[GOAL] Embargoes, evidence and all that jazz

Thu Jun 22 16:49:12 BST 2017

As I say, OSI has been admirable in its transparency - showing where it receives money:

http://osinitiative.org/2017-support/

For 2017 37% of the total came from five ’traditional’ or ‘legacy’ publishers, including Elsevier.  An increase in both percentage and absolute total over 2016.

David

On 21 Jun 2017, at 23:13, Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM) <g.hersh at elsevier.com<mailto:g.hersh at elsevier.com>> wrote:

Glenn Hampson, Executive Director of OSI is not on this listserve but has shared the below. I have added Glenn on copy in case there are any follow up questions related to OSI.

Gemma
----------------------
Hi David,

Gemma emailed me just now to ask whether the embargo study we were hoping to conduct last year is still happening. OSI had hoped to conduct this study (via sponsor funding) last year but the interest in this study from OSI delegates kind of took a back seat to funding a global flip study instead. There are many things in this space that need more study---hopefully we can get on track with one or both of these ideas in the coming months.

I couldn’t help but note in your reply to Gemma your comment about tunes and pipers. There is no quid pro quo in OSI. This effort is run by my nonprofit (the National Science Communication Institute) and the funding we receive to run OSI comes with no strings attached---that’s a requirement. It costs about US$150,000 annually to run OSI—a pittance really---and over the last two years, about 25% of this money has come from UNESCO, 25% from publishers, 25% from charitable foundations, and 25% from OSI delegates themselves (by way of conference registration fees). Were it not for the increased support we received from publishers this year (delegate contributions were down---we were trying to lower the barrier to participation), about 20 delegates (from all backgrounds and locations) would have been unable to attend---we paid for the hotels and travel for librarians, nonprofit managers, and other delegates traveling to DC from Africa, Europe and elsewhere. These sponsors didn’t even ask for poster space in return---they just contributed because this is a unique and important conversation.

I realize that cynics abound---we have them in OSI as well. And we do our best to listen to and address their concerns. But at the end of the day, we’re busy talking and working across institutional and international boundaries here and trying to make a difference, so we’ll continue doing so and will keep the door open for cynics and others to join. Personally, I think including everyone in this process is the right way to go---even the only way---but I realize and respect that many others of good faith disagree.

With best regards,

Glenn

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133<x-apple-data-detectors://8/0>
(206) 417-3607<tel:(206)%20417-3607> | ghampson at nationalscience.org<mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org> |nationalscience.org<http://nationalscience.org/>

On 21 Jun 2017, at 21:17, David Prosser <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk>> wrote:

*** External email: use caution ***

Gemma

The point is that you have ignored all of the points Danny made in addressing your ‘evidence’ and thrown the responsibility to provide further evidence back on her (whether via OSI or otherwise).

And, yes, I am aware of the ‘OSI’.  I note that in an admirable display of transparency it is clear that the OSI is being increasingly funded by big publishers such as Elsevier.  Cynics will be concerned that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

David

On 21 Jun 2017, at 20:48, Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM) <g.hersh at elsevier.com<mailto:g.hersh at elsevier.com>> wrote:

I don't understand your point, David. OSI is a cross stakeholder initiative....perhaps you aren't familiar with it or it's working groups.

Gemma

On 21 Jun 2017, at 20:46, David Prosser <david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk<mailto:david.prosser at rluk.ac.uk>> wrote:

*** External email: use caution ***

So it is the responsibility of libraries to prove the harm to publishers?  Odd

On 21 Jun 2017, at 18:58, Hersh, Gemma (ELS-CAM) <g.hersh at elsevier.com<mailto:g.hersh at elsevier.com>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
Message-ID:
    <CY4PR08MB2838DDE2A0F737F9BFC1F6548FDA0 at CY4PR08MB2838.namprd08.prod.outlo<mailto:CY4PR08MB2838DDE2A0F737F9BFC1F6548FDA0 at CY4PR08MB2838.namprd08.prod.outlo>
ok.com<http://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> [mailto:goal-bounces at eprints.org] On
Behalf Of Dr D.A. Kingsley
Sent: 20 June 2017 21:18
To: goal at eprints.org<mailto: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><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/><http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk/>>

b: https://unlocking<https://unlocking/> research.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk

o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939<http://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<mailto:dak45 at cam.ac.uk>
p: 01223 747 437
m: 07711 500 564t: @dannykay68
w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk/>
b: https://unlocking<https://unlocking/> research.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk
o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939<http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939>

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto: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.

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto: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.

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto: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.

_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL at eprints.org<mailto:GOAL at eprints.org>
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170622/6fd351a4/attachment-0001.html 