<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Isn’t the fact that “</span><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">The BIS report finds no evidence to support
this distinction,” </span></em><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-style:normal">due to the fact that there isn’t sufficient data?<o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-style:normal"><o:p> </o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-style:normal">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.<o:p></o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-style:normal"><o:p> </o:p></span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333;font-style:normal">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.</span></em><em><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">
</span></em><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Dana L. Roth</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Caltech Library 1-32</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="mailto:dzrlib@library.caltech.edu">dzrlib@library.caltech.edu</a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
<br>
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><a href="http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm" target="_blank">http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm</a></span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> goal-bounces@eprints.org [mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Stevan Harnad<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"><a href="http://www.cilip.org.uk/cilip/news/end-gold-rush"><span style="color:#003366">End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, cilip)</span></a>:</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"> <em><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">"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."</span></em></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center">
<hr size="2" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#333333" align="center">
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"><br>
I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">I. Call for Disruption:</span></strong><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"> 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.<br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">II. Call for Protection:</span></strong> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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)?<br>
<br>
</span><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/56/"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366">University of Liège</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"> and </span><a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366">FRSN
Belgium</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"> have adopted -- and </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/987-The-UKs-New-HEFCEREF-OA-Mandate-Proposal.html"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366">HEFCE</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"> and </span><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1040-UK-BIS-Committee-2013-Report-on-Open-Access.html"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#003366">BIS</span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#333333"> have
both proposed adopting -- the compromise resolution to this contradiction:<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
<strong><span style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"">Stevan Harnad</span></strong></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>