[GOAL] Re: Keynote on Open Access at Digital Research 2012, Oxford September 11

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2012-08-04, at 8:37 AM, [identity deleted] wrote on *cphc-members*:

    I really don't see how "the ACM and IEEE journals are on the "side of
> the angels."


>     While this is not the ACM journals per se, the ACM DL publishing
> agreement always shocks me at its draconian conditions - not least the fact
> that they incur none of the upfront costs for DL publications (unlike
> sponsored conferences), and yet demand you not only give full copyright to
> them for nothing, but in addition expect you to indemnify them completely.
>  Maybe they are just protecting themselves, but in principle, if anyone
> made any sort of claim (e.g. like the recent chiropractic libel case in
> the UK), the ACM could lay over like lamb, pay through their nose, and then
> pass the bill to you.



    Not sure about the IEEE publishing agreements as I don't tend to
> publish much in their venues, but for many years the many IEEE badged
> vanity conferences have been a disgrace (and devalued the many IEEE old and
> new conferences that maintain high standards). I know they have recently
> attempted to clean up their act, but this does underline the pressures that
> can only grow if an author-pays policy becomes the norm.

1. The "side of the angels" is the journals (60%) that endorse immediate
Green OA self-archiving; the other side is the journals (40%) that embargo
Green OA (some indefinitely).

2. Publisher embargos are the principal obstacle to getting OA mandates
adopted and complied with (although there is a work-around: See Sale et al
2012).

3. The immediate, primary objective of OA is to make refereed research
accessible to all of its intended users, not just to those whose
institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal it which in happened to
be published. (Same for conference proceedings, if toll-access.) The
purpose is to maximize research uptake, usage, progress and impact.

4. Yes, there are glaring iniquities and anomalies (needless overpricing,
etc.) in refereed research journal publication today, but the first and
foremost goal of OA is to remedy by far the most important of them (and the
one that, once remedied, will lead to the eventual remedying of the rest
too), namely, research access-denial.

5. To repeat, the primary goal of OA, and of mandating OA, is not to reform
publishing but to remedy research access denial.

6. There are also glaring iniquities and anomalies in rights agreements,
but, again, by far the most important of them (and the one that, once
remedied, will lead to the eventual remedying of the rest too), is again
research access-denial to all but subscribers.

7. What has led to the Finch/Willets/RCUK fiasco in the UK is a radical
(and reckless) reversal of priorities, placing publication reform and
rights reform ahead of OA itself -- at the considerable expense of both
access itself and scarce research funds: mandating the payment of even more
to publishers, out of scarce research funds, and over and above what's
already being spent on subscription all in exchange for costly Gold OA,
instead of mandating cost-free Green OA, which just amounts to a few extra
key-strokes.

(I have dubbed this short-sighted tendency -- to keep letting the "best"
get in the way of the better -- "gold fever" and "rights rapture."

8. We all need to set aside all animus we may feel toward publishers for
now, and just focus on mandating the Green keystrokes worldwide, starting
(or rather continuing) in the UK: All the other good things we desire will
follow as a natural of course thereafter (including the adaptation of the
research publishing industry to the OA era).

Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L.
and Harnad, S. (2010) Self-Selected or Mandated, Open Access Increases
Citation Impact for Higher Quality
Research<http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636>
. PLOS ONE 5 (10)  <http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013636>e13636


Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity
Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/>.
D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8)<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>
.


Harnad, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton
Report: Provide Green Open Access Now<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18514/>.
Prometheus, 28 (1). pp. 55-59.  <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18514/>


Harnad, S. (2011) Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard
the Progress of Green Open Access
Self-Archiving<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21818/>
. *Logos: The Journal of the World Book Community. * 21(3-4): 86-93

Sale, A., Couture, M., Rodrigues, E., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2012) Open
Access Mandates and the "Fair Dealing"
Button<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/18511/>.
In: *Dynamic Fair Dealing: Creating Canadian Culture Online* (Rosemary J.
Coombe & Darren Wershler, Eds.)


Swan, A & Houghton, J. (2012) *Going for Gold? The costs and benefits of
Gold Open Access for UK research institutions: further economic
modelling<http://ie-repository.jisc.ac.uk/610/2/Modelling_Gold_Open_Access_for_institutions_-_final_draft3.pdf>.
Report
to the UK Open Access Implementation Group*, June 2012

Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120804/8a37a3dd/attachment-0001.html