Sandy Thatcher [ST] asked (off-line):

ST: "Can you give me any numbers for scientists within the U.S. who do not have access to the professional literature they need through either their institutional affiliations or services like DeepDyve?"

I can give you the following pieces of indirect evidence:

(1) The (now-out-of-date) ARL stats on institutional serials holdings. The estimate is that the articles in the serials that the institution cannot afford to subscribe to or license are inaccessible to the users at that institution.

(2) The data on the OA advantage in downloads and citations (indicators of what is being lost if access is restricted to subscribers only).

More direct evidence can only come from polling researchers or monitoring their web activity automatically, to see how many times they click on articles and are stopped by a pay-wall (including a DeepDyve pay-wall).

ST: "(I do not believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. government to provide research to everyone in the world.)"

Perhaps not (though US researchers do not conduct research only intended to be used, applied and built upon by US researchers; and lost research uptake and progress is a loss for all researchers and research) -- but the ARL stats show that no US institution can afford access to all or most journals, and many can only afford only a small fragment.

That's all lost research impact and progress.

ST: "How much of the literature they need is not already being provided through Green OA repositories?"

At least 80% is not provided -- except if deposit is mandated, in which case less than 20% is not provided.

But mandates is what this is all about...

ST: "Do you have an answer to the posting made by Danny Jones yesterday?"

I wasn't going to reply to that posting, which essentially says "mandated OA deposit of articles is too much of a burden: just make progress reports and final reports OA instead" -- but since you ask:

---

From: Danny Jones [DJ] on Liblicense-l
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:46:43 -0600

DJ: "I am very interested in seeing (specifically in my case) NIH-funded final reports made publicly available."

Fine, and welcome. But, as I said, no substitute for access to refereed journal articles, for researchers.

DJ: "I recommend going a step further to require the annual progress reports to be also made publicly available along with data collected with federally funded grants."

Both welcome (though making the data public raises some sticky issues about the researcher's right to mine his own data first).

But, as I said, no substitute for access to refereed journal articles, for researchers.

DJ: "Before I retired on January 6, 2012 as director of the library at Texas Biomedical Research Institute, I was responsible for monitoring compliance with the NIH Public Access Policy by our mostly NIH-funded investigators. TxBiomed scientists are generally supportive of the policy, but it isn't always easy to be in compliance [with the NIH Public Access Policy] for a variety of reasons."

Indeed, because the policy is non-optimal, for a number of reasons. See: "Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Harnad Response to US OSTP RFI)"

The main bugs are (1) central deposit instead of institutional deposit (and central harvesting) and (2) the publisher deposit option.

DJ: "And complying represents an added regulatory burden for investigators who often have moved on to other investigations when an article finally gets published."

The keystrokes to publish-or-perish are the burden. The few extra keystrokes to deposit the final draft are a piece of cake -- it just has to be made part of the author's routine work-flow. Incomparably tinier than doing the progress reports or final report.

DJ: "NIH grants may require several years of work before a final report is submitted, and during this time investigators may publish articles reporting results of their funded investigations, which results will also be included in their annual progress reports."

More important, the articles will be accessible to subscribers as soon as they are published. OA is about making sure they are accessible to nonsubscribers too.

DJ: "Waiting for final reports to be submitted to NIH may actually delay access to NIH-funded research results,"

Not for those who have access to the published articles.

And, as I said, neither progress reports nor final reports can substitute for access to refereed journal articles, for researchers.

DJ: "As these reports are required by NIH already, it does not represent an added burden to investigators (they are already doing it), and the burden rests directly where it should be, with the funded investigator."

If depositing a report is no added burden, depositing an article isn't either. (It just needs to be mandated, like publish-or-perish, progress reports, and final reports.)

DJ: "with the NIH Public Access Policy, final approval of manuscripts deposited into the NIH Manuscript Submission System is the responsibility of the corresponding author, who is not necessarily the NIH-funded author."

All co-authors see final drafts of their articles: The fundees should deposit that.

DJ: "The NIH Public Access Policy should be repealed in my opinion. It is an unnecessary added burden for NIH-funded authors and compliance is not as simple as some suggest it is."

As great a burden as publish-or-perish, progress reports, or final reports? (Should those be repealed too?)

DJ: "And the punitive nature in which investigators are required to comply by threat of consideration against future funding from NIH does not result in great enthusiasm for government regulations."

Why is this "punitive" with article deposit and not punitive with publish-or-perish, progress reports, or final reports?

DJ: "The progress reports and the final reports are already part of the established responsibility of NIH-funded investigators, and making them publicly available will provide the public with full information about the research that the government is paying for."

If the "extra burden" argument had been valid, neither publish-or-perish, progress reports, nor final reports would have been part of researchers' established work-flow.

And, no, progress reports and final reports are not what the government is paying for: the refereed research articles are.

And there is no longer any reason whatsoever in the online era for restricting access to refereed research only to users at institutions that can afford to subscribe to the journal in which they are published.

That's not what research is funded for.

DJ: "While this approach does not address the contents of published journal articles, having access to the investigators' reports of federally funded research may in fact eliminate the need for access to journal articles that acknowledge federally funded research grants."

Substitute grant final reports for refereed research articles?

DJ: "Finally, not only should the reports be publicly available, but all data generated as a result of federal funding should also be publicly available."

Easier said than done (because of the first-exploitation rights problem).

