[GOAL] Embargoes, evidence and all that jazz

Wed Jun 21 17:58:24 BST 2017

Hi Danny

I agree it would be helpful if we all had (additional) evidence all parties felt confident in. I had thought this was something you were leading on through OSI. Is that correct? If so, perhaps you could provide an update.

Kind regards
Gemma

> On 21 Jun 2017, at 14:53, Dr D.A. Kingsley <dak45 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> *** External email: use caution ***
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Gemma has identified several studies that talk about half life of articles
> in different disciplines. There is no dispute that these are interesting
> and probably accurate. However given there is **no causal arrow proven
> between half life and cancellation of subscriptions**. The half life
> furphy is irrelevant in the embargo discussion.
>
> I went through all of this in my blog in October 2015: "Half-life is half
> the story" <https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=331
>
>
> Now, let¹s turn our thoughts to the Œevidence¹ cited here:
>
> I am a bit shocked that the frankly dodgy 'study¹ that was done in 2012 is
> even being admitted to. This non peer reviewed Œstudy¹ consisted of one
> (leading and poorly worded) question going out to an undisclosed list of
> librarians around the world.  The researcher was the Chair of the ALPSP
> Research Committee and was on the steering committee for the Publishers
> Research Coalition, raising questions about her (and the study¹s)
> objectivity. There are also major questions about the methodology of the
> study -
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.ch/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on
> .html In addition this ¹study' is being cited about Œpotential¹ effects,
> not actual effects. We are FIVE YEARS ON from this 'study¹, surely any
> Œpotential¹ effects would have started manifesting?
>
> The Journal of Clinical Investigation example. Hmmm. I also discussed this
> in my blog. The issue referred to here has nothing to do with the half
> life of research papers that are being made available open access through
> a repository. This refers to a journal that went to a GOLD Open Access
> model in 1996 (publishing open access and relying on non-subscription
> revenue sources), but eventually decided they needed to impose a
> subscription again in 2009. Not only is this example entirely unrelated to
> the embargo issue for green Open Access, it happened EIGHT YEARS AGO.
>
> In relation to the remaining three evidence of harm examples:
>
> * "The Annals of Mathematics experiment in green open access² example is a
> report from a workshop. Where is the actual study or link to support the
> statement made in this report? Where is the data? That¹s a strong
> statement and actual data would be useful. The way it is written seems to
> me to conflate some issues. When they say "an experiment in Œgreen¹" what
> does that mean? How closely does this relate to embargoes? It seems that a
> whole heap of things are tied up into one statement without any supporting
> data. This would not even pass first go of peer review in a paper. Or an
> undergraduate essay.
>
>
> * Is Elsevier willing to provide some actual data about the experience of
> the American Journal of Pathology? Where is this experience written up and
> published?
>
>
> * Is this the Genetics journal you are referring to?
> http://www.genetics.org/content/about-journal? Again, where is this
> experience written up and published?
>
> It is concerning that people working for the largest academic publisher in
> the world seem to be ignorant of even basic logic within an argument and
> of the necessity to provide supporting data for a claim that is being made.
>
>
>
> We have here a hand picked tiny selection of Œexamples¹ (without
> supporting evidence) that are propping up the argument that research
> institutions around the world spend literally millions of
> pounds/dollars/whatever in terms of staff time to ensure that embargo
> periods are being observed across the entire corpus of publications.
>
> Embargoes are a very big sledgehammer to try and crack a very small nut.
> I¹d say the nut doesn¹t actually exist.
>
> Danny
>
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 07:59:14 +0000
>> From: "Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM)" <g.hersh at elsevier.com>
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13
>> To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <goal at eprints.org>
>> Message-ID:
>>      <CY4PR08MB2838DDE2A0F737F9BFC1F6548FDA0 at CY4PR08MB2838.namprd08.prod.outlo
>> ok.com>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Danny
>>
>>
>>
>> This issue has been written about extensively and there have also been
>> studies on this issue.  I believe I may have previously consolidated and
>> emailed to you all of the available evidence I am aware of, but I would
>> be happy to do so (again) if helpful.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is a selection for others that may be interested:
>>
>>
>>
>> Studies
>>
>> *   In 2016, The Royal Historical Society in Response to the Stern
>> Review of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) estimates that true
>> download half-life of a history article is at least 12 years. Read
>> more<http://royalhistsoc.org/response-stern-review-ref/>
>> *   In 2014 Phil Davis published a study commissioned by the
>> Association of American Publishers
>> (Overview<http://www.publishers.org/usagestudy/>, Full
>> Study<http://www.publishers.org/_attachments/docs/journalusagehalflife.pdf
>>> ) which demonstrates that journal article usage varies widely within and
>>> across disciplines, and that only 3% of of journals have half-lives of
