[BOAI] Re: Changes in publisher policies on repository deposit?

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2-Jun-09, at 8:05 AM, Peter Suber wrote:

> [Forwarding from Fred Friend via the JISC-Repositories list.  -- 
> Peter Suber.]
>
> To all repository managers:
>
> Rumours are spreading that Elsevier staff are approaching UK Vice- 
> Chancellors persuading them to point to PDF copies of articles on  
> Elsevier's web-site rather than have the articles deposited in  
> institutional repositories. It appears that the argument being used  
> is that this will be a cheaper option than maintaining full-text  
> within repositories. If these reports are true, my guess is that  
> Elsevier are using these arguments to undermine deposit mandates.

Here is my prediction:

(1) Yes, Elsevier and other publishers would be happier if researchers  
did not deposit their final drafts in their institutional  
repositories, and if their institutions and funders did not mandate  
that they do so. Hence it is not at all surprising that they may be  
trying to persuade UK VCs to link to PDFs at Elsevier's website  
instead of having their researchers deposit their own final drafts in  
their own institutional repositories.

(2) But UK VCs presumably still have some autonomy and judgement of  
their own. So whereas they will understand why it might be in  
publishers' interest if universities' research output were held at  
publishers' websites rather than in the university's own repository,  
they will also see quite clearly why this would not be in the interest  
of their universities, or their researchers, or research assessment,  
or research itself.

(3) So the attempt at persuasion will prove unpersuasive.

So please let us not again stir up groundless and distracting  
anxieties about this. Let publishers try to persuade whomever they  
wish of whatever they wish. The interested parties will make their own  
decisions, according to their own interests.

What UK VCs should be (and are) doing is persuading their own  
researchers to provide Open Access to their own research output, in  
their own repositories, by adopting university Open Access self- 
archiving mandates, as 83 institutions and funders worldwide have  
already done. UK has the world's highest concentration of these  
mandates, and two more are about to be announced (stay tuned).

Elsevier (and the majority of other publishers), despite their efforts  
at VC persuasion, and despite the familiar doomsday scenarios to the  
contrary, remain on the side of the angels insofar as OA self- 
archiving is concerned, endorsing authors depositing their final  
drafts in their institutional repositories.

Let us concentrate on accelerating OA mandate adoption and not worry  
about how publishers might be trying to decelerate it: The outcome is  
optimal (for research, researchers, their institutions, and the tax- 
paying public that funds them) -- and inevitable.

> If Vice-Chancellors are persuaded to adopt this policy, it would  
> only give repository access to an unsatisfactory version (PDFs will  
> not enable re-use for research purposes) and access on Elsevier's  
> terms. If this is Elsevier's strategy it would seem to negate their  
> "green" status. Previous correspondence on this list has indicated a  
> harder line on repository deposit by Wiley-Blackwell, and if  
> Elsevier are also hardening their policy, mandates for repository  
> deposit could lose much of their potential effectiveness in  
> increasing access to research content.

There is no hardening of policies, the PDF issue is a red herring, and  
green continues to be green.

> It would be wise for repository managers to brief their senior  
> university management on this issue. The threat to repository  
> deposit also adds to the need for authors to be briefed on the use  
> of a licence to publish retaining certain rights rather than ceding  
> all control over their work to the publisher.

There is no threat to repository deposit; a green light to deposit a  
postprint is sufficient for green OA and green OA mandates,  
irrespective of whether the postprint is the author's final draft or  
the publisher's PDF.

> Any publishers reading this message should understand that dialogue  
> on the issues above will be welcome, in particular clarification of  
> any change in publisher policies.

What is needed is not (still more!) dialogue with publishers but self- 
archiving of postprints by the researchers -- and postprint self- 
archiving mandates by researchers' institutions and funders.

Repository managers do far more for OA if they focus on helping their  
institution to adopt self-archiving policies rather than if they focus  
on how publisher may be trying to maximise their interests by delaying  
or distracting from them.

Stevan Harnad

> Fred Friend (not writing on behalf of any organisation or institution)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/boai-forum/attachments/20090602/a2383466/attachment.html