[GOAL] Re: Cameron Neylon on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?

[Stevan Harnad]

In his interview with Richard
Poynder<http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/public-library-of-sciences-cameron.html>,
Cameron Neylon, as always, makes many valid and astute points. But there is
one thing about which I think he is quite profoundly mistaken:

*CN: *"*While we can generate wider access with relatively little
transitional costs through repository-mediated OA this won’t help to bring
down subscriptions costs*."

Apart from the fact that lowering subscription (or publication) costs and
providing open access to publisher research are not the same thing at all
(and that the urgent and overwhelming priority of *Open Access* is *Access*),
I think Cameron underestimates the profound causal connection between them:

No, the primary purpose of repository-mediated OA (Green OA) is not to
serve as a transition to Gold OA publishing: it is to provide OA.

But in providing the infrastructure for providing OA, the global network of
Green OA repositories also provides the means of downsizing publishing to
just the cost of managing peer review (which peers provide for free). All
the rest of the costs of pre-Green-OA publishing (access-provision,
archiving) are -- post-Green -- offloaded and distributed across the global
network of Green OA repositories (while the print and online editions and
their costs can be jettisoned completely).

That is why the small residual cost of post-Green Gold OA will be
affordable, sustainable "Fair Gold" OA whereas the current cost of
pre-Green Gold OA is arbitrarily inflated "Fools Gold" OA. And that's not
just because the global Green OA infrastructure is not yet in place and
absorbing all the costs of access-provision and archiving, but because
subscriptions
are still in place <http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html> and
have to keep being paid until those articles are made Green OA!

Hence pre-Green Gold means not only inflated prices but double-payment (for
(1) subscriptions to all the must-have journals that are non-OA plus (2)
Fools-Gold fees for pre-Green Gold OA journals) -- not to mention the
further possibility of (3) publisher double-dipping in the case of hybrid
Fools Gold.

So is it not at all the case that there is "*a role for Green OA and
institutional repositories, although perhaps only a transitional one*":
Green OA repositories can and will provide not only 100% OA, permanently,
but they will thereby also make it possible (indeed necessary) for journal
publishing to downsize and convert <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/>to
Fair Gold -- and at the same time release the institutonal subscription
funds, of which a fraction can then be used to pay (rather than double-pay)
for Fair Gold.

Cameron is completely right, however, that "*[t]he single most important
task today is putting in place robust and transparent mechanisms to report
on [Green OA mandatory] policy compliance… and monitor the growth of access*."
That done, effectively, the transition to Fair Gold OA will then take care
of itself.

(I would close by emphasizing that just as providing OA itself is
incomparably more important and urgent than publishing reform, so OA's
provision of access to all users, rather than just to subscribers, is
incomparably more important and urgent than providing further re-use
rights, over and above online access free for all: Fair Gold and all the
re-use rights that users need and authors want to provide will come, as
surely as day follows night -- but Green OA must come first.)


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Richard Poynder <
richard.poynder at btinternet.com> wrote:

> A new Q&A in a series exploring the current state of Open Access has been
> published. This one is with Cameron Neylon, Advocacy Director for the
> non-profit OA publisher Public Library of Science (PLOS). ****
>
> ** **
>
> *Some excerpts from Cameron Neylon’s answers*:****
>
> ** **
>
> “I think the biggest achievement [of the OA movement since 2001] is
> actual adoption: the scale and growth of accessible research content today
> is both large and growing far faster than any other segment of research
> publishing. ****
>
> ** **
>
> “By some estimates we already have public access to half of new literature
> in the biomedical sciences. This is a huge achievement, even though
> everyone at PLOS and in the wider OA movement would wish it to move faster.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> “Successful repositories are burgeoning, pure Open Access publishers are
> growing at an unbelievable pace, and driven by an increasing pace of policy
> change from funders and governments our more traditional competitors in the
> legacy publishing industry are scrambling to catch up.”****
>
> ** **
>
> ~~****
>
> ** **
>
> “From my perspective there are strong advantages to journal-mediated Open
> Access supported by direct author side charges. When we buy a publication
> service we can and should set the requirements on immediate access and
> enabling re-use. But more importantly from my perspective it also creates
> an explicit market in substitutable goods, and this ultimately will bring
> the price of those services down — assuming that we can create an effective
> market.****
>
> ** **
>
> “Alongside this, repositories are a critical means of increasing access at
> relatively low costs where journal-mediated access is not available or
> appropriate. There are transitional paths for different communities that
> rely to different extents on repositories and journals but neither in their
> current form offers a long-term solution.****
>
> ** **
>
> “In the longer term we will need publication infrastructures that are
> efficient, enable ongoing review, and support wide-ranging re-use. These
> could be run by institutions, by communities, or by third party providers.
> They will have some characteristics of repositories and some of journals
> and some of publishers but will also be quite different.”****
>
> ** **
>
> ~~****
>
> ** **
>
> “Hybrid OA might be, or perhaps might have been, a viable transitional
> strategy to support a fully engaged effort of legacy publishers to move
> towards an Open Access footing. What we’re getting though is the use of
> hybrid approaches to lock in the existing inefficiencies of big deals.****
>
> ** **
>
> “The scary thing is that libraries seem to be jumping to create big APC
> deals, which will have exactly the same problems as the big subscription
> deals. Alongside the problems of double-dipping by receiving both
> subscription and APC revenue for the same journal, and perhaps worse some
> publishers charging colour and page charges *on top* of APCs this isn’t an
> effective way to deliver a properly functioning market that brings prices
> down.”****
>
> ** **
>
> ~~****
>
> ** **
>
> “The single most important task today is putting in place robust and
> transparent mechanisms to report on policy compliance, pricing, and monitor
> the growth of access.****
>
> ** **
>
> “This may seem rather prosaic but we have wildly different estimates of
> the proportion and quantity of OA. Much of the fragmentation in today’s
> debate is caused by people building arguments on contradictory data. And it
> has been too easy for institutions and funders to announce mandates without
> systems to monitor their success, let alone enforce them.”****
>
> ** **
>
> The Q&A can be read here:****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/public-library-of-sciences-cameron.html
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130904/5141100e/attachment-0001.html