[GOAL] On Trying to Hold Green OA and Fair-Gold OA Hostage to Subscriptions and Fools-Gold

[Stevan Harnad]

The cynical, self-serving spin of Springer's replies to Richard
Poynder<http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html>
is
breath-taking: Is it a sign of Springer's new ownership?

Despite the double-talk, applying a 12-month embargo where there has been
no embargo for 10 years can hardly be described (or justified) as
"simplifying" things for the author, or anyone. It is a pure and simple bid
to maintain and maximize revenue streams from both subscriptions and Gold
OA.

Green OA means immediate OA; hence a 12-month embargo hardly makes it
sustainable! That is not OA at all.

As stated already, the distinction between an author's institutional
repository and an author's "personal website" (which is of course likewise
institutional) is a distinction between different sectors of an
institutional disk. The rest is a matter of tagging.

The purpose of research, and of tax-payer funding of research, and of the
online medium itself, is certainly not to make the subscription model
sustainable for publishers.

The only service from publishers that needs to be sustained is the
management of peer review. Researchers already do all the rest for free
(write the papers and peer review the papers); if they can now also archive
their peer-reviewed papers and provide online access to them for all users,
what justification is there for saying that the subscription model needs to
be sustained?

Paying for Gold OA today, at its current arbitrarily inflated price for a
bundle of no longer necessary products and services (print, PDF, archiving,
access-provision), is paying for *Fools-Gold*.

And paying for it while subscriptions continue to be sustainable -- hence
while paying for them continues to be essential for institutions -- is
double-payment: Subscription fees plus Fools-Gold OA fees.

If, in addition. the payment is to the very same hybrid-Gold publisher,
then it's not just double-paid Fools-Gold: it also allows double-dipping by
the publisher.

Nor is double-dipping corrected if (mirabile dictu) a publisher really does
faithfully lower annual subscription fees by every penny of its total
annual hybrid Gold revenues, because if an institution (as one subscriber
out of, say, 2000 subscribing institutons) pays $XXX in Fools-Gold OA fees,
over and above its subscription fees, then its own share of the
subscription rebate is just 1/2000th of the $XXX that it has double-paid
the hybrid Gold publisher. The rest of the rebate goes to the other 1999
beneficieries of that institution's hybrid-Gold Fools-Gold double-payment.

And this disparity for the hybrid double-payer would perist until (as
Springer hopes), all institutions are paying today's Fools-Gold instead of
subscriptions. That would be a perfect way for publishers to sustain
today's revenue streams, come what may -- and that's exactly what Springer
hopes to do, by holding Green OA hostage to embargoes, and thereby holding
institutions hostage to subscriptions untill they are all coughing them up
for Fools Gold instead, its price determined by whatever sustains today's
subscription revenues rather than what institutions and researchers
actually need -- and what it actually costs.

This is why Green OA is anathema to publishers, even as they purport to be
"all for OA." For Green OA is the only thing that would force publishers to
downsize to the true essentials of peer-reviewed research publishing in the
online era, instead of continuing to exact vastly inflated prices for
mostly obsolete products and services, just in order to sustain their
current revenue streams and their current M.O..

(*Of course* Springer changed its policy in part because of Finch/RCUK:
Green OA and Green OA mandates were already anathema, but Green publishers
back-pedalling on that alone would have looked very bad: all stick and no
carrot. Finch/RCUK provided the perfect carrot: government funds to pay for
Fools-Gold, including hybrid Fools-Gold -- with the government not only
funding the Fools-Gold option, but explicitly preferring it over cost-free
Green. An offer no publisher could refuse, and a perfect cover for taking
it, under the pretext of complying with government mandates, simplifying
things for authors, and facilitating OA -- in the form of lucrative
Fools-Gold OA.)

But it's not that easy to keep holding the entire worldwide research
community hostage to an obsolete technology and outrageous, unecessary
prices, simply by embargoing Green OA.

First, as noted, the distinction between an author's institutional
repository and the author's institutional website won't wash: The
difference is just in what we name them. Springer authors can go ahead and
provide immediate, unembargoed Green OA on Springer's current policy.

But even if Springer then bites the bullet, embargoes all OA
self-archiving, and admits that it has stopped being a Green publisher (iin
order to protect its current revenue streams come what may), authors can
still deposit immediately; and if they wish to comply with Springer's
embargo, they can set access to the immediate-deposit as Closed Access. The
facilitated reprint request Button can then allow any would-be user to
request -- and the author to provide -- an eprint with just one click each,
almost-immediately.

This Almost-OA will not only serve research needs almost as well as OA
itself during the embargo, but it will also have the same effect, almost as
quickly, as immediate Green OA, in forcing publishers to cut costs,
downsize, and convert to Fair-Gold, at an afforable, sustainable price,
precisely because it make the subscription model unsustainable.

This is why it is so important that all institutional and funder mandates
should be immediate-deposit
mandates<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-ab&q=hefce+ref+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=hefce+ref+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...968901.970989.1.971714.9.9.0.0.0.1.173.950.5j4.9.0...0.0...1c.1.17.psy-ab.CCrY4O5668o&pbx=1&fp=a03dabc26a01d547&biw=1136&bih=788&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&cad=b&sei=A8jJUbmcMdGu0AHqz4D4Aw>(regardless
of whether the deposit is immediately-OA or embargoed).

Harnad, S (2012) The Optimal and Inevitable outcome for Research in the
Online Age <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/342580/>. *CILIP Update* September
2012

Houghton, J. & Swan, A. (2013) Planting the Green Seeds for a Golden
Harvest: Comments and Clarifications on "Going for
Gold"<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/january13/houghton/01houghton.html>
. *D-Lib Magazine *19 (1/2)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130625/e36a3f6c/attachment.html