But wouldn't it be too much of a burden for the poor researcher...? ;>)

Stevan Harnad

Update: To fast-forward to 2012 see

"Research Works Act H.R.3699:
The Private Publishing Tail
Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog,
Yet Again

"

The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699): "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that -- (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."

Translation and Comments:

"If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes "private research" once a publisher "adds value" to it by managing the peer review."

[Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return].

"Since that public research has thereby been transformed into "private research," and the publisher's property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access."

[Comment: The author's sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]"

What Is To Be Done
About Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications 
Resulting From Federally Funded Research?
(Response to US OSTP RFI)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum (Moderator: 1998-2011)
Canada Research Chair in Cognitive Sciences, UQAM, Canada
Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK

[Please note that as parts of several questions sometimes ask the same thing, some of the replies are repeated too, in order to make each reply self-contained rather than requiring cross-referencing.]

---

QUESTION 1 (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d):

(Question 1a) “Are there steps that agencies could take to grow existing and new markets related to the access and analysis of peer-reviewed publications that result from federally funded scientific research?” 

[Part 2: see also Part 1)

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 Professor Bernard Rentier -- Rector of the Université de Liège, Vice-President of the FRS-FNRS and Chairman of Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) -- announced on the Global Open Access List (GOAL):

"It is my pleasure to announce that the Board of Administrators of the FRS-FNRS (Fund for Scientific Research in French-speaking Belgium) has officially decided to use exclusively Institutional Repositories as sources of bibliographic data in support of grant or fellowship submission (except for foreign applicants) starting in 2013 (strongly encouraged in 2012). (FRS-FNRS is by far the main funder for basic research in the Wallonia-Brussels Federation.) "

---

I am sure that many readers will not quite realize the significance of this development in Belgium, so I would like to spell it out:

This represents the first instance of extending one of the key features of Professor Rentier's "Liege model" institutional repository deposit mandate (ID/OA) from a research institutional mandate to a research funder mandate.

The Liege model institutional mandate is

(i) to require deposit

and, in order to ensure compliance,

(ii) to designate institutional repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications for institutional performance review.

The FRS-FNRS is the research funding council for French-speaking Belgium. Its Flemish-speaking counterpart, FWO, mandated OA deposit in 2007, but, like most funder mandates, FWO did not specify where to deposit, and did not provide any system for monitoring and ensuring compliance:

FRS-FNRS has has now designated institutional repository deposit as the sole mechanism for submitting publications in support of a research funding application.

This one stipulation has six major knock-on benefits: It not only:

(1) extends the Liege institutional mandate's compliance/monitoring clause to funder mandates,

but it also

(2) helps integrate institutional and funder mandates,

(3) ensuring that deposit is made,

(4) ensuring that deposit is made in the author's institutional repository (rather than in diverse institution-external repositories),

(5) encouraging institutions that have not yet done so to adopt deposit mandates, so as to complement funder mandates for all institutional research output, funded and unfunded, and

(6) ensuring that institutional and funder mandates are convergent and mutually reinforcing rather than divergent and competitive, with deposits for both mandates being made institutionally, and with institutions hence monitoring and ensuring compliance with funder mandates.

Bravo FRS-FNRS! Let us hope other research funders world-wde will adopt (or upgrade to) the Belgian model.

How to Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates

Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit Institutionally, Harvest Centrally

Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How?

Which Green OA Mandate Is Optimal?

Stevan Harnad

In "The Open Access Movement is disorganized; this must not continue," Peter Murray-Rust [PM-R:] wrote:

PM-R: “Stevan Harnad… ?/archives/862-guid.html">argues

inter alia that gratisOA (e.g. through Green, CC-restricted) rather than libreOA (e.g. through Gold, or CC-BY) should be adopted...”

The following commentary on Mike Carroll's GOAL posting on Taylor & Francis's press release is intended neither as an endorsement nor as a critique of T's (or any publisher's) gold OA offerings. It is just an attempt to clarify an important point about OA needs from the standpoint of researchers, who are both the providers and the primary intended users of peer-reviewed research articles:

---

MC: "[The T] press release is misleading and should be corrected. You say that T is now publishing " fully Open Access journals", but unless I've misread the licensing arrangements this simply is not the case."

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "fully OA."

There is Gratis OA and there is Libre OA:

T are selling Gratis OA. That means (1) immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web -- to peer reviewed research journal articles.

(Note that along with free online access, the following also automatically comes with the territory:

(2) clicking,
(3) on-screen access,
(4) linking,
(5) downloading,
(6) local storage,
(7) local print-off of hard copy, and
(8) local data-mining by the user,

as well as global harvesting and search by engines like google.)

Mike Carroll is speaking about Libre OA, which means immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web (i.e., Gratis OA) plus certain further re-use, re-publication and re-mix rights.

(Note that many peer-reviewed journal article authors may not want to allow others to make and publish re-mixes of their verbatim texts. Journal article texts are not like music, videos, software or even research data, out of which creative modifications and remixes can be valuable. All scholars and scientists desire that their findings and ideas should be accessed, re-used, applied and built-upon, but not necessarily that their words should be re-mixed or even re-published -- just accessible free for all online, immediately and permanently.)

Today, the only peer-reviewed research journal articles to which researchers have access are those to which their institutions can afford subscription/licensed access. That means research is losing the uptake and impact of all those potential users who are denied access to it.

All researchers want free online access to all research they may need to consult or use, not just the research to which their institutions can afford subscription access.

All researchers want their research to be accessible to all researchers who may need to consult or use it, not just to those whose institutions can afford subscription access.

