[GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 62, Issue 9

Wed Jan 11 08:37:02 GMT 2017

Hi all,

Arthur’s statements are slightly off kilter. The reason why all research outputs in Australia are collected is because of the requirements for the Higher Education Research Data Collection - HERDC https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-research-data-collection <https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-research-data-collection> which determines the block grant funding allocation to universities on an annual basis. This has nothing to do with open access.

In some instances universities have tied this long standing process into their OA systems, in others they have not. So there are plenty of situations where a copy of the research output is collected, but it is the final pdf (that in most cases would not be able to be made open access anyway) and these are also collected within an internally facing system, so there is no exposure even of the metadata.

It is my understanding that there is movement in Australia to make open access more closely tied into this process at a policy level - but that has not happened yet. As someone managing a large UK institution’s compliance with very serious mandates at the highest level, I can say that we still have a huge battle ahead.

Danny

Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk <mailto:dak45 at cam.ac.uk>
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/ <https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/>
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley <http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley>
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
> On 11 Jan 2017, at 08:02, goal-request at eprints.org wrote:
> 
> Send GOAL mailing list submissions to
> 	goal at eprints.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	goal-request at eprints.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	goal-owner at eprints.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: OA Overview January 2017 (Arthur Sale)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:38:30 +1100
> From: "Arthur Sale" <ahjs at ozemail.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017
> To: "'Global Open Access List \(Successor of AmSci\)'"
> 	<goal at eprints.org>
> Message-ID: <006101d26b92$44c564b0$ce502e10$@ozemail.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Keep up the emphasis, Stevan, as appropriate. I totally agree that the double-payment argument is absurd, as I wrote. And yes there is added value in published books, including but not limited to preservation. I did not need the spray.
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of the OA movement (including your and my efforts) all Australian universities have 100% of their articles self-archived. Yes all and 100%, for audit purposes. That?s been the case for many years now.
> 
> Unfortunately they are not all open access immediately, but they are available within the institution on one server, and the academics all comply. Their departmental standing and funding would otherwise suffer.
> 
> It is a small victory, to be sure, but the inability of people to think outside the box of their scholarly training is a huge problem. It helps that we have a few people at the decision levels in Australia who are ICT-savvy and more flexible. I think the same is true of Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Arthur Sale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2017 06:05 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> Cc: scholcomm at lists.ala.org; jisc-repositories
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] OA Overview January 2017
> 
> 
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it (and this reminds me why I've tired of the fray):
> 
> 
> 
> If double-payment for subscriptions (first pay for the research, then pay again to buy it "back") had been a valid argument against having to pay for subscriptions, it would have applied to books too, just as to journals: "Why should institutions pay the cost of researching and writing their books, only to have to buy them "back"? Answer: because books, unlike journal articles, are not author give-aways, written solely for usage, 
> 
> uptake and impact. Books are also written for (potential) royalties (and there might possibly still be some added value in producing and purchasing a hard copy).
> 
> 
> 
> If the double-payment argument is not valid for books, then it's not valid for peer-reviewed journal articles either. (And this is true no matter what perspective one takes on the "double-payment": the institution, the funder, the funder's funder (the tax-payer) or the whole planet.)
> 
> 
> 
> The valid argument is that peer-reviewed journal articles are give-away research: No one should have to pay for access to it, neither its author nor its users. The only thing still worth paying for in the OA era is the peer review (Fair-Gold OA).
> 
> 
> 
> (Preservation is a red herring in this context. So is "journal impact factor.")
> 
> 
> 
> No lengthy "re-education" program for scholars is needed to enlighten them that they should self-archive all their papers. The message is too simple (and over 20 years seems more than enough for any scholarly "re-education" progamme!) If the diagnosis of laziness, timidity or stupidity does not explain why they don't self-archive, find another descriptor. It's happening, but it's happening far too slowly. And institutional (and funder) self-archiving (Green OA) mandates still look like the only means of accelerating it (and forcing publishers journals to downsize and convert to Fair Gold). (Paying instead pre-emptively for Fool's Gold is unaffordable, unsustainable and unnecessary -- and that's the real double-payment.)
> 
> 
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Arthur Sale <ahjs at ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> 
> This is angels dancing on the point of a pin!.
> 
> Universities subscribe to journals or buy books to either (a) get other people?s research outputs, or (b) to acquire a canonic authorized version of their own research in print. Yes, it sounds silly, but librarians value preservation.
> 
> If a subscription gives you back some of what you?ve already got, well who cares? Not the author, nor the institution, nor the publisher. I often get freebies that I don?t need, but that does not invalidate my original purchase, nor reduce its value to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Arthur Sale
> 
> Also tilling other fields, but not asleep either. Think functionally!
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Arthur Sale PhD
> 
> Emeritus Professor of Computer Science
> 
> School of Engineering and ICT | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology
> 
> University of Tasmania
> 
> Private Bag 65
> 
> HOBART TASMANIA 7001
> 
> M +61 4 1947 1331
> 
> <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7261-8035> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7261-8035 
> 
> 
> 
> cid:CA66235E-F79F-4ECD-A612-0376BD33B152
> 
> CRICOS 00586B
> 
> 
> 
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: Monday, 9 January 2017 23:14 PM
> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: OA Overview January 2017
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:30 AM, David Prosser <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> SH: (2) No, the institution that pays for the research output is not paying a second time to buy it back. Institutional journal subscriptions are not for buying back their own research output. They already have their own research output. They are buying in the research output of other institutions, and of other countries, with their journal subscriptions. So no double-payment there, even if you reckon it at the funder- or the tax-payer-level instead of the level of the institution that pays for the subscription.
> 
> 
> 
> DP: So, when UCL (say) purchases access to Elsevier articles through ScienceDIrect (say) Elsevier removes all of the UCL articles from the bundle and prices accordingly?  Of course not.  The institution is purchasing articles by researchers across the world?s, including its own.
> 
> 
> 
> To repeat: UCL (and everyone) has their own article output. Getting access to their own article output is not why researchers publish, nor why institutions subscribe to journals. It is to get access to the articles of others.
> 
> 
> 
> So that version of the simplistic double-payment plaint is, and remains, invalid. (And it, and its (il)logic predates OA by at least a decade.
> 
> 
> 
> DP: SBut I agree with (12)
> 
> 
> 
> But (12) is about OA, not the old double-payment argument against subscriptions (which, by the way, if it had been valid would also have applied to royalty-based output, including the institutional purchase of books by its own authors!). The essence of the case for OA is and has always been that (refereed) research is an author giveaway, written only for researcher uptake, usage and impact, not for royalty revenue. We keep forgetting this, with this misleading notion of "double-payment" (for subscription access).
> 
> 
> 
> There is certainly double-payment in the case of OA (subscription plus Fool's Gold publication fees) as well as double-dipping (in the case of hybrid Fool's Gold). But that is not at all the kind of double-payment that the old argument against subscriptions was (and is) about.
> 
> 
> 
> Stevan Harnad (tilling other fields, but not asleep)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170111/ef9be930/attachment.html 
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: image/png
> Size: 14791 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170111/ef9be930/attachment.png 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
> 
> 
> End of GOAL Digest, Vol 62, Issue 9
> ***********************************

Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: dak45 at cam.ac.uk <mailto:dak45 at cam.ac.uk>
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/ <https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/>
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley <http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley>
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170111/fc8fdf8a/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-1.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 99012 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170111/fc8fdf8a/attachment-0001.tiff 