[GOAL] Why "Public Access" vs. "Research Access" Matters

[Stevan Harnad]

Some comments on Richard Poynder's interview of Mike Rossner in "Open & Shut"
http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html

Practically speaking, public access (i.e., free online access to research, 
for everyone) includes researcher access (free online access to research 
for researchers). 

Moreover, free online access to research, for everyone, includes both public 
access and researcher access.

So what difference does it make what you call it?

The answer is subtle, but important:

The goal of providing "public access to publicly funded research" 
has a great deal of appeal (rightly)  to both tax-paying voters and to politicians.

So promoting open access as "public access" is a very powerful and 
effective way to motivate and promote the adoption of open access self-archiving 
mandates by public research funders such as NIH and the many other federal 
funders in the US that would be covered by the Federal Research Public 
Access Act (FRPAA).

That's fine for publicly funded research.

But not all research -- nor even most research -- is publicly funded.

All research worldwide, however, whether funded or unfunded, originates 
from institutions: The universal providers of research are the world's 
universities and research institutes.

To motivate institutions to adopt open access self-archiving mandates 
for all of their research output requires giving them and their researchers 
a credible, valid reason for doing so.

And for institutions and their researchers, "public access to publicly
funded research" is not a credible, valid reason for providing open access 
to their research output: 

Institutions and their researchers know full well that apart from a few 
scientific and scholarly research areas (notably, health-related research), 
most of their research output is of no interest to the public (and often 
inaccessible technically, even if accessible electronically).

Institutions and their researchers need a credible and valid reason for 
providing open access to their research output.

And that credible and valid reason is so as to provided access for 
all of the intended users of their research -- researchers themselves -- rather 
than just those who are at an institution that can afford to subscribe to 
the journal in which it was published.

Subtle, but important.

It has become obvious that the >75% of researchers who have not 
been providing open access to their research for over two decades 
now -- despite the fact that the Web has made it both possible and 
easy for them to do so -- will not do so until and unless it is mandated. 
That's why mandates matter.

The rationale for the mandate, however, has to be credible and valid
for all research and all researchers. "Public access to publicly funded research" is not. 

But "maximize researcher access to maximize research uptake and impact" is.

And it has the added virtue of not only maximizing research usage, 
applications and progress -- to the benefit of the public  -- but public 
access to publicly funded research also comes with the territory, as an added benefit.

So Mike Rossner is quite right that the two are functionally equivalent.

It is just that they are not strategically equivalent -- if the objective is 
to convince institutions and their researchers that it is in their interest to 
mandate and provide open access.

Stevan Harnad

On 2012-03-27, at 7:40 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> Bravo to Mike Rossner for his position statement in favor of OA mandate
> legislation. Everything he says is valid and true. 
> 
> (But it would be just as valid if it were said on behalf of the (far more realistic 
> and demonstrable) need for "researcher access" as if it is said on behalf of 
> the (rather more idealogical and less realistic) need for "public access" -- 
> though the latter, I know, is much more  persuasive with MPs and voters, 
> and that's what counts...)
> 
> That niggle nigged, let me repeat that Mike will be remembered and thanked
> historically for having said -- forthrightly, and with no self-serving obfuscation --
> what all publishers should have been saying about OA all along. 
> 
> Mike represents what is still honorable in the tradition of scholarly publishing.
> 
> Stevan
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Peter Suber <peter.suber at gmail.com>
>> Date: March 26, 2012 8:47:46 PM EDT
>> Subject: [BOAI] Position on Public Access
>> 
>> [Forwarding from Mike Rossner at Rockefeller U Press, via Liblicense.  --Peter Suber.]
>> 
>> 
>> From: Mike Rossner <rossner at mail.rockefeller.edu>
>> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:32:38 -0400
>> 
>> For the reference of Liblicense readers, the following letter was just
>> sent to all Rockefeller University Press subscribers:
>> 
>> Dear Librarian,
>> 
>> I am writing to clarify the position of The Rockefeller University
>> Press (RUP) on various legislative efforts regarding public access to
>> publications resulting from federally funded research.  RUP is a
>> member of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the
>> Association of American University Presses (AAUP), who have both
>> recently provided position statements on this issue.  However, RUP
>> does not agree with those statements.
>> 
>> RUP is a subscription-based publisher that publishes three biomedical
>> research journals: The Journal of Cell Biology, The Journal of
>> Experimental Medicine, and The Journal of General Physiology.  We have
>> released our back content to the public since 2001 – long before any
>> federal mandates existed – because we believe we have an obligation to
>> give something back to the public that funds the research we publish.
>> 
>> The AAP supported the now-defunct Research Works Act.  RUP strongly
>> opposed that act.
>> 
>> Both the AAP and AAUP have opposed the Federal Research Public Access
>> Act (FRPAA), which has been re-introduced into both the House and
>> Senate. Although numerous non-profit publishers signed the AAP letter,
>> the RUP does not stand with those publishers.  RUP supports FRPAA in
>> principle.  We know from the NIH public access policy that mandated
>> access to the results of federally-funded research is necessary to get
>> certain publishers to release this content to the public, and we
>> support legislation to extend the NIH policy to other large federal
>> funding agencies.
>> 
>> The AAP and AAUP use a one-size-does-not-fit-all argument to oppose
>> FRPAA because the drafted legislation calls for all large federal
>> agencies to mandate public access six months after publication.
>> Although it can be argued that a six-month embargo period may not be
>> suitable for all disciplines covered by FRPAA, this is not grounds to
>> oppose the legislation altogether.  It should be supported in
>> principle and could be modified during Congressional review to provide
>> the flexibility for each agency to choose its own embargo period.
>> 
>> The continuing rhetoric from the AAP and AAUP about having ongoing
>> "conversations" about access to the results of publicly funded
>> research is outdated.  There is legislation on the table that will
>> help to make public access a reality now.
>> 
>> Yours sincerely,
>> 
>> Mike Rossner
>> Executive Director
>> 
>> These comments are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily
>> reflect the position of The Rockefeller University.
>>