[GOAL] Re: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!

[Arif Jinha]

The rebuttal is correct in principle, but what we are about to see in the
next 20 years is a sea change in access. It seems self-evident that advocacy
by academics towards changing their own system is a different creature than
anything else we strive for.  It is a reflexive process, and we would be
wise to take a page from philosophy of science and the likes of Karl Popper 
and
his inspired student George Soros.  We are the makers of the system, not
hapless observers. So, if we step into the reality-manifestation matrix, 
rather than the self-defeating matrix, we will achieve.  Inspirational 
philosophy is perennially proven correct, yet academics are unable to move 
beyond the problems of methodological skepticism despite the fact that 
physics itself has undone objectivism.

These concepts are not off-topic, rather they go to the root of it, the end 
of high modernism in the demographic shift.  Just look at the population 
data on the impact of generational paradigms.  We need a more sophisticated 
and less risk-averse approach to change.  Revolutions in knowledge are 
non-violent, so I invite people to copy this e-mail as an invitation to 
revolutionary change, toward global open scholarship and universal access to 
knowledge in our lifetime.  Words have proven record of power to shift 
collective consciousness, a perspective from the humanities - the most 
ignored field with regards to open access.  However, the oldest journal is 
still Philosophical Transactions and you'll find that the earliest open 
access journals were also humanities presses.

So, Michael, your writing gives too much power to the powers that be in the
sense of frustration about details.  The tides have turned and we are on our
way, we need to keep pushing but with the sense that we are going to
accomplish Steven Harnad's vision of 'for all, for free, forever' in our
lifetime.  We need to drop the whinging and putting each other down, and 
seize the day. Disillusionment
is a Western phenom, not a global one.  For some reasons, the OA movement
has gotten bogged down in the trees, and has lost sight of the forest.  In 
part, it's a process problem of communication that started with 
'top-posting' and ended up with endless ego-driven cutting of the words of 
allies who want the same results.  I will never reply to that kind of 
response unless there is respect rather than dominance, because I would be 
set up to fail and to suffer.  We are getting to the root of the Occupy 
movement which is now taking place on campus.

I successfully defended my MA thesis this November.  This empirical work
provides data on the universe of scholarly articles and how it is being
transformed (rapidly relative to the pace of historical change), drawing on
the scientometric tradition started by De Sallo Price and continued by the
likes of Tenopir and King, Mabe and Amin and the recent Bjork et al studies
on the growth of the open access share.  Not only that it demonstrates that
after 2000, the annual rate of publishing has surged to 4.5% which is the
highest in history, whilst the share to the North had dropped about 10%.
This is based on the methods developed in that small line of research, the
only rigorous empirical study of the whole of scholarship as a
self-organizing system that we have.  So we have a new periodization of
science -

1665 - to 1860 - Early Literature
1860 to WWII - Little Science (De Sallo Price) - article growth rate - 3%
WWII to 1970s - Big Science (De Sallo Price) article growth rate - 3.4%
1970s to 2000 - Disillusionment (Michael Mabe) article growth rate - less
than 3%
2000 - current - Global Science - article growth rate 4.5%
current to future - Open Scholarship (we do not have to continue to let
science dominate, humanities, arts - all of these are just as important).
Question remains as to whether articles will look like articles in the
future, certainly research information will be more fluid and dialectic, and
less didactic.  The research article was invented for the printing press,
not the web. The online pdf is just a posting of a version of literature
designed for print.  So, we are behind only because we put ourselves back 
and failed to partner with young people who understand the digital world.

We are currently at more than 20% gratis Open Access and that rate is
increasing such that it will pass 50% before the doubling time of the
universe of articles (in roughly 20 years at the current rate). There is no
real way to disentangle and measure 'libre OA'.  Libre OA is not a concern 
for young people, who understand that when you can get digital content the 
ethics are anarchical, you have to realize that reciprocity is the principle 
rather than zero-sum.  So, we can't continue just to use content without 
respecting the author.  In scholarship, it is fait accompli when we realize 
that the author has an interest to donate the article.  The author may have 
an interest to restrict permissions, and that should be up to the author (so 
long as they have good information) based on respect of their labour.  It 
should not be dictated by an ideology.  The respect of permissions ends up 
being a voluntary act on the part of the user, since copyright is de facto 
deregulated particularly in academia because of the clear mutual interests, 
and it only tends to be enforced in a repugnant and punitive fashion on 
behalf of third-party publishers, something which we should reject.  This is 
the current reality.

Any publisher ought to see the writing on the wall and begin the shift to an
Open Access model and we are going to see an ever-increasing availability of
articles irrespective of ability to pay and of the wealth of one's
institutional library.

Here is my thought - the biggest problem that remains are not permissions,
if people have gratis access and can get to the material I believe they will
treat permissions more and more liberally despite licensing, and fair use
will shift the balance.

