<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=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
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.EmailStyle17
{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:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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'>Stevan, I will accept one of your attempts to re-interpret what I thought I wrote pretty clearly. Cancelling all journal subscriptions and big bundles is premature. But one can move quite a way towards it, by countering big bundles with precise usage information by journal, and educate the researchers (whom you and I find so frustrating in their inaction) regarding quasi-instant access vs subscription models, via the transitional processes of PPV and the request-a-copy button.<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>However, I cannot accept your second and longer re-interpretation. PPV was economic for the University of Tasmania when I introduced it in 1998. Accessing all useful articles in a journal for $37 is preferable to $500, where usage levels are low. We did the economics then, and continue to do so. We know that the average paper is assessed by say 100 people globally (based on the abstract and metadata), 5 of whom may actually read it carefully (these numbers are rough, according to memory, and apply to the print/subscription era). And yes, I have continued to support open access even in the clear presence of PPV. The OA movement is aimed at the end-point, not the transitional processes of technological change.<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Finally, let me end on another area of agreement. I agree that waiting a day or three for PPV access is not preferable to quasi-instant online open access. But it is preferable to the often longer delay and greater uncertainty of the request-a-copy button, for the researcher. I write this despite being an advocate of the button (as I know you are), particularly for researchers who have even less access to the research literature (and funding) than I do. Most researchers, I assert, do not mind waiting a few days to read a paper they consider might be important. They are not so addicted to instant gratification, because research is a long-term process.<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>One of the issues, I think on reflection, is that the open access movement is too disorganized. We don’t get behind the success stories (Google Scholar, BASE, DOAJ) in the way we should, allowing the big traditional publishers to dominate via Scopus and Thomson-Reuters. We don’t influence their development to become solid parts of the dissemination tail of the research dog. Why is ORCID not supported by the OA movement? Endless bickering about green and gold is also counter-productive and divisive.<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Best wishes, and hoping the Montreal weather is not too cold.<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><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Arthur (in currently sunny Tasmania)<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> Thursday, 7 January 2016 00:33 AM<br><b>To:</b> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br><b>Subject:</b> [GOAL] Re: Quo vadere?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Arthur Sale <<a href="mailto:ahjs@ozemail.com.au" target="_blank">ahjs@ozemail.com.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Christian Gutknecht <<a href="mailto:christian.gutknecht@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">christian.gutknecht@bluewin.ch</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I really like the idea to let researchers feel that subscription is an outdated model. And an easy way to do that without upsetting them too much, is to cancel subscriptions and get rid of the Big Deals.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I don’t have access to the raw data now apart from knowing that we fulfill 13,000+ requests a year, but the University of Tasmania has operated a free unlimited-quantity service for 15 years, funded pay-per-view centrally (ie in replacement for subscriptions).</span> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Let me make sure I understand this, Arthur: Are you saying UTas has cancelled all journal subscriptions, and has just just pay per view?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red'>[ahjs] Of course not. That would be the height of stupidity until open access is 100%. </span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>That seems to be your answer to the question raised by Christian.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><i><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:red'>But it has enabled us to reduce our subscriptions significantly to those that are economically justifiable, and to measure this against access rates. Freed up money can be used for pay per view, and the economics actually do stack up, Stevan. Nobody reads paper journals any more. For one thing by the time they get to Tasmania they are obsolete.</span></i></b><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>My own campaign for OA began, in 1998 with ritually repeating "subscription/license/PPV" to distinguish the hydra-headed forms of "toll access" from (what eventually became) "OA," meaning the opposite: "toll-free access."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Eventually, to simplify, "subscriptions" became the shortened portmanteau for "subscription/license/PPV."<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>If, in the 1990's, it had turned out that the growing institutional library budget crisis that prevented institutions from being able to afford toll-access to all (or most, or much, or enough) of the research their users needed could be solved by simply shifting subscription tolls and license tolls by PPV tolls, I rather doubt that that the subsequent decades of quest for OA (toll-free access) would have ensued.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Perhaps it was all just a big miscalculation (or failure to do the right calculation)? (I must say that I rather doubt it, but I certainly have not done the calculations.)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I would add, though, that not only has reading journals on paper become obsolete in the online era, but so has the idea of waiting days for PPV access instead of just clicking.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Stevan Harnad<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>