It is not at all it clear, however, that researchers want and need the right to make and publish re-mixes of other researchers' verbatim texts.

Nor is it clear that all or most researchers want to allow others to make and publish re-mixes of their verbatim texts.

Hence Gratis OA clearly fulfills an important, universal and longstanding universal need of research and researchers.

But it is not at all clear that this is true of Libre OA -- at least not for the very special case of the peer-reviewed research journal article texts that are the primary, specific target content of the OA movement.

Hence it is not at all clear that there is anything T need to correct.

MC: "A fully open access journal is one that publishes on the web without delay and which gives readers the full set of reuse rights conditioned only on the requirement that users provide proper attribution."

I believe that is not the definition of a fully OA journal but of a Libre OA journal.

MC: "T's "Open" program and "Open Select" offer pseudo open access."

Gratis OA is not pseudo open access. It is the difference between night and day for researchers who are denied access to the publisher's version of record because their institutions cannot afford access.

And night is the current state of affairs for 80% of research, and has been for the past 20 years, even though the means to provide Gratis OA (fully) have been available for at least that long.

Gratis OA can be provided in two different ways:

Gold OA journals like the T journals offer Gratis Gold OA, for which the author -- meaning the author's institution or funder -- must pay a publication fee. But most journals are not Gold OA journals, and hence the potential funds to pay for Gold OA are still locked up in institutional subscriptions to non-OA journals.

That means that not only can most research not be made OA by publishing it in Gold OA journals (since most journals are non-OA), but even for the Gold OA journals, the money to pay the publication fees (of those,like T, that charge a publication fee) is tied up in paying for non-OA subscription journals).

(This is equally true irrespective of whether the Gold OA journals offer Gratis OA or Libre OA.)

The second way to provide Gratis OA is through Green OA self-archiving (i.e., depositing the author's peer-reviewed final draft in the author's Institutional OA Repository immediately upon acceptance for publication).

Unlike Gold OA, Green OA does not require paying a publication fee. And Green OA can be provided for all articles, not just articles published in Gold OA journals.

And, most important, Green OA self-archiving can be mandated by researchers' institutions and funders, whereas publishing in Gold OA journals cannot be mandated. (Publishers cannot be compelled to convert to Gold OA; reserchers cannot be told which journal to publish in; and the money to pay for Gold OA is locked into journal subscriptions, which cannot be cancelled until and unless the contents of those subscription journals are otherwise accessible.)

Most Green OA (and Green OA mandates) are Gratis Green OA -- free online access.

But that is still the difference between night and day for researchers.

And Gratis Green OA self-archiving (but not Libre Green OA self-archiving) is already endorsed by over 60% of journals -- including the top journals in most fields.

So please let us not belittle Gratis OA as not "fully" OA (and certainly not before we have it!). Let us provide it, and mandate providing it.

And let us not keep focusing on Gold OA: The fastest, surest and cheapest way to full OA is for institutions and funders to mandate Gratis Green OA self-archiving.

(And, as a bonus, that's also the fastest, surest and cheapest way to Gold OA as well as Libre OA, thereafter.)

Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age, pp. 99-105, L'Harmattan.
ABSTRACT: 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, S. (2010) The Immediate Practical Implication of the Houghton Report: Provide Green Open Access Now. Prometheus 28 (1): 55-59.
ABSTRACT: Among the many important implications of Houghton et al’s (2009) timely and illuminating JISC analysis of the costs and benefits of providing free online access (“Open Access,” OA) to peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific journal articles one stands out as particularly compelling: It would yield a forty-fold benefit/cost ratio if the world’s peer-reviewed research were all self-archived by its authors so as to make it OA. There are many assumptions and estimates underlying Houghton et al’s modelling and analyses, but they are for the most part very reasonable and even conservative. This makes their strongest practical implication particularly striking: The 40-fold benefit/cost ratio of providing Green OA is an order of magnitude greater than all the other potential combinations of alternatives to the status quo analyzed and compared by Houghton et al. This outcome is all the more significant in light of the fact that self-archiving already rests entirely in the hands of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders), whereas OA publishing depends on the publishing community. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that this outcome emerged from studies that approached the problem primarily from the standpoint of the economics of publication rather than the economics of research.

Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8).
ABSTRACT: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.

MC: "Could you please explain why T needs to reserve substantial reuse rights after the author or her funder has paid for the costs of publication?"

This question is valid -- but it is beside the point for the first and most important objective of the OA movement (still not reached in over a decade of trying), namely, immediate, permanent online access, free for all on the Web (i.e., Gratis OA).

T's Gratis Gold OA would provide that; but even if T provided Libre Gold OA, that would not be the fastest, surest or cheapest way to reach full OA -- by which I mean free online access to all 2.5 million articles published annually in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals. See the growth curves in Richard Poynder's "Open Access By Numbers."

Free online access is what research and researchers need most. Mandating Gratis Green OA self-archiving will provide just that -- and Gold OA, and as much Libre OA as researchers actually need and want -- will be not far behind.

But not if we keep over-reaching for Libre OA or Gold OA instead of providing and mandating Gratis Green OA.

MC: "If your response is that the article processing charge does not represent the full cost of publication, what charge would? Why aren't authors given the option to purchase full open access?"

Even the money to pay for Gratis Gold OA is still tied up in subscriptions, while subscriptions are still being paid for (and thereby paying for publication costs in full).