The main problem is author-fees.  They are hated by authors even if they can
get the funds (which I'm sure takes a lot more effort than archiving a green
copy), and they provide a barrier to many globally.  I don't understand why
authors would pay author-fees at all, it is undignified and a pain in the
ass, and you can't possibly justify the value of a $3000 fee when there is
another journal that will do it for free. It's insane, foolish, a lack of
respect for one's own work. It is enough to donate the article for free, to
pay to publish is ridiculous and I can't understand how this has gone on so
long. I would never do it, and I would rather archive a green copy and
publish in a toll journal. Much easier.

Author-fees provide a necessity of research to have institutional funding
and all of the bureaucratic steps taken to secure the fund.  They therefore
provide an artificial skew to the editorial process.  The author that is
unable to secure a fund is unlikely to be able or willing to pay thousands
of dollars out of pocket for OA.  The research of these articles will not be
published in the journals that charge the fees, and only researchers who are
in the position to fund OA can publish in these journals.  These journals
are not therefore valid as neutral publishing platforms for research, as
'high-quality' and 'prestigious' as they may be.  Their editorial neutrality
has been lost completely.  The worst of these are vanity presses who are
just out for money.  I agree with the opposition to Gold author-funds, but
not to Gold journals that do not charge authors.

So publishers complain, 'how will we pay to publish if we cannot charge
anyone?'.  The answer is simple in the proven model of still the majority of
OA journals which do not charge author fees.  Unfortunately, commercial
opportunism is crowding the market and people are succumbing to the
temptation to fund unnecessary overhead into the journal for the sake of
prestige, or whatever they use the money for (wine and cheese?).

When authors and peer-review are donated, there is not much left to do for
quality and prestige except marketing.  We are fools to obstruct neutrality
for the sake of marketing, when all that is needed to get good research on
your desk is the power of search. We do not need author-fees and I challenge
any publisher to create a model for the 21st century that is compatible with
Green OA but adds value to production over and above the posting of a pdf.
To pay for this production value in publishing, publishers have an array of
means other than charging user fees at either end.

I call this model OA 360, open at both ends. Reflexively, what we need to do
is to realize that we have the power to reshape the universe of articles by
application of our skills to the technologies available.  You just have to
find a group of talented graduate students who are web-savvy to build the
new publishing world - Open Access Commercial or Non-Profit Scholarly
Communication Platforms built on Open Source software and utilizing the full
potential of the social web.

Finally, if there are items that have very high production value, let's say
the 'top 2% cited literature' (and I suggest this be done on a continental
basis so as not to skew knowledge to the bigger producers); then we should
put this in print in very accessible, high-quality magazine format.  For
this, we need to clear permissions to aggregate the best literature
quarterly and annually, to put more attention on accessible, high-quality
writing (Scientific American is a good standard) and to have a solid
production line that circulates top research in print in a way that is
profitable.  That is the way to preserve publishing standards, which are
appalling mediocre because publishers are far too focused on administering
monolothic, bulky and expensive publishing firms that require lawyers,
marketers, salespeople and the rest.  They are akin to brand-name
pharmaceutical companies who typically spend less than 20% of their funds on
research, and the rest on marketing and admin.  Let them change, or let them
fall. These firms, Taylor and Francis, Elsevier, Blackwell-Synergy have the
most pointless websites on the internet.  Who would visit them, when the
article is inaccessible and there is no content of any merit.  They are
doing a disservice to journals.

I have made strides toward planning a new publishing firm.  We are starting
with the creative arts, but I am open to publishing journals.  I will treat
the journals, the readers, the authors and the Access Principle with
respect. If you are interested in my thesis, or in Article 50 million,
please see --.  I could be ready to publish journals by next summer, when
I've had some space from academia, so keep me in mind. And for goodness
sake, everyone needs to take a breather from the academy and breathe in the
world.  Don't take yourselves so seriously all the time.  Don't try to
dominate one another with intellect or money, but uplift and share the world
equitably instead. It is what the global youth are saying to the boomers.
It is a question of 'tone'.  I know mine will not sound right to some, but
I'm speaking about the energy of surging towards change and transformation
in the world.  It is how it is, and young people have struggled for the
respect of their mentors.  One thing we know though, is the web.  So, we are
going to take Open Access to another level.  But don't just wait and see,
bring the message of OA to grads and undergrads who will find it natural,
normal and obvious.  They will be the profs of the future.

My humble opinions, but let us talk with confidence about the future of OA
instead of dragging each other down.  No line by line attack will hold the 
youth back.
We will register our business in 2012, with indomitable spirit, will to love 
wisdom, and 100% commitment, we will change the world

"Occupy Publishing!"

Arif Jinha
http://arif.jinhabrothers.com
Chief Creative Officer - JBP Wakefield (coming in 2012, the year of the 
beginning)
MA Globalization and International Development, uOttawa.
011-819-459-1385
arif at jinhabrothers.com





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Carroll" <mcarroll at wcl.american.edu>
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:42 AM
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!


