On 2012-07-19, at 10:13 AM, Prof. T.D. Wilson wrote:<div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
While I agree with virtually all that Stevan Harnad has to say about Finch<br>and Willets, I doubt that repositories can be regarded as "cost free": in<br>addition to the costs of providing and maintaining the appropriate database<br>
software (even if it is open source, it still needs maintenance), there is the<br>cost of up to one full-time cataloguer/librarian to monitor quality, etc.</blockquote><div style="text-align:left"><br></div>Many thanks to Tom for raising this point, and for giving me the opportunity<br>
to make this very explicit reply:<br><br>1. When I say that Green OA is cost-free, I am referring to <i>cost<br>per paper deposited</i>. This per-paper cost (as a proportion of the <br>institutional repository's (IR's) set-up and maintenance cost) is tiny <br>
(and for a full, successfully mandated OA IR it is vanishingly tiny -- and <br>is already a joke, per OA paper deposited, in IRs that have countless <br>other kinds of contents and functions aside from -- or instead of -- OA).<br>
<br>2. The point of comparison is the cost per paper for publishing in<br>a fee-based Gold OA journal. <br><br>3. The publication cost per paper in a subscription journal is already<br>covered (in full, generously, several times over) by the journal's </div>
<div>composite institutional subscription revenues.<br><br>4. Hence Green OA self-archiving entails no further costs, to anyone.<br><br>Having said that, I want to also add that it is becoming<br>increasingly evident that a lot of the <i>unmandated</i> IRs (which means<br>
most IRs today) are wasting a lot of money on functions that are<br>diminishing in instead of increasing the number of OA papers deposited<br>(hence spuriously raising the cost per paper): I mean specically<br>"the cost of... one full-time cataloguer [or more!] to monitor<br>
quality, etc."</div><div><br></div><div>What OA IRs need today, urgently, is not cataloguers to monitor</div><div>quality, nor IP specialists to monitor rights, etc. etc. No intermediary</div><div>is needed between the author and the IR "monitor", retard, block or</div>
<div>otherwise impede deposits (though help is always welcome to </div><div>encourage depositors and facilitate and speed their deposits!).</div><div><br></div><div>What OA IRs need urgently today instead of needless, costly and</div>
<div>counterproductive monitoring and mediation is e<i>ffective Green OA </i></div><div><i>mandates (ID/OA)</i>. That is what will generate deposits (and further </div><div>minimize the negligible cost per paper deposited).</div>
<div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">In a recent study of the repository of a Swedish university, we found<br>
that quality control was a major issue, with academic staff reporting<br>conference papers for which no source could be found and, indeed,<br>at times, not even the conference could be found. So - definitely cheaper,<br>but not cost free.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>The problem of IRs today is not fraudulent researchers depositing</div><div>bogus content, it is legitimate researchers failing to deposit OA's</div><div>target content (refereed research publications).</div>
<div><br></div><div>And the solution is not to spend extra money on IR staff but to</div><div>adopt an effective, cost-free OA mandate (ID/OA) and designate</div><div>deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for </div>
<div>academic CV generation, performance review, and research</div><div>assessment, as Liege and other universities have done. (For</div><div>policy guidance, please consult EnablingOpenScholarship, EOS.)</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
As to the composition of the Finch working party, I imagine it was<br>determined by the Minister, and who lobbies the Minister...?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The same interests that were lobbying the Minister in 2004 -- but the</div>
<div>RCUK and many of the UK's universities (as well as the EC, NIH,</div><div>and a growing number of universities worldwide) have had the good</div><div>sense to ignore the lobbying.</div><div><br></div>(Thanks also to Tom for giving me this occasion to see his brilliant<br>
series of photos on his website, as well as his adorable abyssinians,<br>s & s. No one who loves cats -- and all other critters -- can be<br><div>all bad!) </div><div><br></div>Stevan Harnad<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
On 19 July 2012 04:36, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote><br>On 2012-07-18, Anthony Watkinson on LIBLICENSE wrote:<br>> There were three publishers on the Finch committee (out of seventeen<br>
> members)... [1]<br>><br>> I do not know of any evidence that they had a special line to Finch<br>> herself or any special privileges. I do not know of any special<br>> influence that representative bodies for publishing might have had.<br>
> Does Professor Harnad? [2]<br>><br>> Some years ago Professor Harnad had a lot of influence on the<br>> conclusions of a Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee in the<br>> UK. Perhaps he expects the same special channel he had then [3]<br>
[1]<br>There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three<br>publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing<br>open access to publicly funded research.<br>[2]<br>The recommendations of the Finch committee were identical to the<br>
ones for which publishers have been lobbying aggressively for years<br>(ever since it has become evident that trying to lobby against OA itself<br>in the face of the mounting pressure for it from the research community is<br>
futile and very ill-received by the research community).<br>The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:<br>"Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA."<br>The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of<br>
publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:<br>Finch on Green: "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders<br> nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that<br> researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories…<br>
[so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead]<br> be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing,<br> particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and<br>
in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"<br>Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be<br> seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public<br>
funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements"<br> to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open<br> access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions]<br>
for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and<br> health sectors…"<br>But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,<br>instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates<br>
the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations<br>of the Finch committee:<br>"[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that<br> is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be<br>
published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option<br>[Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional<br> repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo<br> period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and…<br>
ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…"<br><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/">http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/</a><br>[3]<br> The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select<br> Committee on Science and Technology were based on<br>
23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one<br>of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the<br>outcome, it was evidence and reasons.<br><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm</a><br>
<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm</a><br>The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this:<br>
<br>“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions<br> establish institutional repositories on which their published output<br> can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.<br> It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government<br>
funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all<br> of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that<br> the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded<br> researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”<br>
<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm</a><br>At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under<br>
pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select<br> Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and<br> many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.<br> <br>As a result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to<br>
Open Access.<br>If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade<br> repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and<br> unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.<br>
Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,<br>reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.<br> <br>Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,<br> instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly<br>
for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA<br> by mandating it.<br>If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role<br> in the global transition to universal OA.<br>
Stevan Harnad<br><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400<br>><br>> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not<br>
> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the<br>> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are<br>> pointedly rejecting them!<br>><br>> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.<br>
><br>> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have<br>> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce<br>> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.<br>
><br>> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the<br>> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They<br>> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,<br>
> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)<br>><br>> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's<br>> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and<br>> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.<br>
><br>> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.<br>><br>> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's<br>> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.<br>
><br>> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted<br>> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping<br>> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will<br>
> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the<br>> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)<br>><br>> Stevan Harnad<br>The publisher lobbying has accordingly been for the following:<br>
"Phase out Green OA and provide money to pay for Gold OA."<br>The Finch outcome was already pre-determined as a result of<br>publisher lobbying before the committee was even constituted:<br>Finch on Green: "The [Green OA] policies of neither research funders<br>
nor universities themselves have yet had a major effect in ensuring that<br>researchers make their publications accessible in institutional repositories…<br>[so] the infrastructure of subject and institutional repositories should [instead]<br>
be developed [to] play a valuable role complementary to formal publishing,<br>particularly in providing access to research data and to grey literature, and<br>in digital preservation [no mention of Green OA]…"<br>Finch on Gold: "Gold" open access, funded by article charges, should be<br>
seen as "the main vehicle for the publication of research"… Public<br>funders should establish "more effective and flexible arrangements"<br>to pay [Gold OA] article charges… During the transition to [Gold] open<br>
access, funding should be found to extend licences [subscriptions]<br>for non-open-access content to the whole UK higher education and<br>health sectors…"<br>But that's all moot now, as both RCUK and EC have ignored it,<br>
instead re-affirming and strengthening their Green OA mandates<br>the day after Mr. Willets announced the adoption of the recommendations<br>of the Finch committee:<br>"[P]eer reviewed research papers which result from research that<br>
is wholly or partially funded by the Research Councils... must be<br>published in journals… [either] offering a “pay to publish” option<br>[Gold OA] or allowing deposit in a subject or institutional<br>repository [Green OA] after a mandated maximum embargo<br>
period… of no more than six months… except… AHRC and…<br>ESRC where the maximum... is 12 months…"<br><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/">http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/</a><br>[3]<br>The 2004 recommendations of the Parliamentary Select<br>
Committee on Science and Technology were based on<br>23 oral testimonials and 127 written testimonials. Mine was one<br>of the 127 written testimonials. If anything had influence on the<br>outcome, it was evidence and reasons.<br>
<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39916.htm</a><br><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39917.htm</a><br>
The 2004 Select Committee recommendation had been this:<br>“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions<br> establish institutional repositories on which their published output<br> can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.<br>
It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government<br> funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all<br> of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that<br> the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded<br>
researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”<br><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm</a><br>
At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under<br> pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select<br> Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and<br> many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.<br>
<br>As a result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to<br> Open Access.<br>If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade<br> repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and<br>
unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.<br>Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,<br>reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.<br> <br>Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,<br>
instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly<br> for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA<br> by mandating it.<br>If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role<br>