>>> 12 months or less.  Health sciences articles have the shortest median
>>> half-life of the journals analyzed, but still more than 50% of health
>>> science journals have usage half-lives longer than 24 months. In fields
>>> with the longest usage half-lives, including mathematics and the
>>> humanities, more than 50% of the journals have usage half-lives longer
>>> than 48 months.
>>
>>
>>
>> Articles
>>
>> *   Scholarly Kitchen
>> article<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/getting-open-access-
>> embargoes-right-rational-policy-must-be-evidence-based/?utm_source=feedbur
>> ner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarl
>> y+Kitchen%29>, Getting Open Access Embargoes Right: Rational Policy Must
>> Be Evidence-Based
>> *   Scholarly Kitchen article, What is the Lifespan of a Research
>> Article<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/what-is-the-lifespan
>> -of-a-research-article/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaig
>> n=Feed%3A+ScholarlyKitchen+%28The+Scholarly+Kitchen%29>?
>> *   In 2014 the British Academy published a Study on Open Access in the
>> Humanities and Social Sciences (http://www.britac.ac.uk/openaccess/) -
>> shows that article half-lives are likely longer than previously
>> suggested. A 1:2 ratio for embargo period lengths is concluded to be
>> appropriate, but the dividing point should not be STEM:HSS, rather given
>> the actual usage patterns of articles, it should be Medicine (1): HSS,
>> Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry and Life Sciences (2). Suggested embargo
>> lengths are 12 months (Biomedicine) and 24 months (all other fields).
>>
>>
>> Evidence of harm
>>
>> *   Journal of Clinical Investigation - went open access with a 0 month
>> embargo in 1996 and lost c. 40% of institutional subscriptions. It
>> blighted the economics of the journal which was forced to return to the
>> subscription model in 2009:
>> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/02/26/end-of-free-access/
>> *   The Annals of Mathematics experiment in green open access was a
>> sobering lesson: libraries cancelled 34% of the subscriptions between
>> 2003 and 2008 when the journal was freely available online. The Annals is
>> one of the very best journals in mathematics and one of the cheapest
>> journals; and so it came as a surprise to many that some of the best-
>> funded libraries in the US had decided to save on the subscription rather
>> than support the experiment in widening access. A mathematics workshop
>> suggested research community support for a 5 year embargo period in this
>> field given that arXiv is also available. See
>> http://www.msri.org/attachments/workshops/587/MSRIfinalreport.pdf
>> *   American Journal of Pathology lengthened its embargo period and
>> began working with a commercial publisher because of the negative impact
>> on subscriptions of a 6 month embargo.
>> *   Genetics has increased its embargo period from 3, then to 6, then
>> to 12 months because of a negative impact on subscriptions. They have
>> needed to balance a 12 month embargo with the addition of an author
>> payment in order to make this embargo length work - even though they
>> publish in the life sciences.
>>
>>
>> Evidence for the potential effect of embargoes on cancellations
>>
>> *   In 2012, was a simple one-question survey by ALPSP: "If the
>> (majority of) content of research journals was freely available within 6
>> months of publication, would you continue to subscribe?" The results
>> "indicate that only 56% of those subscribing to journals in the STM field
>> would definitely continue to subscribe. In AHSS, this drops to just 35%.
>> " More information is available on the ALPSP site and in embedded links
>> here<http://www.alpsp.org/ebusiness/AboutALPSP/ALPSPStatements/Statementde
>> tails.aspx?ID=407>. This result builds on earlier, more nuanced studies
>> undertaken for ALPSP in 2009 and 2006 and by PRC in 2006.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Gemma
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
>> Behalf Of Dr D.A. Kingsley
>> Sent: 20 June 2017 21:18
>> To: goal at eprints.org
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 67, Issue 13
>>
>>
>>
>> *** External email: use caution ***
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gemma,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please provide evidence for your statement "an embargo period is needed
>> to enable the subscription model to continue to operate, in the absence
>> of a separate business model? other than it sounds like it *probably*
>> should be true.
>>
>>
>>
>> We all thought cough medicine should work until someone tested it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Danny
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Danny Kingsley
>>
>> Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
>>
>> Cambridge University LibraryWest Road, CB3 9DR
>>
>> e: dak45 at cam.ac.uk<mailto:dak45 at cam.ac.uk>
>>
>> p: 01223 747 437
>>
>> m: 07711 500 564
>>
>> t: @dannykay68
>>
>> w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk>
>>
>> b: https://unlocking research.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk
>>
>> o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939
>
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
> Cambridge University LibraryWest Road, CB3 9DR
> e: dak45 at cam.ac.uk
> p: 01223 747 437
> m: 07711 500 564t: @dannykay68
> w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk
> b: https://unlocking research.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk
> o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

________________________________

Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084, Registered in England and Wales.