And mandating Gratis Green OA can provide free access at no extra cost, while subscriptions are still being paid for (and thereby paying for publication costs in full).

So why think about paying even more for Libre Gold OA today, when it's not at all clear that researchers want or need it -- whereas it's certain that they want and need Gratis OA (and they don't yet have it, even though it's fully within reach)?

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

The straw poll on whether or not to continue the American Scientist Open Access (AmSci) Forum (and if so, who should be the new moderator) is complete (the full results are reproduced at the end of this message).

The vote is for (1) continuing the Forum, under (2) the moderatorship of Richard Poynder.

The AmSci list has now been migrated to http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal where the BOAI list is also being hosted.

AmSci Forum members need not re-subscribe. All subscriptions have been automatically transferred to the new host site.

The name of the list has been changed to the Global Open Access List (GOAL) to reflect the fact that Open Access is no longer just an American or a Scientific matter. It has become a global movement.

The old AmSci Forum Archives (1998-2011) will stay up at the Sigma Xi site (indefinitely, I hope -- though we do have copies of the entire archive).

The new GOAL archive is at: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/

Stevan Harnad

---

Below are the complete results of Straw Poll on whether to continue the Forum, and on who should be the new moderator:

AGAINST CONTINUING AMSCI:

ARIF JINHA: I believe it would be better to have one forum, the BOAI. This forum has developed a doctrinal bias defined by the values and personality of its leadership. Though the leadership is to be commended for its credibility and vigour, it is not without its blind spots. It has not always OPEN to a diversity of perspectives. AMSCI is driven by assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing. The rush to conclusion on the right path is premature and overly authoritative in its expression, therefore it is alienating. In truth, we have only really got started with the web in the last 10 years and authority is completely flattened by the learning curve. The BOAI is much wider in its representation of Open Access alternatives, it is therefore more neutral as well as having a wider reach for the promotion of Green OA. It means less duplication and less work devoted to instant communication, giving more time to develop a rigorous and scientific approach to meta-scholarship in the digital age.

FOR CONTINUING AMSCI:

DANA ROTH: I would disagree with Arif Jinha, in that it is the 'assertive and competitive advocacy for mandates over Gold OA publishing' that make AMSCI such an interesting listserv.

SUBBIAH ARUNACHALAM: First, I wish to express my grateful thanks to Stevan for all that he has done so far, and in particular for moderating this Forum for so long and so well. That he will continue to devote much of his time to promoting open access and institutional repositories gives me strength to do the same. Second, if Richard Poynder agrees (or if we could persuade him) to moderate this list, there is nothing like it. The baton would have moved to safe hands. Not only he has the stamina of a long distance runner, but he is also endowed with the qualities needed for a moderator. He is knowledgeable and levelheaded. Welcome Richard!

DOMINIQUE BABINI: Discussions and ideas in this forum are also inspiring for regional OA forums and lists, e.g., the Latin America and the Caribbean Open Access List (LLAAR, in Spanish). Thank you, Stevan, for your dedication as moderator all these years, and especially for your new OA initiatives and ideas. Thank you for your Skype contribution at the OA Experts Meeting last week in UNESCO headquarters, where we missed you [in person].  I also support Richard Poynder as [new] moderator for this Forum. 

MICHAEL E. SMITH: I am in favor of continuing the list, and either of the people you mentioned as potential moderators would be good choices.

PAOLA GARGIULO: I also agree that the list should continue. I'm in favour or Richard Poynder as moderator. Hope you will continue to contribute.

PETER SUBER: If Richard is willing to moderate, I vote for him.  I second Alma's reasons why Richard would do well in this role.  I second Arthur's best wishes to you, and I second (or third) Barbara and Hélène's tribute to your work.  Finally, as the former moderator of SOAF and BOAI, I welcome you to civilian life.  It's amazing what one can do when one has more time to do it.

BERNARD RENTIER: I vote for Richard Poynder. The excellence of his critical and fair papers speaks for his designation. If he is willing to do that, I am sure he will be an outstanding moderator. And that this will let Stevan be even more tirelessly to the point in every debate!

TOM COCHRANE: The value of the Forum cannot be overstated. It has provided a unique service in assessing the events and health of OA developments. It would be a regressive step in several ways if it were to fall over. It is not too much to claim that its way of charting developments, alerting readers to new issues, identifying useful research and work on OA, and in your hands, reminding its readership of the main issues – all these have had a direct impact on practical developments. This has occurred to a degree that no single one of us – from whatever part of the world -  can comprehensively take in. But believe me, it has played a vital role. But individual workloads need to be shared, and we at QUT understand your reasoning. We are happy with the Richard Poynder suggestion.

ELOY RODRIGUES: I also support Richard Poynder for moderator. I strongly support the continuation of the AmSci Forum, and I regret your decision of stepping down as moderator (even though I understand your reasons, and I do hope that it will turn out the right decision for you, and your efforts for OA progress). Thanks for your tireless work for Open Access! All the best (from Rio de Janeiro, where I was also archivangilizing for ID/OA mandates, at the Portuguese-Brazilian OA conference).

KEITH JEFFERY: I am sorry it has come to this; you know I support your point of view and moderation does require correction of misconceptions as well as just posting. I wish the Amsci list to continue and Richard is, of course, an excellent choice as future moderator.

ANDREW A ADAMS: I am in favour of the forum continuing to operate. I feel Richard would make an excellent new moderator.

