OA

[Stevan Harnad]

Apologies to the SIGMETRICS list if this thread is of insufficient
interest. I propose moving it to the sparc-oaforum.

David Wojick wrote:


> I fear we are talking past each other Stevan.
>

No, we are not talking past. There are simply three different topics:

(1) Peter Suber's understanding of OA (versus your own, David),
(2) practical considerations about how the OSTP mandate should be
implemented,
and
(3) speculations about the future of refereed journal publishing


> I am talking about what is actually happening here, which is that the
> non-NIH US agencies are implementing the OSTP mandate for a 12 month
> delayed access program, just as NIH already does.
>

That OSTP<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=ostp+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>mandates
providing OA within a year (at most) is well-known.

How the mandates will be formulated and implemented by each agency is
definitely not well-known, nor even fully decided as yet: it is still being
worked on, agency by agency (and I'm sure Peter Suber, Heather Joseph, Alma
Swan and others with expertise in OA and OA mandates are being consulted).

The most important practical implementation issues are:

*#1* *Who must make the paper OA?* the fundee or the publisher? Obviously
for a uniform, systematically verifiable mandate,* it must be the fundee,
the one bound by the mandate*, and not the publisher, the one that is in
conflict of interest with the mandate, and not bound to comply with it
(except if paid extra money).

*#2 Where must the paper be made OA? *Here again, for a uniform,
systematically verifiable mandate, it must be in one verifiable locus, and
the only locus shared by all fundees, all funders and all institutions (and
for both Green and Gold OA) is *the fundee's own institutional
repository*- from whence it can be exported or harvested to other
sites, such as
PubMed Central, if and when needed.

*#3* *When must the paper be made OA*? (The mandate already stipulates
this: within 12 months of publication at the latest.)

*#4 When must the paper be deposited? *This is the most important question
of all, and carries with it the answer to the other questions:* *the fundee
must deposit the final, refereed, accepted draft,* immediately upon
acceptance for publication -- not 12 months after publication -- *irrespective
of whether it is published in a subscription journal or a Gold OA
journal, irrespective
of whether the deposit is immediately made OA or embargoed, and irrespective
of whether the journal endorses immediate OA or imposes an OA embargo.
*
*
It is *#4* that holds the key to a successful and effective OA mandate, the
Liège model "Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access" model (which Peter Suber
calls the "Dual Deposit/Release" model). The model has been tried and
tested, and has already proven to be more effective than any other mandate
model, and is both compatible with and subsumes all the other mandate
models.

The key to the Liège model's success is that it is convergent and
systematic rather than divergent and anarchic, mobilizing the *universal
source of all research, *funded and unfunded, Green, Grey and Gold, across
all disciplines -- *the fundee's own institution* -- to monitor and ensure
timely compliance as well as to tide over any embargo with the repository's
facilitated copy-request Button.

All of this depends on requiring deposit, by the fundee, in the
institutional repository, *immediately upon acceptance for publication*,
which is the only universal, objective, verifiable calendar date of
reference for timely compliance. (Publication dates diverge wildly from
both the acceptance date and the actual date of appearance of the journal.
Whereas a 12 month embargo is the number to beat, publication date can lead
to an uncertainty of as much as two years or more.)

Gargouri, Y., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L., & Harnad, S.
(2012a). Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate
Ineffectiveness. *arXiv
preprint* arXiv:1210.8174. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.8174


Rentier, B., & Thirion, P. (2011). *The Liège ORBi model: Mandatory policy
without rights retention but linked to assessment processes*.
http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031


> If you know of an agency that is doing something else I would like to hear
> about it. Note that NIH has half of the Federal basic research budget so
> this is merely rounding out the existing program.
>

No U.S. funding agency has yet adopted the immediate-deposit clause, but it
has been adopted by the
FNRS<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html>in
Belgium, and has been proposed by
HEFCE<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=harnad+hefce+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>in
the UK. It is also implicit (though not yet implemented or enforced)
in
the Harvard<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=harvard+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg>mandate
model.


> The only big issue at this point is whether the non-NIH agencies will
> collect and post accepted manuscripts, as NIH does, but perhaps via SHARE
> repositories, or use CHORUS and link to the publisher websites.
>

You leave out the most important option of all, which is that all papers
are deposited in the fundee's own institutional repository (and exported
if/when desired, to institution-external repositories).

And of course on no account should the depositor or the locus be the
publisher (although of course the institutional repository can and will
also link to the version on the publisher's site, whether subscription or
Gold, OA or embargoed).

I would like to draw everyone's attention again to the fact that David
Wojick is pressing for (and takes into account) only the solution that
favors the interests of the refereed journal publishing industry, not the
interests of research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and
the tax-paying public that pays for it all.

David seems to have OSTI's ear (I am not sure why) but I hope that OSTI
listens also to those who represent the interests of the research community
rather than the publishing community.

And I hope all the other US funding agencies are likewise taking advice on
implementation from those who represent the interests of the research
community rather than the publishing community.

