<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Chris,<br>
<br>
I fully agree. The idea that publishers would tolerate large scale
mandate driven green OA (say 50-60 %) of articles with no
embargoes or counteractions is pretty naive. Elsevier has shown
the way with rules stipulating that Green OA is OK, unless its
mandated, in which case they require special deals with the the
institutions in question. And many publishers who previously had
no embargo periods are starting to define such.<br>
<br>
Bo-Christer Björk<br>
<br>
<br>
11/28/13 10:18 AM, Armbruster, Chris wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A5487EBF-CA40-4B7F-A3B8-41780D3C8FF0@eui.eu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=Windows-1252">
Fool’s Gold, extra money, sustainable price - the arguments
against OAP don’t add up. A more plausible hypothesis is that
Green OA is more costly and less efficient.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Consider the following: </div>
<div>- Research outputs in the form of publications continue
growing</div>
<div>- Subscription prices keep increasing, and a key argument is
the rise in output</div>
<div>- The costs of SB publishing are estimated to be 3-4k a
piece, and for OA publishing about 2k a piece</div>
<div>- New OA publishing entrants often charge less, e.g. PLoS
One, Hindawi, PEERJ</div>
<div>- It is often pointed out that much OA publishing is free to
authors, e.g. OJS ventures</div>
<div>- OA publishing offers cost-control in various forms, e.g.
SCOAP3, institutional subsidies</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If OA publishing is cheaper than SB publishing, every OA
publication reduces cost. Moreover, if most of the above
assumptions hold, then a transition road can be described
easily. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>By contrast, Green OA means pushing more and more output into
the SB publishing model, leading to yet more price increases
while asking the research institutions and the taxpayer to fund
an extra infrastructure for authors’ manuscripts that has hidden
costs (e.g. chasing deposits, all the political coordination) as
well as opportunity costs (e.g. IPR regime maintained, re-use
very limited).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Chris </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>Am 27.11.2013 um 19:45 schrieb Stevan Harnad <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>>:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>On 2013-11-27, at 12:47 PM, "Armbruster, Chris"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Chris.Armbruster@EUI.eu">Chris.Armbruster@EUI.eu</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>What puzzles me is that quite a number of OA
veterans and advocates keep moaning about the UK
OA policy. In your case, Fred, I am intrigued by
the assertion that </div>
<div><span>"The Finch saga has done nothing to
change the IPR regime through which publishers
control the infrastructure, nor is the
process leading to true competition whereby
there would be a choice for users between two
suppliers of the same research paper."</span></div>
<div>CC-BY changes the IPR Regime and leads to an
open infrastructure, also enabling institutions
hold the VoR in their repositories. Also, APCs
vary widely; new and innovative OA models keep
emerging; and APCs enable a comparison of quality
and price: helping researchers when choosing the
venue of publication. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>More generally: Can anybody point to a policy
other than the UK one that comes closer to
realizing BBB? </div>
<div>And no, the Liege ID/OA mandate does not come
closer. Authors’ manuscripts are not the VoR,
submitted within the old IPR infrastructure,
subject to an embargo and so on. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Simple answer:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>CC-BY is not worth all that extra UK money, over
and above </i></div>
<div><i>uncancellable subscriptions.</i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nor are the perverse effects of the UK Gold mandate
on </div>
<div>Green embargoes worldwide.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Global Green (free online access) needs to come
first.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That (and not throwing more money at Fool's Gold)
will </div>
<div>bring Fair Gold and CC-BY, at an affordable,
sustainable price.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But as long as Finch Folly and the push for
pre-emptive </div>
<div>Fool's Gold persist, that outcome is embargoed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Fortunately, the HEFCE/Liege immediate-deposit model </div>
<div>plus the automated request-a-copy-Button will work
almost </div>
<div>as well, despite Finch's Fool's Gold preference.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If I sound weary of this folly, then I have
successfully </div>
<div>conveyed my sentiments…</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>;>)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stevan<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div>Am 27.11.2013 um 17:20 schrieb Friend, Fred
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:f.friend@ucl.ac.uk">f.friend@ucl.ac.uk</a>>:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div tabindex="0" dir="ltr">
<div name="divtagdefaultwrapper"
id="divtagdefaultwrapper">
<div>Three recent official documents have
presented marginally different views of