PIPPA SMART: I am in favour of the forum continuing and would be very happy for Richard Poynder to moderate.

MARC COUTURE: I definitely wish the forum to continue. I may be only the occasional contributor, but I've always been a very steady reader. As to you not being the moderator anymore, I think it's even a good thing, not because I share the opinion that a moderator should be neutral and discreet, but because it will spare you some precious time you could devote to useful purposes, OA-related or not. Note that I assume we will continue to benefit, in the forum, from the seemingly inexhaustible energy and the flawless, razor-sharp logic of our "weary" archivangelist.

BARRY MAHON: As a long time stirring stick in the OA (hard to know what word to use to describe it) world, and having crossed swords with both Stevan and Richard over the years, I have a heavy heart in accepting Stevan's decision but an uplift that Richard has volunteered. It will, I wish, go on....and I'll be there, or here, whichever is the more appropriate.

JEAN-CLAUDE GUÉDON: I also think this list should go on. And  having Richard or Thomas moderate is a good idea too.

BOB PARKS: Congratulations on stepping down. I hope it gives you more time to pursue OA!!! Either Krichel or Poynder would be a good moderator.  I fear that Krichel is over committed.

HEATHER MORRISON: Thanks very much for moderating the list all these years! I hope that the list will continue, and would support either Richard Poynder or Thomas Krichel as moderators.

SALLY MORRIS: The support for Richard as moderator of the continuing list seems clear. We really don't need to see all the messages - I thought that was the point of keeping them off the list?

THOMAS KRICHEL: I think it should continue, as it appears to be the largest and most active forum.  I volunteer to do it….  If Richard wants to do it, I'd be happy not to.

RICHARD POYNDER: Well I certainly vote for it to continue. I would even put my name down for the moderator's hat if it was felt appropriate for a journalist to run such a forum, and people believed I could do the job adequately

ALMA SWAN: I am writing to nominate Richard Poynder as the new moderator for the AmSci Forum. I think he brings the right qualities - amongst them honesty, fairness, intellectual curiousness and efficiency - and is hugely respected as an independent, critical thinker on the issues that AmSci covers. I want the Forum to continue because it is a real discussion list rather than a bulletin board…

HELENE BOSC: In memory of the remarkable work done by Stevan Harnad for Open Access through this list, during 14 years, I wish it continues... Richard Poynder would be a perfect moderator!

BARBARA KIRSOP: If Stevan feels he can better operate in support of OA not as the moderator, then it would be great indeed if Richard Poynder would adopt the mantle. I think AMSCI should continue. I am somewhat in favour of a name change to highlight OA rather than the US - a name change could be a mini-re-launch perhaps and bring in new contributors - a fitting tribute to Stevan's past efforts.

ARTHUR SALE: May I wish you the best as non-moderator. It is the right decision for you, I think. This may be a shock to you that I think that it is a plus, but I think we need to get new ideas into the OA transition, and you have done your bit and a lot more… and perhaps I can even convince you eventually that the Titanium Road is the way to go now! You will be bombarded with messages begging you to reconsider, but I do think it is the right decision. Then you can enjoy being yourself without constraint. No one person can bear the weight of the world, not even Atlas.

IRYNA KUCHMA: The AmSci Open Access Forum is an active discussion forum (SOAF and BOAI are more like the announcement lists) and my answer is (1) definitely to continue. It's sad that you've decided to step down as a moderator. I wish I could help you with moderating it, but I am travelling a lot and sometimes not able to moderate the BOAI on time…. Hope you will find the ways to continue.

EUGENE GARFIELD: When I think about Stevan Harnad another information pioneer comes to mind. The Belgian documentalist Paul Otlet. His collaborator Henri LaFontaine,  received the Nobel Peace Prize. That's the kind of recognition that Stevan deserves.

MICHAEL KURTZ: I liked that AMSCI reflected your point of view, I value that,
and expect I will always.  I hope I will always be able to discover
it, perhaps you will frequently post.

THIERRY CHANIER : First of all, I would like to deeply thank Stevan  for his  continuous work over these more than 10 years. This forum is a very important place where supporters of OA can find information, and share their actions. I would be happy if Richard Poynder becomes our moderator. As Barbara (Kirsop) put it : it may be time to change the name of our forum, forget the American qualifier in order  to reflect its international wider status.

TONY HEY: I think that Stevan must take some credit from the UK Government's decision to insist on open access to publications and data ... Well done Stevan and thanks for all your tireless proselytizing on behalf of open access!

Stuart Shieber's reply to Matt Welsh's worries about the Harvard Open Access policy is spot-on in every respect.

No one could be a more fervent well-wisher for the success of the Harvard OA policy than I am. But the crucial criterion for the success of an OA policy is how much OA it actually generates.

It is splendid that 95% of Harvard authors have not opted out of the copyright reservation clause. But what percentage have been complying with the no-opt-out deposit clause by actually depositing or providing a deposit-copy of their articles?

Stuart is certainly right that it is hard to imagine that providing the articles is "a huge pain." But is it clear to Harvard authors that they are required to do it?

Here are the relevant portions of the the FAS OA Policy:

I. Copyright Reservation Clause:

"Each Faculty member grants to the President and Fellows of Harvard College permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and to exercise the copyright in those articles….The Dean or the Dean’s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written request by a Faculty member explaining the need."

II. Deposit Clause:

"To assist the University in distributing the articles, each Faculty member will provide an electronic copy of the final version of the article at no charge to the appropriate representative of the Provost’s Office in an appropriate format (such as PDF) specified by the Provost’s Office."

