[GOAL] Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Academia Bound?

Fri Nov 15 14:51:24 GMT 2013

I thought Cary Nelson's article was astute and overdue.

Joe Esposito

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com> wrote:

> Commentary on "*Open Access and Academic Freedom*<http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/11/15/essay-impact-open-access-requirements-academic-freedom>"
> in Inside Higher Ed <http://www.insidehighered.com/> 15 November 2013, by Cary
> Nelson <http://www.aaup.org/import-tags/cary-nelson>, former national
> president of the American Association of University Professors<http://www.aaup.org/>
> ------------------------------
>
> If, in the print-on-paper era, it was not a constraint on academic freedom
> that universities and research funders required, as a condition of funding
> or employment, that researchers conduct and publish research -- rather than
> put it in a desk drawer -- so it could be read, used, applied and built
> upon by all users whose institutions could afford to subscribe to the
> journal in which it was published ("publish or perish<https://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#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=perish+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>"),
> then it is not a constraint on academic freedom in the online era that
> universities and research funders require, as a condition of funding or
> employment, that researchers make their research accessible online to all
> its potential users rather than just those whose institutions could afford
> to subscribe to the journal in which it was published ("self-archive to
> flourish<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=nCiGUumJI4qIygH8u4GABA#q=%22publish+or+perish%22+%22self-archive+to+flourish%22>
> ").
>
> However, two kinds of Open Access (OA) mandates are indeed constraints on
> academic freedom:
>
> *1.*
> *any mandate that constrains the researcher's choice of which journal to
> publish in -- other than to require that it be of the highest quality whose
> peer-review standards the research can meet *
> *2.* *any mandate that requires the researcher to pay to publish (if the
> author does not wish to, or does not have the funds)*
>
> The immediate-deposit/optional-access (ID/OA) mandate<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=nCiGUumJI4qIygH8u4GABA#q=%22immediate-deposit%22+mandate> requires
> authors to deposit their final refereed draft in their institutional
> repository <http://roar.eprints.org/> immediately upon acceptance for
> publication, regardless of which journal they choose to publish in, and
> regardless of whether they choose to comply with an OA embargo (if any) on
> the part of the journal. (If so, the access to the deposit can be set as
> Closed Access rather than Open Access during the embargo, and the
> repository software has a facilitated copy-request Button<https://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#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=Button+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>,
> allowing would-be users to request a copy for research purposes with one
> click, and allowing the author the free choice to comply or not comply,
> likewise with one click.)
>
> Since OA is beneficial to researchers -- because it maximizes research
> downloads and citations <http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html>,
> which universities and funders now count, along with publications, in
> evaluating and rewarding research output -- why do researchers need
> mandates at all? Because they are afraid of publishers<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries> --
> afraid their publisher will not publish their research if they make it OA,
> or even afraid they will be prosecuted for copyright infringement.
>
> So OA mandates <http://roarmap.eprints.org/> are needed to embolden
> authors to provide OA, knowing they have the support of their institutions
> and funders. And the ID/OA mandate is immune to publisher embargoes. Over
> ten years of experience<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october00/10inbrief.html#HARNAD> (of
> "performing a useful service by giving faculty a vehicle for voluntary
> self-archiving") have by now shown definitively that most researchers will
> not self-archive <http://www.infotoday.com/it/oct04/poynder.shtml> unless
> it is mandatory. (The only exceptions are some fields of physics and
> computer science where researchers provide OA spontaneously, unmandated.)
> So what is needed is a no-option immediate-self-archiving mandate, but with
> leeway on when to make the deposit OA. This is indeed in a sense "optional
> Green OA," but the crucial component is that the deposit itself is
> mandatory.
>
> Funding is a red herring. Most universities have already invested in
> creating and maintaining institutional repositories, for multiple purposes,
> OA being only one of them, and the OA sectors are vastly under-utilized --
> except if mandated (at no extra cost).
>
> The ID/OA mandate requires no change in copyright law, licensing or
> ownership of research output. Another red herring.
>
> There are no relevant discipline differences for ID/OA either. Another red
> herring. And the need for and benefits of OA do not apply only to rare
> exceptions, but to all refereed research journal articles.
>
> OA mandates apply only to refereed journal articles, not books. Another
> red herring (covering half of Cary Nelson's article!).
>
> As OA mandates are now growing globally, across all disciplines and
> institutions, it is nonsense to imagine that researchers will decide where
> to work on the basis of trying to escape an OA mandate -- and with ID/OA
> there isn't even anything for them to want to escape from.
>
> The ID/OA mandate also moots the difference between journal articles and
> book chapters. And it applies to all disciplines, and publishers, whether
> commercial, learned-society, or university.
>
> Refereed journal publishing will adapt, quite naturally to Green OA. For
> now, some publishers are trying to forestall having to adapt to the OA era,
> by embargoing OA. Let them try. ID/OA mandates are immune to publisher OA
> embargoes, but publishers are not immune to the rising demand for OA:
>
> Paying for Gold OA today is paying for Fool's Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=nyyGUseBCsbhyQHdtYDIAQ#q=%22fool's+gold%22+harnad+>:
> Research funds are already scarce. Institutions cannot cancel must-have
> journal subscriptions. So Gold OA payment is double-payment, over and above
> subscriptions. And hybrid (subscription + Gold) publishers can even
> double-dip. If and when<http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/258705/1/resolution.htm#4.2> global
> Green OA makes journal subscriptions unsustainable, journals will downsize,
> jettisoning products and services (print edition, online edition,
> access-provision, archiving) rendered obsolete by the worldwide network of
> Green OA repositories) and they will convert<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/>
>  to Fair Gold<https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=nyyGUseBCsbhyQHdtYDIAQ#q=%22fair+gold%22+harnad+>,
> paid for peer review alone<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>,
> out of a fraction of the institutions windfall subscription cancellation
> savings.
>
> It is not for the research community to continue depriving itself of OA
> while trying to 2nd-guess how publishers will adapt. That -- and not OA
> mandates -- would be a real constraint on academic freedom: The
> publishing tail must not be allowed to continue to wag the research dog<https://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#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=tail+wag+dog+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>
> .
>

-- 
Joseph J. Esposito
Processed Media
espositoj at gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20131115/6b3cf43a/attachment-0001.html 