in the global transition to universal OA.<br>Stevan Harnad<br><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400<br>
><br>> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not<br>> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the<br>> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are<br>
> pointedly rejecting them!<br>><br>> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.<br>><br>> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have<br>> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce<br>
> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.<br>><br>> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the<br>> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They<br>
> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,<br>> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)<br>><br>> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's<br>> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and<br>
> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.<br>><br>> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.<br>><br>> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's<br>
> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.<br>><br>> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted<br>> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping<br>
> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will<br>> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the<br>> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)<br>
><br>> Stevan Harnad<br>“This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions<br>establish institutional repositories on which their published output<br>can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online.<br>
It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government<br>funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all<br>of their articles in this way... [T]he Report [also] recommends that<br>the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded<br>
researchers can apply should they wish to pay to publish...”<br><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm</a><br>
At that time, despite the fact that the UK government (again under<br>pressure from the publishing lobby) decided to ignore the Select<br>Committee’s recommendation to mandate Green OA, RCUK and<br>many UK universities adopted Green OA mandates anyway.<br>
As a result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to<br> Open Access.<br>If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade<br> repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and<br> unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.<br>
Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,<br>reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.<br> <br>Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,<br> instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly<br>
for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA<br> by mandating it.<br>If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role<br> in the global transition to universal OA.<br>
Stevan Harnad<br><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400<br>><br>> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not<br>
> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the<br>> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are<br>> pointedly rejecting them!<br>><br>> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.<br>
><br>> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have<br>> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce<br>> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.<br>
><br>> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the<br>> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They<br>> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,<br>
> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)<br>><br>> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's<br>> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and<br>> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.<br>
><br>> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.<br>><br>> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's<br>> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.<br>
><br>> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted<br>> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping<br>> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will<br>
> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the<br>> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)<br>><br>> Stevan Harnad<br>As a result, the UK became the global leader in the transition to<br>
Open Access.<br>If heeded, the Finch Committee recommendation to downgrade<br>repository use to the storage and preservation of data, theses and<br>unpublished work would have set back global OA by at least a decade.<br>Fortunately, the RCUK has again shown its sense and independence,<br>
reaffirming and strengthening its Green OA mandate.<br> <br>Let us hope UK’s universities — not pleased that scarce research funds,<br>instead of being increased, are to be decreased to pay extra needlessly<br>for Gold OA — will likewise continue to opt instead for cost-free Green OA<br>
by mandating it.<br>If so, the UK will again have earned and re-affirmed its leadership role<br>in the global transition to universal OA.<br>Stevan Harnad<br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 16:32:45 -0400<br>><br>> Irony of ironies, that it should now appear (to some who are not<br>> paying attention) as if the the RCUK & EC were following the<br>> recommendations of Finch/Willets when in point of fact they are<br>
> pointedly rejecting them!<br>><br>> RCUK and EC were already leading the world in providing and mandating Green OA.<br>><br>> Finch/Willets, under the influence of the publisher lobby, have<br>> recommended abandoning cost-free Green OA and instead spending scarce<br>
> research money on paying publishers extra for Gold OA.<br>><br>> Both RCUK & EC immediately announced that, no, they would stay the<br>> course in which they were already leading -- mandatory Green OA. (They<br>
> even shored it up, shortening the maximum allowable embargo period,<br>> again directly contrary to Finch/Willets!)<br>><br>> What Finch/Willets have mandated is that £50,000,000.00 of the UK's<br>> scarce research budget is taken away annually from UK research and<br>
> redirected instead to paying publishers for Gold OA.<br>><br>> The UK government is free to squander its public funds as it sees fit.<br>><br>> But as long as cost-free Green OA mandates remain in effect, that's<br>
> just a waste of money, not of progress in the global growth in OA.<br>><br>> (A lot of hard, unsung work had to be done to fend off the concerted<br>> efforts of the publisher lobby, so brilliantly successful in duping<br>
> Finch/Willets, to dupe the RCUK and EC too. They failed. And they will<br>> fail with the US too. And the UK will maintain its leadership in the<br>> worldwide OA movement, despite Finch/Willets, not because of it.)<br>
><br>> Stevan Harnad<br><br>--<br> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------</blockquote></blockquote>Professor T.D. Wilson, PhD, PhD (h.c.)<br>Publisher and Editor in Chief: Information Research<br>
<a href="http://informationr.net/ir/">http://informationr.net/ir/</a><br>E-mail: <a href="mailto:wilsontd@gmail.com">wilsontd@gmail.com</a><br>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br></div>