> Dear Jennifer,
>
>     Thanks for the news, but I'm afraid your press release is
> misleading and should be corrected.  You say that T&F is now publishing
> " fully Open Access journals", but unless I've misread the licensing
> arrangements this simply is not the case.  A fully open access journal
> is one that publishes on the web without delay *and* which gives readers
> the full set of reuse rights conditioned only on the requirement that
> users provide proper attribution.
> http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.100
> 1210
>
>     T&F's "Open" program and "Open Select" offer pseudo open access.
> Could you please explain why T&F needs to reserve substantial reuse
> rights after the author or her funder has paid for the costs of
> publication?
>
>     If your response is that the article processing charge does not
> represent the full cost of publication, what charge would?  Why aren't
> authors given the option to purchase full open access?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> Michael W. Carroll
> Professor of Law and Director,
> Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
> American University, Washington College of Law
> 4801 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20016
> (202) 274-4047 (voice)
> (202) 730-4756 (fax)
> vcard: http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/mcarroll/vcard.vcf
>
> Research papers: http://works.bepress.com/michael_carroll/
> http://ssrn.com/author=330326
> blog: http://www.carrollogos.org/
> See also www.creativecommons.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
> Behalf Of McMillan, Jennifer
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 5:46 AM
> Subject: [GOAL] Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!
>
> Taylor & Francis Opens Access with new OA Program!
>
> Oxford, 16th December 2011
>
> The New Year sees the launch of an exciting range of Open Access options
> from Taylor & Francis via the Taylor & Francis Open program. This new
> initiative is designed to give authors and their sponsors flexibility
> and variety when they choose to publish research with Taylor & Francis.
>
> The Taylor & Francis Open program is a suite of fully Open Access
> journals consisting of brand new titles, dynamic titles from T&F's
> existing portfolio which are converting to OA, and titles published on
> behalf of the Royal Society of New Zealand and the Human Sciences
> Research Council, South Africa.  Many of the titles in this program will
> collaborate with leading journals within T&F's existing portfolio,
> providing input and support from learned societies and
> internationally-acclaimed editors to ensure their calibre.
>
> Taylor & Francis Open journals will have affordable article publication
> fees, with discounts or fee waivers for emergent countries. Authors will
> benefit from rapid online publication, rigorous peer review and the high
> levels of customer care Taylor & Francis provides to all authors.  Their
> finished article will be showcased on Taylor & Francis Online, helping
> them to gain recognition and esteem for their contribution to their
> field.
>
> Taylor & Francis can confirm the following titles will be included in
> Taylor & Francis Open, with more to join in the New Year:
> Complex Metals
> Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews
> International Journal of Smart and Nano Materials
> Journal of Biological Dynamics
> Journal of Organic Semiconductors
> Kotuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online - published on
> behalf of the Royal Society of New Zealand
> Nanoscience Methods
> SAHARA-J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS - published on behalf of
> the Human Sciences Research Council
> Systems Science & Control Engineering
>
> Dr David Green, Global Journals Publishing Director, sums up Taylor &
> Francis' new approaches to Open Access, "Taylor & Francis is committed
> to producing high-calibre journals that showcase quality global
> research. We believe that this content should be widely disseminated and
> are now exploring various Open Access models to enable universal access
> in ways that are sustainable and meet the needs of the academic and
> research communities.  Over the past three years society journals have
> been partnering with Taylor & Francis Group at the rate of more than one
> per week, and, if required, we are now able to offer a potential partner
> a range of Open Access models".
>
> Taylor & Francis will also continue to offer Taylor & Francis Open
> Select, which is a hybrid program giving authors the choice to publish
> on an Open Access basis in over 500 titles from across Taylor & Francis
> Group's extensive portfolio.
>
> *******************************
> About Taylor & Francis Group
>
> Taylor & Francis Group partners with researchers, scholarly societies,
> universities and libraries worldwide to bring knowledge to life. As one
> of the world's leading publishers of scholarly journals, books, ebooks
> and reference works our content spans all areas of Humanities, Social
> Sciences, Science and Technology.
>
>>From our network of offices in Oxford, Philadelphia, Melbourne,
> Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo, Stockholm, New Delhi and Johannesburg, Taylor
> & Francis staff provide local expertise and support to our editors,
> societies and authors  and tailored, efficient customer service to our
> library colleagues.
>
> For more information please contact:
>
> Jennifer McMillan, Head of Library Marketing & Communication, Taylor &
> Francis Group Journals
>
> email: newsroom at tandf.co.uk
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> The information contained in this email message may be confidential. If
> you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with,
> disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited.
> Although this message and any attachments are believed to be free of
> viruses, no responsibility is accepted by Informa for any loss or damage
> arising in any way from receipt or use thereof.  Messages to and from
> the company are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with
> lawful business practices.
> If you have received this message in error, please notify us by return
> and delete the message and any attachments.  Further enquiries/returns
> can be sent to postmaster at informa.com
>
> Taylor & Francis Group is a trading name of Informa UK Limited,
> registered in England under no. 1072954
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal