[GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era

Tue Aug 7 10:36:46 BST 2012

Steven Harnad has had and still has an enormous influence on the open access
question. But the way he pushes for has, sorry to say, in practice shown not to
be able to compet with the market.

That is a fact that the British government now recogineses and the rest of the
world will follow. The Great Leap in China failed in the same way the green
way has failed.

What we now can see is a paradigm shift.

 Now we have to support  the free e-journal movement, not by forcing scientists
 and scholars to accept open access but by cooperate with them in the  competion
with mainly the global STM industry. It's not going to be easy. But
more and more
new journals are free e-journals. The rise is spectacular. Latin
America has shown
the way we have to take.

Jan

2012/8/7 Arthur Sale <ahjs at ozemail.com.au>:
> Oh dear Stevan. When I try to help you I get rubbished. You really have to
> stop using knee-jerk reactions.
>
>
>
> I fully agree Pay-per-view (PPV) is not ideal, and you know that I know it
> better than most. I was responding to your very off-target message about
> ‘anarchic’ practices (green) vs ‘systemic’ (gold).  Neither is an accurate
> epithet. We both want open access to articles, not toll access, and we know
> it will be cheaper.  I think that totally deals succinctly with your points
> (1), (2), 3), (4), (5), (6), and (8).
>
>
>
> That leaves points (7), (9) and (10).  While I agree that Green OA is the
> potentially faster and cheaper route, it simply ain’t going to happen soon.
> Maybe it might if the OA movement got behind the Titanium route. There
> simply isn’t the wish amongst researchers, funders, universities or the
> governments to push Green OA. So much for point (7). The Green route leads
> to another couple of lost decades.
>
>
>
> As to (9) and (10) I was taking the point of view of a systemic bureaucrat
> (aka devil’s advocate). Green mandates are a lost cause. They have failed to
> have an impact after too many years. Looking at the global research
> publication system, it is anti-competitive as an industry, calling out for
> strong competition. What better than to provide some?
>
>
>
> Arthur
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf
> Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 August 2012 1:57 PM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Planning for the Open Access Era
>
>
>
> Dear Arthur,
>
>
>
> (1) For years and years I did not refer to toll-access as "subscription
> access" but as "subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/PPV)". (Google the
> AmSci Forum archives in the late 90's and early 2000's and I'll find
> countless instances.)  PPV is neither satisfactory for most users nor is it
> affordable, scalable or sustainable for most institutions. (If it were,
> subscriptions would already be cancelled unsustainably. PPV is a parasitic
> niche market.)
>
>
>
> (2) S/L/PPV are all forms of toll access, and I don't believe for a second
> that any of them provides sufficient access.
>
>
>
> (3) That's why I (and many others) have been struggling for open access
> (OA).
>
>
>
> (4) It is true that "where we are now [is]paying to read articles"
>
>
>
> (5) But for me it is certainly not true that "where we want to be [is]
> paying to publish articles"
>
>
>
> (6) Where I want to be (and have wanted to be for two decades) is OA:
> toll-free online access to articles.
>
>
>
> (7) I also think the fastest, surest, most direct and cheapest way to 100%
> OA is to mandate Green Gratis OA.
>
>
>
> (8) I also happen to expect that 100% Green OA will lead to Gold Libre OA
> (pay-to-publish) and the total cost will be far lower than is was with
> S/L/PPV.
>
>
>
> (9) If Finch had done a better analysis, then instead of squandering scarce
> research money to pay extra for pre-emptive Gold OA, they would have
> extended and strengthened UK's cost-free Green OA mandates.
>
>
>
> (10) I'm hoping RCUK may still have the sense and integrity to fix its
> policy and do just that.
>
>
>
> Stevan
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Arthur Sale <ahjs at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> I completely follow your argument Stevan, and agree with it, as far as it
> goes.  There is however an aspect that you have not covered, and you should
> include it in your analysis.
>
> You write as though reader-side subscriptions were the only alternative to
> author-side publishing fees as a way of funding publishers.  (As ways of
> funding access one must add green access too, to save you telling me so.) In
> fact many universities have another option: pay-per-view. The University of
> Tasmania (mine) has had a system of this sort in place since at least 1998,
> whereby any researcher can request (online in the intranet) an article from
> any journal to which the University does not subscribe, and the Document
> Delivery service will provide an e-copy (usually a pdf) usually within two
> days.  Yes this is not instant, but serious researchers are prepared to wait
> that long, despite the nay-sayers. The University picks up the cost up to a
> reasonable limit; if the cost is over the Department has to agree to fund
> the difference. This seldom happens, and when it does it is for expensive
> journals in Mining, etc.
>
> The interesting thing is that this is an system that you describe as
> anarchically growing, article-by-article, rather than the journal-by-journal
> or publisher bundle system. It has enabled the University of Tasmania to
> cancel many of the subscriptions that it previously held, and still come out
> in front. Better still, it has enabled the practical closure of the print
> journal accessioning system (where online versions are available), saving
> substantial salaries. We know for example that researchers seldom
> [physically] visit our [physical] libraries these days, they access articles
> online.
>
> If we ever reached the state where we relied on this system totally, then a
> per-article viewing fee would be easy to compare with that of a per-article
> publication fee. Of course we are never likely to go so far. But what it
> does show up is the key difference in where we are now: paying to read
> articles, as against where we want to be: paying to publish articles. The
> real difference is not between bundling and aggregations vs articles, but in
> this.
>
> I could speculate that if Finch et al had done a better analysis, they could
> have suggested applying the money they want to take away from researchers to
> University journal presses for start-up costs, on a competitive basis, and
> conditional on the funded journal being open access. Now that would have
> created a good argument. It would have created sustainable open access
> journals, in areas of UK strength, and the funds would have a sunset clause
> in them, after which the journals should be self-sustaining. One could rely
> on the universities being economical, because it would not be core business,
> though prestigious.
>
> Arthur Sale
> Tasmania, Australia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Jan Szczepański
F.d Förste bibliotekare och chef för f.d Avdelningen
för humaniora vid Göteborgs universitetsbibliotek
E-post: Jan.Szczepanski63 at gmail.com