[GOAL] Re: R Poynder Interviews I Gibson About 2004 UK Select Committee Green OA Mandate Recommendation

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Richard Poynder <ricky at richardpoynder.co.uk
> wrote:

> ** **
>
> On 28 Oct 2012, at 23:07, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> ****
>
> *SH: *Giving up authors' preferred journals in favour of pure Gold OA
> journals was what (I think) BMC's Vitek Tracz and Jan Velterop had been
> lobbying for at the time ****
>
> ** **
>
> *JV:* Stevan may think so, but that doesn't make it correct or accurate.
> What we advocated (lobbied for in Stevan's words) at the time, and what I
> still advocate now, is open access. Period. We argued that a system of open
> access publishing at source is better than a subscription system, and we
> realised that repositories would likely play an important role in achieving
> open access. That's why BMC offered assistance with establishing
> repositories, and the company still does: http://www.openrepository.com***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> *RP:* I think it would be true to say that BioMed Central launched its
> repository service in response to the Select Committee Inquiry?
>
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/presscenter/pressreleases/20040913
>

VT & JV certainly were not lobbying for Green OA self-archiving before or
at the Gibson Committee Inquiry.

After the Committee's Report, BMC did in fact offer a (paid) repository
service (presumably to help fulfill the demand for Green OA in response to
the Committee's recommendations and the ensuing RCUK mandate).

JV, however, was (and is) continuing to deprecate Green
OA<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html#msg2957>as
not "true" or "full" OA (and as "jumping with a closed
parachute <http://theparachute.blogspot.ca>").

These are not just differences in whims but profound strategic differences
that have had profound effects on the subsequent course of events in the
evolution of OA. The strategic difference is very simple to describe:

JV has been consistently advocating a direct transition from subscription
publishing to (Libre) Gold OA publishing, with Green OA self-archiving
serving only as a temporary and inadequate supplement. JV has not, however,
proposed a viable means of making this direct transition happen -- and the
direct transition is certainly not happening of its own accord (or at least
not at a pace that in which anyone can take
comfort<http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/bjorkspring.png>
!).

In contrast, I have been consistently advocating the adoption of Green OA
self-archiving mandates by institutions and funders as a viable, immediate
means of making a direct transition to 100% OA (Gratis, Green) happen --
not just as a means of eventually inducing a transition to 100% Gold OA.

[I do believe, however -- and have given
reasons<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/>to believe -- that
globally mandated Green Gratis OA will indeed
also prove to be the surest and fastest means of inducing a subsequent
transition to 100% Libre Gold OA as well, and at a fair, affordable,
sustainable price.]

JV criticizes Green Gratis OA as inadequate and as jumping with a closed
parachute, but he does not provide a realistic transition mechanism.

I support the Green OA mandates recommended by the 2004 Gibson Report (but
with a much stronger compliance verification mechanism) as a realistic
transition mechanism (for achieving Green Gratis OA) and criticize
pre-emptive payment for Gold/Libre OA as overpriced, unscalable,
unsustainable, unnecessary -- and a distraction from and retardant to
achieving an immediate transition to 100% OA (Green, Gratis).

The issue now, for those who have not discerned it among all these arcane
strategic nuances, is the 2012 Finch Committee's decision to reverse the
2004 Gibson Committee's recommendation to (*G*) mandate Green and merely
experiment with funding Gold and instead now (*F*) mandate and fund Gold
and relegate Green to the supplementary role of data-archiving, grey
literature and digital preservation.

In 2004 the UK government rejected the Green OA recommendation of the
Gibson Committee, but the RCUK decided to follow it anyway.

In 2012 the UK government has accepted the Gold OA recommendation of the
Finch Committee (which it commissioned) and the RCUK has taken an
intermediate course -- allowing Green but favouring Gold.

The criticism of the RCUK policy is over (1) how clear it will make it that
authors can still choose Green, (2) constraints on journal choice, (3)
double-paying publishers for hybrid Gold out of scarce research funds, and
(4) the strong incentive the new RCUK policy gives to publishers to offer
hybrid Gold and lengthen Green embargoes to force authors to pick Gold over
Green.

Stevan Harnad

PS The failed link in my comment on Richard's Interview was meant to be
this: revolutionary core
recommendation<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm>
--
and here it is:

*Select Committee on Science and Technology
Tenth Report<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39902.htm>
(2004)

Summary<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39903.htm>
*
[boldface added]

Academic libraries are struggling to purchase subscriptions to all the
journal titles needed by their users. This is due both to the high and
increasing journal prices imposed by commercial publishers and the
inadequacy of library budgets to meet the demands placed upon them by a
system supporting an ever increasing volume of research. Whilst there are a
number of measures that can be taken by publishers, libraries and academics
to improve the provision of scientific publications, a Government strategy
is urgently needed.

*This Report recommends that all UK higher education institutions establish
institutional repositories on which their published output can be stored
and from which it can be read, free of charge, online. It also recommends
that Research Councils and other Government funders mandate their funded
researchers to deposit a copy of all of their articles in this way. *The
Government will need to appoint a central body to oversee the
implementation of the repositories; to help with networking; and to ensure
compliance with the technical standards needed to provide maximum
functionality. Set-up and running costs are relatively low, making
institutional repositories a cost-effective way of improving access to
scientific publications.

*Institutional repositories will help to improve access to journals but a
more radical solution may be required in the long term. Early indications
suggest that the author-pays publishing model could be viable.* We remain
unconvinced by many of the arguments mounted against it. Nonetheless, this
Report concludes that *further experimentation is necessary*, particularly
to establish the impact that a change of publishing models would have on
learned societies and in respect of the "free rider" problem. In order *to
encourage such experimentation the Report recommends that the Research
Councils each establish a fund to which their funded researchers can apply
should they wish to pay to publish*. The UK Government has failed to
respond to issues surrounding scientific publications in a coherent manner
and we are not convinced that it would be ready to deal with any changes to
the publishing process. The Report recommends that Government formulate a
strategy for future action as a matter of urgency.

The preservation of digital material is an expensive process that poses a
significant technical challenge. This Report recommends that the British
Library receives sufficient funding to enable it to carry out this work. It
also recommends that work on new regulations for the legal deposit of
non-print publications begins immediately. Failure to take these steps
would result in a substantial breach in the intellectual record of the UK.

*The market for scientific publications is international. The UK cannot act
alone. For this reason we recommended that the UK Government act as a
proponent for change on the international stage and lead by example. This
will ultimately benefit researchers across the globe.*

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20121029/5b6d148e/attachment-0001.html