Public awareness of the OA movement

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2012-08-24, at 11:48 AM, David Wojick wrote:

> I am not sure this is a sigmetrics issue.  

David is right. Publisher prices are not a sigmetrics issue -- but OA, and OA metrics, certainly are.

> I regard mandatory green OA as theft.

And a lot of authors and librarians consider journal subscription prices to be extortion. 

But that's not a sigmetrics issue either.

It is a fact, however, that subscription publishing is paid for in full, and fulsomely, by institutional subscriptions. So when an author supplements subscription access by self-archiving a Green OA copy of the final draft for those would-be users whose institutions cannot afford subscription access, the publication costs are already fully covered by subscriptions. Perhaps it is for this reason that over 60% of journals already recognize their authors' right to provide immediate Green OA, and most of the remaining recognize it after an embargo. I don't think they are recognizing "theft"; rather, they are endorsing necessity, not that the online medium has made OA possible.

Stevan

> On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Jean-Claude Guédon <jean.claude.guedon at UMONTREAL.CA> wrote:
> 
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html The "OA idea" is much broader than the "author-pay" approach. Confusing OA or even "Gold OA" with the author-pay financial scheme is one of the most common mistakes people make about open access. See Peter Suber's recent book, Open Access, on this topic.
>> 
>> Not only does the "OA idea" include the "Green road", as Loet Leydesdorff acknowledges at the end of his message, but it also includes many journals that are sufficiently subsidized to provide gratis access to author submissions, and "libre" (or at least gratis) access to readers.
>> 
>> As for the power shift, it is a possibility, but, generally, speaking, open access tends to nudge publishing instruments into the service of scientific communication, rather than the reverse.
>> 
>> Finally, the selection of papers in the present journal system is not limited to quality; it also includes considerations for various degrees of relevance to various criteria such as "hotness" of a topic, prestige of the originating lab or institution, etc. For example, the existence of "orphan diseases" can be explained in part because of latent selection criteria that do not relate to quality, but rather to visibility and prestige. PLoS  One, by contrast, offers a good example of a publishing platform where the only criteria used are respect of the scientific method in all of its dimensions. The conclusion is that the present system is far from being purely guided by quality. And designing a selection process guided by quality within the OA context does not appear particularly difficult to achieve. It already exists.
>> 
>> Jean-Claude Guédon
>> 
>> Le vendredi 24 août 2012 à 07:42 +0200, Loet Leydesdorff a écrit :
>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>> Dear Subbiah, 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Originally I was enthusiast about the OA idea, but more recently two things happened which made me aware that there are disadvantages which tend to turn my opinion around. First, I met an editor of an established journal in the social sciences who had discussed this at length with the publishing house and they had decided not to move in this direction because young scholars in his country would not always have the funding to pay the author fees or they would have to sacrifice other research expenses (such as conferences). He (and I agreed) found it more important that there would be no financial thresholds to contributing to scholarly discourse. (I know that it is never for free, but this adds easily a thousand dollar to the expenses).
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Secondly, I became aware that the funding agencies in my (and other) country are actively championing for OA. Of course, OA shifts power balance into their direction. A lab group in the medical sciences, for example, easily publishes 25 papers/year and this would add appr. 25k to their budget. In the social sciences smaller amounts of money are already substantial (and thus issues of policy making and research management). Those without an institutional affiliation (such as some PhD students and retired scholars) may be excluded from access to publishing. When there is much demand the agencies (and universities) may under pressure to develop policies on who can be granted publication and who not.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Let me hasten to add that I several times received a generous contribution from a funding agency for publishing a book in non-English languages. (I had not expected that.) In summary, it seems better to me that Editors and referees decide on who can publish for intellectual reasons rather than funding agencies for (potentially) policy reasons. 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> #Steve: I am aware that institutional repositories is very different issue.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Best wishes,
>>> 
>>> Loet
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Loet Leydesdorff 
>>> 
>>> Professor, University of Amsterdam
>>> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
>>> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
>>> Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
>>> loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ ; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU] On Behalf Of Subbiah Arunachalam
>>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 3:32 AM
>>> To: SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU
>>> Subject: [SIGMETRICS] Public awareness of the OA movement
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>>> 
>>> Friends:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please see the Economist debate on academic journals [http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/do-fee-charging-academic-journals-offer-value-added-0?sort=2#sort-comments.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It has not attracted many comments from readers - a clear indication that the general public (at least the segment that reads high quality news channels like The Economist) is least interested in, if not indifferent to, what we consider is of paramount importance. All our advocacy has not reached them. I think, instead of spending our time talking about refining and redefining the most appropriate way to bring about universal open access amongst ourselves (and that too with some amount of rancour) we should devote our attention now to take the message to the citizenry at large. We should promote Students for OA, Alliance of Taxpayers for OA and similar initiatives in a large scale. In the end, public awareness and taxpayer acceptance are the keys to the success of the OA movement.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Arun  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20120824/931cfe35/attachment.html>