Is it clear to Harvard authors that a formal opt-out from Clause I is not an opt-out from Clause II (i.e., that deposit must be done in any case)?

The answer to this question would be implicit in the annual percentage of Harvard's refereed research output that is actually being deposited in DASH. If that percentage does not approach or match the 95% non-opt-out rate for Clause I, then perhaps the contingencies need to be made a lot clearer.

Here's are four suggestions:

1. Place the Deposit Clause first, and state explicitly that there is no opt-out or waiver from this deposit requirement, only from the copyright-reservation clause that follows. All articles must be deposited in DASH. Access to those for which the Copyright Reservation Clause has been waived will be set as Closed Access instead of Open Access. (And, to prevent the deposit requirement from being a vague, open-ended one that can be left to be complied with in 2022, state explicitly that the deposit must be done immediately upon acceptance for publication.)

This clarification is all the more important, since universities are beginning follow Harvard's example by adopting the Harvard model as their OA policy: This makes it all the more crucial to make sure that the policy model is clear, understood, and actually works.

Here are the three further suggestions, that have both already been demonstrated to make an immediate-deposit (ID/OA) requirement more attractive and better complied with:

2. Designate deposit in DASH as henceforth the sole mechanism for submitting refereed research for performance review (the "Liège Model" OA mandate.)

3. Implement the automatized "email eprint request" Button in DASH, to allow individual users, via one click, to request a single copy of a Closed Access deposit for research purposes; the author can then likewise, via one click, fulfill or decline each individual request. This will help tide over research needs for embargoed deposits.

4. Provide download and citation statistics like IRstats to demonstrate for authors the benefits of depositing their articles.

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship

It is important to calculate what percentage of the total annual refereed journal article output of Harvard (participating Faculties) is represented by the c. 6457 deposits to date in Harvard's DASH Repository since adoption of Harvard's OA Policy?

That is the objective measure of the success of an OA policy, and hence of whether it provides a model ready for other universities to emulate -- or whether it still needs some tweaks (e.g., to make it more like the U. Liege ID/OA policy, which (1) requires immediate deposit with no waiver, (2) only requests (but does not require) that the deposit be made immediately OA, (3) designates repository deposit as the sole means of submitting journal articles for research performance review, and has generated 67,631 deposits to date).

The global baseline rate of making articles OA (without any OA policy) is about 20% (varying by discipline). The target is of course 100%. And about 60% is a benchmark, because that is the percentage of journals that already endorse immediate OA deposit (hence do not require Harvard-style rights retention in order to make deposits OA immediately).

It is extremely important to get a clear idea of exactly how well Harvard's policy is doing after nearly 4 years: If the deposit rate is near 100%, it is doing as well as or better than all other kinds of OA mandates. If it is close to 60%, that's still good, but it's not clear whether its rights-retention clause is the cause, or its deposit clause.

And if it's closer to 20%, then Harvard's deposit clause is not working and needs upgrading to ID/OA.

This is all the more important since it is the Harvard model that other universities are likely to follow, come what may.

Stevan Harnad
EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS)

In September 2011 the AmSci Open Access Forum went into its 14th year. I think I have been moderating the Forum long enough, and so I'm stepping down as moderator, effective the end of December.

Subscribers will vote on whether to continue the AmSci Forum or whether the other two OA Forums (SOAF and BOAI) are now sufficient to air views on OA.

I will of course remain active in OA and will be posting to the existing Forums (and AmSci, if it continues) and/or the OA Archivangelism blog whenever the spirit moves or the occasion calls!

Stevan Harnad

Re: "Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?" and "Wikipedian in Residence"

Just a small sample of the patently obvious and persistent fallacies in the notion that anonymous global cloud-writing can produce reliable information on anything that's more than skin-deep (I could go on and on and on):

(1) A neutral point of view on what is true?

(2) Expertise is no excuse?

(3) Expertise is elitism?

(4) Expertise is bias?

(5) Write on what you don't know?

(6) The longer your track-record of being a dilettante busybody, the more decision power you merit?

(7) Zipf's Law trumps the Matthew Effect?

(8) Notability, not noteworthiness, rules?

(9) Anonymous gallup polls, not personal answerability, keep people honest and on their toes?

(10) Crowd-sourcing protects against regression on the mean?

(11) Porifera is on a par with porn?

The surprise is not when Wikipedia gets things wrong, but when it gets them right.

(And the only virtue of notability is that it reduces the motivation of most wikipedia busybodies to bother with esoteric scientific and scholarly topics. Trouble is that it just takes one officious dilettante with a long wack-record to cast a contagious shadow of doubt over stuff he doesn't know, understand or care about.)

My guess is that the only reason any qualified experts even bother to have a go at writing in Wikipedia is Wikipedia's PageRank notoriety, which influences students and public opinion as their first (and often only) port of call.

The only hope is that Open Access to the primary scientific and scholarly literature will remedy that, leaving Wikipedia to rule where it really is the expert: Trivial Pursuit.

Stevan Harnad

Presented at:
Berlin 9 Open Access policy development Workshop
by:
Bernard Rentier
(Rector, U. Liege)
&
Paul Thirion
(Repository Manager, U. Liege)

PDF OF PRESENTATION

The decision to build an institutional repository at the University of Liège was taken in 2005. It took 3 years to prepare for a faultless start in November 2008. A strong communication campaign conveyed the Open Access concept to the ULg research community. A name was coined to personalise the concept : ORBi (Open Repository and Bibliography), suggesting an improved worldwide audience. A special effort in internal communication was devoted to acceptance of the mandate. It appeared essential to make it plain that ORBi would offer an unprecedented increase in readership, but that it would only be valuable if all ULg members would abide by the new rules.

