[GOAL] Re: Agreement on Green OA not needed from publishers but from institutions and funders

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2012-06-20, at 10:22 AM, Sally Morris wrote:

> I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to denigrate both the Finch report's authors and publishers in general.  It would seem that the (relatively small number of) primary contributors to this list take it as an article of faith that publishers are to be hated and destroyed;  they do not want a balanced approach or a 'mixed economy' (e.g. of green, gold etc).
>  
> However, if researchers themselves, both as authors and as readers, didn't value what journals, and their publishers, add to research articles, they would long ago have ceased publishing in, or reading, journals, and contented themselves with placing their articles directly in, and reading from, repositories.
>  
> If that were to change, those that benefit from the proceeds of the current range of publishing models (not just shareholders, but also learned society members etc...) would indeed face a major challenge.  But until it does, the challenge with which publishers are currently engaging is how to enable their authors' work to be as accessible as possible, without making it impossible to continue to do those things that authors and readers value in journals.   I don't see how that makes publishers bad?
>  
> Can't we grow up and have a rather more reasoned discussion?

There are indeed some unthinking hotheads, on both sides of the OA issue.

But this particular thread is not about the Finch Report; it's about whether
institutions and funders should seek "agreement" from publishers on 
institutional or funder policy mandating Green OA self-archiving.

Many objective (and cool-headed) reasons have been provided to the effect 
that the answer is No. Perhaps we could discuss those, rather than 
the subjective tone of some hot-heads (which I agree should be temperate)?.

As to the Finch Report's recommendations -- well, it's not surprising
that some publishers are pleased with them, since they managed to
get the Finch Report to reflect publisher interests rather than research
and researcher interests ("Green is ineffectual and inadequate and 
would destroy publication and peer review: If you insist on OA, pay
us for Gold OA instead, at our prices and on our timetable.")

That is why I say, cool-headedly: ignore the Finch Report and ignore
publishers' requests to discuss "agreement": Institutions and funders
should go ahead and mandate Green OA (and make sure their mandates 
are upgraded to effective ones, if need be).

After that's done, globally, we can all sit down and have a reasoned discussion
about the future.

But not before. Or instead (as we've already been doing for at least a
decade).

Stevan Harnad


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120620/fc9704b7/attachment.html