<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2012-06-20, at 10:22 AM, Sally Morris wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16446">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="906261314-20062012"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">I find it very sad that the response on this list has been to
denigrate both the Finch report's authors and publishers in general. It
would seem that the (relatively small number of) primary contributors to this
list take it as an article of faith that publishers are to be hated and
destroyed; they do not want a balanced approach or a 'mixed economy' (e.g.
of green, gold etc).</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="906261314-20062012"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="906261314-20062012"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">However, if researchers themselves, both as authors and as
readers, didn't value what journals, and their publishers, add to research
articles, they would long ago have ceased publishing in, or
reading, journals, and contented themselves with placing their articles
directly in, and reading from, repositories.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="906261314-20062012"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="906261314-20062012"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">If that were to change, those that benefit from the proceeds
of the current range of publishing models (not just shareholders, but also
learned society members etc...) would indeed face a major challenge. But
until it does, the challenge with which publishers are currently engaging is how
to enable their authors' work to be as accessible as possible, without making it
impossible to continue to do those things that authors and readers value in
journals. I don't see how that makes publishers
bad?</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="906261314-20062012"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="906261314-20062012"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial">Can't we grow up and have a rather more reasoned
discussion?</font></span></div>
</div></blockquote><br></div><div>There are indeed some unthinking hotheads, on both sides of the OA issue.</div><div><br></div><div>But this particular thread is not about the Finch Report; it's about whether</div><div>institutions and funders should seek "agreement" from publishers on </div><div>institutional or funder policy mandating Green OA self-archiving.</div><div><br></div><div>Many objective (and cool-headed) reasons have been provided to the effect </div><div>that the answer is No. Perhaps we could discuss those, rather than </div><div>the subjective tone of some hot-heads (which I agree should be temperate)?.</div><div><br></div><div>As to the Finch Report's recommendations -- well, it's not surprising</div><div>that some publishers are pleased with them, since they managed to</div><div>get the Finch Report to reflect publisher interests rather than research</div><div>and researcher interests ("Green is ineffectual and inadequate and </div><div>would destroy publication and peer review: If you insist on OA, pay</div><div>us for Gold OA instead, at our prices and on our timetable.")</div><div><br></div><div>That is why I say, cool-headedly: ignore the Finch Report and ignore</div><div>publishers' requests to discuss "agreement": Institutions and funders</div><div>should go ahead and mandate Green OA (and make sure their mandates </div><div>are upgraded to effective ones, if need be).</div><div><br></div><div>After that's done, globally, we can all sit down and have a reasoned discussion</div><div>about the future.</div><div><br></div><div>But not before. Or instead (as we've already been doing for at least a</div><div>decade).</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>