*Stevan Harnad*

On Oct 23, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Wojick < <dwojick at craigellachie.us>
> dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote:
>
>
>>  Oh I see, Stevan. The subscription journals go out of business, just as
>> I thought. I was afraid I had missed something in the analysis. Glad we
>> agree.
>>
>> To return to the original point, at this time the US Government has no
>> interest in driving the subscription publishers out of business.
>>
>
> Downsizing to post-Green Fair-Gold is not going Out-of-Business. It is
> just evolving into Fair-Business.
>
> But perhaps that is not so obvious if one is lobbying for preserving the
> current revenue streams of the refereed journal publishing business...
>
> For effective Green mandates to prevail globally, the publishing tail must
> no longer be allowed to keep wagging the research dog (tax-payer-fed). I
> hope OSTI will also be hearing impartial advice as to what will be best for
> research, researchers, and the tax-payers' investment therein.
>
> Don't worry, though. Publishers will adapt; journals will survive (because
> peer review will survive, as a service) and everyone will get used to the
> new post-Green status quo.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>> At 02:43 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:
>>
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, David Wojick <<dwojick at craigellachie.us>
>> dwojick at craigellachie.us > wrote:
>>
>>  As I understand it your position is that all published articles should
>> be immediately available for free. My question is why then anyone would
>> subscribe to a journal? I am sure you have an answer but I have no idea
>> what it is, as your proposal seems to defy the basic laws of economics.
>> Immediate deposit seems to be self defeating. What have I missed?
>>
>>
>> Here's what you have missed:
>>
>>  Harnad, Stevan (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged
>> Transition <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/>. In, Anna, Gacs (ed.)
>> The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. ,
>> L'Harmattan, 99-105.
>>
>> SUMMARY: What the research community needs, urgently, is free online
>> access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output.
>> Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in
>> OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and
>> self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA
>> Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is
>> mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 100%
>> Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing (which is
>> not in the hands of the research community) and it also requires the funds
>> to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% Green OA, the research
>> community's access and impact problems are already solved. If and when 100%
>> Green OA should cause significant cancellation pressure (no one knows
>> whether or when that will happen, because OA Green grows anarchically,
>> article by article, not journal by journal) then the cancellation pressure
>> will cause cost-cutting, downsizing and eventually a leveraged transition
>> to OA (Gold) publishing on the part of journals. As subscription revenues
>> shrink, institutional windfall savings from cancellations grow. If and when
>> journal subscriptions become unsustainable, per-article publishing costs
>> will be low enough, and institutional savings will be high enough to cover
>> them, because publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service
>> provision alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and
>> access-provision and archiving onto the global network of OA Institutional
>> Repositories. Green OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA.
>>
>> Harnad, Stevan (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of
>> Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>.
>> D-Lib Magazine, 16, (7/8)
>>
>> SUMMARY: Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of
>> Open Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature. Funds are short; 80% of
>> journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still
>> subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the
>> asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying to
>> publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. What is
>> needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA self-archiving (of
>> authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon acceptance for
>> publication) ("Green OA"). That will provide immediate OA; and if and when
>> universal Green OA should go on to make subscriptions unsustainable
>> (because users are satisfied with just the Green OA versions) that will in
>> turn induce journals to cut costs (print edition, online edition,
>> access-provision, archiving), downsize to just providing the service of
>> peer review, and convert to the Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the
>> subscription cancellations will have released the funds to pay these
>> residual service costs. The natural way to charge for the service of peer
>> review then will be on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or
>> funder paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome
>> (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost
>> while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality
>> standards.
>>
>>
>>  At 01:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:
>>
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, David Wojick <<dwojick at craigellachie.us>
>> dwojick at craigellachie.us > wrote:
>>   The USA has the lead here, as far as major funder mandates are
>> concerned, and they have opted for a 12 month publisher embargo form of
>> green OA. I have several articles on this at <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/>
>> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/
>> Peter does not even discuss what is actually happening on the policy
>> front.
>>
>>
>> On leads vs. lags and analysis vs argument, see:
>>
>>   Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI Consultant<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-.html>
>>
>>
>> The exchange is preceded by the following note (by me):
>>
>>  Note: David Wojick <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/> works
>> part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at OSTI<http://www.osti.gov/home/>,
>> the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the Office of
>> Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and
>> philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil
>> engineering. In the exchanges below, he sounds [to me] very much like a
>> publishing interest lobbyist, but judge for yourself. He also turns out to
>> have a rather curious [and to me surprising] history in environmental
>> matters <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick>…
>>
>>
>> The topic continued (and continues) to be discussed on the Society for
>> Scholarly Publishing's blog, "The Scholarly Kitchen<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/>,"
>> where DW is a frequent contributor.
>>
>> DW: "Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an
>> argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually
>> going on…. Happy OA week."
>>
>> And a Happy OA week to DW too...
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>>  At 12:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:
>>
>> Dear David,
>> Sorry, could you tell us why you have the opinion that the author of the
>> Guardian piece is oblivious to what is going on? What, in you eyes, is the
>> main thing he seems not aware of?
>> Thank you,
>> Jeroen Bosman ----------------------------------------------- Jeroen
>> Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience Utrecht University
>> Library email: <j.bosman at uu.nl>j.bosman at uu.nl twitter:@geolibrarianUBU /
>> @jeroenbosman -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on
>> Metrics [ <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU> <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
>> mailto:SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>] On
>> Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 18:24 To: <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
>> SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA
>> Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an argument,
>> not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually going on.
>> Happy OA week.
>> David Wojick
>> At 02:20 PM 10/22/2013, you wrote: >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS
>> (for example unsubscribe): >
>> <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>> <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html > >I post this without
>> comment. > >
>> <http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op><http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op >en-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard
>> > >But I would be interested to hear listmembers responses/reactions > >BW
>> > >Quentin Burrell
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20131024/667b7773/attachment.html>