the future of OA in the UK: the Review of
the 2012 Finch Report, the
Government Response to the criticisms from
Parliament's BIS Committee, and the RCUK's
Response to the same Committee. Although
all three documents (links below) maintain
the previous position that the future
model for OA in the UK will be APC-paid
"gold", there are now subtle but
potentially significant differences
between the new policy statements.</div>
<p> </p>
<div>It is now clear that the UK Government
has listened to criticisms of its
policy and is no longer willing to support
the Finch Group recommendations in the
unthinking way it did in July 2012. One
example of this modified approach comes in
the warm way the Government now writes of
the value of OA repositories and their
long-term role. Both the recent Finch
Group Review and the UK Government
Response point to the reality of a "mixed
economy" of green and gold OA. While the
Finch Group have also been listening to
criticism of their side-lining of
repositories, their acceptance of a "mixed
economy" appears to be limited to the
length of the transition period to full
APC-paid gold OA. The Government now
concedes that "what the final destination
looks like is not yet clear" and is likely
to be the "mixed economy" of green and
gold that the Finch Group see as a
transition. On this issue (surprisingly in
view of their policies of several years
ago) RCUK now come across as the hardest
supporters of the APC-paid future, as
"RCUK expects to be providing sufficient
funding to cover the publication costs of
the majority of research papers arising
from Research Council funding".</div>
<p> </p>
<div>From the Government Response also comes
across a greater willingness to listen to
university institutions and to authorities
in other countries. In 2012 the Government
rushed out its support for the Finch
Report without consulting UK universities
and without any substantial knowledge of
the way OA had been developing in other
countries. The new Government statement
recognises the important role of the JISC
(a recognition missing from the 2012
documents) and of HEFCE. The listening
over the past year has not changed the
Government's policy fundamentally but it
has led to a more consensual approach to
the issues raised by the policy. There is
now more of an emphasis on the future
being determined by the publishing
decisions of researchers rather than by a
policy laid down from Whitehall. Again the
RCUK Response comes across as the most
"dirigiste", pointing to RCUK's "duty" to
ensure that high-quality papers are made
available to the public, a duty they see
fulfilled through APC-paid gold OA.</div>
<p> </p>
<div>All three recent documents perpetuate
the myth that high-quality research can
only be made available through the
existing publishing infrastructure. All
three bodies - the Finch Group, the UK
Government and the RCUK - have accepted
the view of research communication
presented to them in the lobbying by
publishing vested interests. The
Government may be correct in its belief
that new OA publishers will force the more
long-standing publishers to offer lower
APCs and also to be more flexible on
embargo periods (a big contentious issue
for the future), but as a result of more
than a year's discussion of the Finch
Report and two Parliamentary enquiries the
control over the dissemination of UK
publicly-funded research remains firmly in
the hands of publishers rather than in the
hands of researchers or universities. The
Finch saga has done nothing to change the
IPR regime through which publishers
control the infrastructure, nor is the
process leading to true competition
whereby there would be a choice for users
between two suppliers of the same research
paper.</div>
<p> </p>
<div>In summary OA developments in the UK
will change as a result of these three new
documents, which can be found at<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.researchinfonet.org/implementing-the-recommendations-of-the-finch-report/">http://www.researchinfonet.org/implementing-the-recommendations-of-the-finch-report/</a> and
at<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/833/83302.htm">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/833/83302.htm</a> .
The changes are subtle, and some may see
them as cosmetic, but they do represent an
opportunity for OA supporters in the UK to
work within a structure than is a little
less rigid than was set out for us in
2012.</div>
<p> </p>
<div>Fred Friend</div>
<div>Honorary Director Scholarly
Communication UCL </div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div class="WordSection1">
<div><span> </span><br
class="webkit-block-placeholder">
</div>
<div>
<span>The information transmitted is intended
only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review,
retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information by
persons or entities other than the intended
recipient is prohibited without the express
permission of the sender. If you received this
communication in error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from any
computer.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The information transmitted is
intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any
action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited
without the express permission of the sender. If you
received this communication in error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer. </span>
</p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>