Any mandate needs some coercitive persuasion. Rather than resting on advocacy, we linked internal assessment to the scientific output stored in ORBi. Those applying for promotion have no choice but to file all their publications in full text.

This created waves of progress.

Since then, evidence for a much increased readership (about double) has transformed the early participants into strong advocates of the repository. 68,000 items have been deposited, 41,000 (60,2%) with full text (only mandatory for documents published later than 2002).

According to ROAR, out of 1,568 Institutional Repositories (IRs), ORBi currently comes

27th for total number of deposits,

15th for « high activity level »
(deposit rates for multi-institution IRs) and

1st for « medium activity level »
(deposit rates for single-institution IRs: 10-99 deposits/day).

ORBi is now considered a success by almost all ULg faculty. Its advantages to individual authors have become a better incentive than the mandate itself.

In 2006, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM) became the 1st North American University to sign the Berlin Declaration on Open Access.

Since then, thirty two more North American Universities have so far followed suit.

But not all of the signatories have yet mandated Open Access -- and that's really the only thing that counts.

The rest is just apple-pie approbation in principle, until and unless it is put into practice, as spelled out at Berlin 3 in 2005 at the University of Southampton.

Dear colleagues,

They just keep coming, almost daily, pre-emptively spamming all the people we had been hoping to win over to Open Access.

Not only is it regrettable that OA is so unthinkingly identified in most people's minds with gold OA publishing in general, but this growing spate of relentless fool's-gold junk-OA spamming in particular is now coalescing with that misconception -- and at the same time more and more universities and funders are reaching into their scarce funds to pay for this kind of thing, thinking this is the way to provide OA.

(Meanwhile, green OA mandates, the real solution, are still hovering at about 200 out of about 10,000 (2%!) -- and mostly needlessly watered-down mandates. I wish I could figure out a way to turn this liability -- fool's-gold spam and scam -- into an asset for spreading green mandates, but I'm afraid that even Richard Poynder's critical articles are being perceived mostly as critical of OA itself rather than just of fool's-gold OA.)

The real culprits are not the ones trying to make a buck out of this current spike in pay-to-publish-or-perish/gold-fever co-morbidity, but the researchers themselves, who can't put 2+2 together and provide green OA on their own, cost-free; and their institutions and funders, who can't put 2+2 together and mandate that they do it.

Instead of thinking, it's easier to shell out for fool's gold...

Richard's exposés are helpful, but I think they are not enough to open people's eyes.

So all we can do is hope that the spamming itself will become so blatant and intrusive that it will wake people up to the fact that this is not the way to provide OA...

Stevan

PS Not only do I not work on anything faintly resembling "proteomics/bioinformatics" but I have no "relationship with OMICS Group" (except possibly prior complaints about spam)! These spam disclaimers are a lark. They seem to be using professional spam services that try to appear respectable.

---

From: "JPB"editor.jpb@omicsgroup.co
Date: October 28, 2011 4:29:28 AM EDT
To: "Stevan Harnad" 
Subject: Invitation for Special Issue: Journal of Proteomics Bioinformatics
Reply-To: editor.jpb@omicsgroup.co

You are receiving this email because of your relationship with OMICS Group. Please reconfirm your interest in receiving email from us. If you do not wish to receive any more emails, you can unsubscribe here
 
Journal of Proteomics Bioinformatics - Open Access

Dear Dr. Stevan Harnad, 

We are glad to announce the success of Journal of Proteomics Bioinformatics  (JPB) an Open Access platform for proteomics, bioinformatics research and updates. 

To provide a rapid turn-around time regarding reviewing, publishing and to disseminate the articles freely for research, teaching and reference purposes we are releasing following special issues. 

Upcoming Special Issues Handling Editor(s)

Domain-Domain Interactions Dr. Chittibabu (Babu) Guda, University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA
Microarray Proteomics Dr. Qiangwei Xia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Canonical approach: Moleculomics Dr. Lifeng Peng, Victoria University, China
Shifts and deepens : Biomarkers Dr. Kazuyuki Nakamura, Yamaguchi University, Japan
Membrane Protein Transporters Dr. Mobeen Raja, University of Alberta, Canada
Structural and Functional Biology Dr. Viola Calabró, University of Naples "Federico II", ITALY
HLA-based vaccines Dr. Mario Hugo Genero, Universidad Austral, Republica Argentina
Insulin Signaling Insulin Resistance Dr. Zhengping Yi, Arizona State University, USA
Proteomics for Cancer chemoprevention Dr. Imtiaz Siddiqui, University of Wisconsin, USA
Membrane Proteomics Dr. Yurong Lai, Groton Laboratory, Pfizer, Inc, UK
We would like to request a contribution from you for any of these special issues or regular issues of the Journal to improve the Open Access motto in this field. 

For more details PS : http://www.omicsonline.com/SpecialissueJPB.php 

Why to submit and benefits : http://www.omicsonline.org/special-features.php 

Submit your article online at : http://www.editorialmanager.com/proteomics/ 
                                                                                    (Or) 
As e-mail attachment to the Editorial Office :editor.jpb@omicsgroup.co 

We shall look forward to hear from you. 

