[GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Mon Sep 16 23:31:27 BST 2013

Rick/David

I keep hearing this claim that "60% of journals allow immediate, unembargoed, self-archiving" and wonder how accurate this.

Although I'm aware of the original source of this data (http://romeo.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/11/24/60-of-journals-allow-immediate-archiving-of-peer-reviewed-articles-but-it-gets-much-much-better/) , this blog post is almost 2 years old and I suspect things may have changed.

By way of example, I did an analysis of the 50 "top" subscription* journals (in terms of the amount of Wellcome-funded content they published) used by Wellcome authors in 2012 and found that:

·         Just 10% of journals in this cohort allowed authors to make the peer reviewed version of their manuscript available immediately in an IR

·         Just 38% of journals in this cohort allowed authors to make the peer reviewed version of their manuscript available within 6 months of publication

I accept that my cohort is small - but is does include all the major publishers (e.g. Elsevier, Wiley, Springer, OUP, NPG, AAS etc).

And to be clear, I am talking about when content can be made available (not the date of deposition).

Regards
Robert

*In doing this analysis I excluded the fully OA journals (which obviously allow immediate self archiving).

From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of David Prosser
Sent: 16 September 2013 16:07
To: Rick Anderson
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); SPARC Open Access Forum; Friend, Fred; LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: [GOAL] Re: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Rick

I don't know if there is a way of getting a list, but I think you are conflating two things.  I assume you are saying you would cancel if all of the content of the journal was available without embargo.  Sherpa/Romeo doesn't tell you that - it just tells you whether or not the publisher allows green deposit without embargo.

And lots of publishers do - for the majority of papers in the majority of Elsevier titles, for example, the author is free to make available their papers - either pre- or post-prints.  But as most authors don't take advantage of that offer I guess you'll not want to cancel Elsevier's titles.

David

On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:31, Rick Anderson wrote:

Is there an easy way (easier than searching title-by-title through SHERPA/RoMEO) to get a complete list of journals offering Green access with no embargo? I can't speak for the marketplace as a whole, but my library will cancel most if not all of our subscriptions to any such journals - my institution is not giving us money so that we can spend it on content that's available for free.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.anderson at utah.edu<mailto:rick.anderson at utah.edu>

From: <Friend>, Fred <f.friend at ucl.ac.uk<mailto:f.friend at ucl.ac.uk>>
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:06 AM
To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>, LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <LIBLICENSE-L at LISTSERV.CRL.EDU<mailto:LIBLICENSE-L at LISTSERV.CRL.EDU>>, SPARC Open Access Forum <SPARC-OAForum at arl.org<mailto:SPARC-OAForum at arl.org>>
Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication, but the number appears very low by comparison with the total number of research journals published, and the causal link with repository deposit is obscure. A reduction in the quality of a journal (and I do not mean impact factor) or a reduction in library funding could be more influential factors than green open access. Presumably for commercial reasons publishers have not been willing to release information about subscription levels, but if they are to continue to use green open access as a threat they have to provide more evidence.

Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide more information about sustainability. They speak about repositories not being a sustainable model for research dissemination, by which they appear to mean that their journals will not be sustainable in a large-scale repository environment. Most institutional repositories are fully-sustainable, their sustainability derived from the sustainability of the university in which they are based. If any research journals are not sustainable, the reasons may have nothing to do with repositories. Those reasons are currently hidden within the "big deal" model, the weak journals surviving through the strength of other journals. Rather than blame any lack of sustainability upon green open access, perhaps publishers should take a harder look at the sustainability of some of their weaker journals. Repositories are sustainable; some journals may not be.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL

________________________________
From: goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> <goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org>> on behalf of Danny Kingsley <Danny.Kingsley at anu.edu.au<mailto:Danny.Kingsley at anu.edu.au>>
Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does not exist.

The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes in the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey sent out early last year to librarians http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf . Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that survey http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html

And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is what Springer referred to as their 'evidence' http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html .

There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the industry to collect some actual evidence either way (as opposed to opinions on a badly expressed hypothetical):

  1.  Taylor & Francis have decided to indefinitely expand their trial of immediate green permissions to articles in their Library & Information Science journals. If they were to run a comparison of those titles against the titles in, say , three other disciplinary areas over two to three years they would be able to ascertain if this decision has made any difference to their subscription patterns.
  2.  Earlier this year (21 March) SAGE changed their policy to immediate green open access - again this offers a clean comparison between their subscription levels prior to and after the implementation of this policy.
If it is the case that immediate green open access disrupts subscriptions (and I strongly suspect that it does not) then we can have that conversation when the evidence presents itself. Until then we are boxing at shadows.

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Executive Officer
Australian Open Access Support Group
e: eo at aoasg.org.au<mailto:eo at aoasg.org.au>
p: +612 6125 6839
w: wwww.aoasg.org.au<http://wwww.aoasg.org.au>
t: @openaccess_oz

From: Dana Roth <dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>>
Reply-To: "goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>" <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM
To: "goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>" <goal at eprints.org<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection

Isn't the fact that "The BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction," due to the fact that there isn't sufficient data?

I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription journals for some time ... and that it is the subscription model for commercially published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the short term.

An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially published 'Journal of Comparative Neurology' ... that for 2012 cost its subscribers $30,860 and published only 234 articles.

Dana L. Roth
Caltech Library  1-32
1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125
626-395-6423  fax 626-792-7540
dzrlib at library.caltech.edu<mailto:dzrlib at library.caltech.edu>
http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm

From:goal-bounces at eprints.org<mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection

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

--
--
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<mailto:sparc-oaforum at arl.org>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org<mailto: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<mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org>.

--
--
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<mailto:sparc-oaforum at arl.org>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org<mailto: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<mailto:sparc-oaforum+unsubscribe at arl.org>.

This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - www.websense.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130916/821adf48/attachment-0001.html 