[GOAL] Re: Some Reflection from Wellcome Would Be Welcome

Wed Sep 11 14:03:55 BST 2013

>
> *Falk Reckling*: "*the Green situation is in some parts even more
> problematic: A lot of researchers are still highly confused as to how,
> what, where and when can be self-archived*"

*HOW*: Deposit the final, refereed draft, in your institutional repository,
immediately upon acceptance to publication, whether or not OA is embargoed

*WHERE*: in your institutional repository

*WHEN*: immediately upon acceptance to publication (if OA is embargoed,
rely on repository's automatic eprint-request Button for users to request
and authors to provide Almost-OA with one click each.

*SEE*: Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why?
How? <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html>

*Falk Reckling*: "*I cannot see how and when Green OA will achieve a level
> where the publication system switches from subscriptions to OA*."

OA means OA, not Gold OA.

Green OA achieves the switch from non-OA to OA.

For the switch from universal Green OA to Gold OA, see:

Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged
Transition<http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/>.
In: Anna Gacs. *The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the
Electronic Age*. L'Harmattan. 99-106.

_________ (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity
Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/21348/>.
*D-Lib Magazine* 16 (7/8).

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Reckling, Falk, Dr. <
Falk.Reckling at fwf.ac.at> wrote:

>  I do not share the harsh criticism on the Wellcome Trust, especially
> since the Green situation is in some parts even more problematic: ****
>
> a) A lot of researchers are still highly confused as to how, what, where
> and when can be self-archived. ** **
>
> b) I cannot see how and when Green OA will achieve a level where the
> publication system switches from subscriptions to OA.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> Falk****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *Von:* goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] *Im
> Auftrag von *Friend, Fred
> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 10. September 2013 18:16
> *An:* Stevan Harnad; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Betreff:* [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Some Reflection from Wellcome Would
> Be Welcome****
>
> ** **
>
> Stevan explains the influence of the Wellcome upon OA policy very well.
> The Wellcome did an excellent job in making publications from its own
> researchers OA, but the mistake came when they supported the application of
> their own policies to taxpayer-funded research. They were over-influenced
> by publishers, who of course stood to benefit considerably from the
> extension of Wellcome's largesse by the taxpayer.
>
> Fred Friend ****
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* 10 September 2013 16:29:35
> *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> *Subject:* [sparc-oaforum] Some Reflection from Wellcome Would Be Welcome
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> It's time for the Wellcome Trust to think more deeply about its endlessly
> repeated mantra that the "cost of publication is part of the cost of
> funding research."
>
> The statement is true enough, but profoundly incomplete: As a private
> foundation, Wellcome only funds researchers' research. It does not have to
> fund their institutional journal subscriptions, which are currently paying
> the costs of publication for all non-OA research. And without access to
> those subscription journals, researchers would *lose* access to
> everything that is not yet Open Access (OA) -- which means access to most
> of currently published research. Moreover, if those subscriptions stopped
> being paid, no one would be paying the costs of publication.
>
> In the UK, it is the tax-payer who pays the costs of publication (which is
> "part of the cost of funding research"), by paying the cost of journal
> access via institutional subscriptions. It is fine to wish that to be
> otherwise, but it cannot just be wished away, and Wellcome has never had to
> worry about paying for it.
>
> The Wellcome slogan and solution -- the "cost of publication is part of
> the cost of funding research," so pay pre-emptively for Gold OA -- works
> for Wellcome, and as a wish list. But it is not a formula for getting us
> all from here (c. 30% OA, mostly Green) to there (100% OA). It does not
> scale up from Wellcome to the UK, let alone to the rest of the world. What
> scales up is mandating Green OA. Once Green OA reaches 100%, journals can
> be cancelled, forcing them to downsize and convert to Fair Gold,
> single-paid at an affordable, sustianable price, instead of double-paid
> pre-emptively at today's arbitrarily inflated Fools-Gold price.
>
> Hence it is exceedingly bad advice on Wellcome's part, to urge the UK,
> that because the "cost of publication is part of the cost of funding
> research," the UK should double-pay (subscriptions + Gold OA) for what
> Wellcome itself only needs to single-pay. (And this is without even getting
> into the sticky question of overpricing and double-dipping.)
>
> Wellcome took a bold and pioneering step in 2004<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4115.html> in
> mandating OA.
>
> But in since cleaving unreflectively to pre-emptive payment for Gold OA as
> the preferred means of providing OA -- because Wellcome does not have to
> pay for subscriptions -- the net effect of the Wellcome pioneering
> intiative is now beginning to turn negative rather than positive.
>
> I hope the BIS Report<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html> will
> encourage Wellcome to re-think the rigid route that it has been promoting
> for a decade, culminating in the Finch Fiasco.****
>
> ** **
>
> *Stevan Harnad*****
>
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sparc-oaforum at arl.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum
>  ****
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org.****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130911/72298ef3/attachment.html 