Why should PLoS lose out
because
Southampton University (for example) refuses to cover
author-side
payment fees?
> 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).
IR: I am asking institutions not to mandate deposit of
research
that has been peer-reviewed by a journal, yes, because it is
parasitic on the journals system (irrespective of business
model)
and I do not see how they can claim the right to do so. I
would
also oppose someone that stated that liquid oxygen is just
free
air and advocating that it should therefore be made freely
available. I am most definitely NOT asking this lest it
facilitate a move to Gold OA. Please do not put words into
my
mouth here. I have no problem with Gold OA - it is certainly
preferable to unfunded mandates. As I have said repeatedly
in
this exchange so long as the system is paying for the
certification elements of scholarly exchange I have no
problem.
Best wishes,
Ian Russell
Chief Executive, ALPSP
|