[GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection

[Stevan Harnad]

*End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris,
cilip)<http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/end-gold-rush>
:* *"In the interest of making research outputs publicly available; shorter
and consistent or no embargo periods are the desired outcome. However,
publishers… have argued that short embargo periods make librarians cancel
subscriptions to their journals… The BIS report finds no evidence to
support this distinction."*
------------------------------

I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being
voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:

*I. Call for Disruption:* Serial publications are overpriced and
unaffordable; publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license)
model is unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in
order to force it to evolve toward Gold OA.

*II. Call for Protection:* Serials publications are threatened by (Green)
OA, which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the
subscription model needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve
toward Gold OA.

Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who
cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription
model.

Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot
afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model
from disruption.

Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide
immediate OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel
beholden to promise (d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from
disruption)?

University of Liège <http://roarmap.eprints.org/56/> and FRSN
Belgium<http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/> have
adopted -- and HEFCE<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html>
 and BIS<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html>
have
both proposed adopting -- the compromise resolution to this contradiction:

Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft of all
articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if the author
wishes to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do not require
access to the deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the deposit be made
Closed Access during the allowable embargo period and let the repository's
automated eprint-request Button tide over the needs of research and
researchers by making it easy for users to request and authors to provide a
copy for research purposes with one click each.

This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still disrupts
serials publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable, chances are that
it's time for publishers to phase out the products and services for which
there is no longer a market in the online era and evolve instead toward
something more in line with the real needs of the PostGutenberg research
community.

Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive) pressure
of necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal publishing
industry from evolutionary pressure, at the expense of research progress?

*Stevan Harnad*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130913/3401d29e/attachment.html