Sincerely, 

Editors, Journal of Proteomics Bioinformatics 

Dr. Chittibabu (Babu) Guda, University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA 
Dr. Qiangwei Xia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA 
Dr. Lifeng Peng, Victoria University, China 
Dr. Kazuyuki Nakamura, Yamaguchi University, Japan 
Dr. Mobeen Raja, University of Alberta, Canada 
Dr. Viola Calabró, University of Naples "Federico II", ITALY 
Dr. Mario Hugo Genero, Universidad Austral, Republica Argentina 
Dr. Zhengping Yi, Arizona State University, USA 
Dr. Imtiaz Siddiqui, University of Wisconsin, USA 
Dr. Yurong Lai, Groton Laboratory, Pfizer, Inc, UK 

Editorial office 
OMICS Publishing Group 
5716 Corsa Ave., Suite 110 
Westlake, Los Angeles 
CA 91362-7354, USA 
E-mail:editor.jpb@omicsgroup.co 
Ph: +1-650-268-9744 
Fax: +1-650-618-1414 
Toll free: +1-800-216-6499 

Unique features: 
• User friendly/feasible website-translation of your paper to 50 world’s leading languages 
• Audio version of published paper 
• Digital articles to share and explore 
• 200 Open Access Journals 
• 10,000 Editorial team 
• 21 days rapid review process 
• Indexing at PubMed (partial), Scopus, Chemical Abstracts, Scholar, DOAJ, EBSCO, Index Copernicus and Google Scholar etc 
• Sharing Option: Social Networking Enabled 
• Authors, Reviewers and Editors rewarded with online Scientific Credits 

This message was sent... by editor.jpb@omicsgroup.co
Unsubscribe from all mailings 

Manage Subscription | Forward Email | Report Abuse

---

 

dlisbona-_Main_reading_hall_in_the_new_Alexandria_library.jpg">In "Open Access Doubts" Eric F. Van de Velde lists some doubts about open access (OA). There are very simple answers to each of Eric's doubts. The doubts arise mostly from a library-based rather than a research-based perception of the OA problem and its solution. There is only one doubt that is most definitely justified, though Eric has not expressed it: Researchers themselves -- even though they and their research are the primary losers because of access-denial, and the primary beneficiaries of providing OA -- are not providing OA in sufficient numbers until and unless it is mandated by their institutions and funders. That does raise some doubts, but not about the feasibility or benefits of OA -- only about the alertness of researchers to their own needs and the way to meet them.EV: Assessing the ongoing Open Access experiment, where are our doubts? I have three: Is Affordable Better than Free?Affordable is not better than free because even if journal subscriptions were sold at cost, with no profit margin at all, not all or even most institutions could afford to subscribe to all or even most peer-reviewed journals. The purpose of OA is to provide online access to all would-be users, not just to those whose institutions can afford a subscription to the journal in which it was published. Eric is conflating the journal affordability and the research accessibility problems.EV: A robust and user-friendly network of open scholarly systems seems farther away than ever because of inexpertly formatted content and bad, incomplete, and non-public (!) metadata. No, researchers are not being denied access to peer-reviewed research because of "inexpertly formatted content and bad, incomplete, and non-public (!) metadata" but because of content to which (a) their institution cannot afford access and (b) that has not been made OA at all. It is librarians who worry about formatting and metadata! Researchers worry about inaccessible content.EV: While there is always room for improvement, pay-walled journals provide professionally formatted and organized content with excellent metadata and robust services. The problem is cost. Unfortunately, we did nothing to reduce cost. We only negotiated prices. Cost is not the OA problem: Access-denial is. Lowering cost is a library's goal. Gaining access is the user's need. And even lowering prices to cost-without-any-profit does not remedy access-denial EV: The root of the problem is site licenses... Site licenses are market-distorting products that preserve paper-era business processes of publishers, aggregators, and libraries. No, the root of the problem is access-denial and the solution is access-provision. And the way to provide OA is for authors to self-archive their refereed final drafts ("green OA"). And the way to ensure that authors self-archive is to mandate it.EV: Universities can cut the Gordian knot right now by replacing site licenses with direct subsidies to researchers…Researchers, empowered to make individual price-value judgments, would become consumers in a suddenly competitive market for content and information services. Instead of mandating green OA (cost-free), cancel all subscriptions and give the funds to researchers, and the market will take care of the rest? Eric, when many of us are struggling to get something concrete and practical that has already been tried, tested, and proven effective -- namely, green OA mandates -- to be implemented by more institutions after 15 years of needlessly lost research access and impact, I don't think this is the opportune time to try or even contemplate rather speculative hypotheses! EV: What are the Goals of Institutional Repositories? Open Access advocates have articulated at least five goals for institutional repositories: (1) release hidden information, (2) rein in journal prices, (3) archive an institution’s scholarly record, (4) enable fast research communication, and (5) provide free access to author-formatted articles.If "release hidden information" (1) means provide online access to refereed research to which access is currently denied to users at non-subscribing institutions, then this is the one and only fundamental rationale for OA, and has been ever since the online era made it feasible. (But I'm afraid this might not even be what Eric means by "release hidden information"!)EV: The other four goals are secondary ones: If all refereed research is (green) OA, whether or not it reins in journal prices (2) is secondary, since all users have access, whether or not their institutions can afford to buy access. An institution's scholarly record is already "archived" in the journals in which is was published (3) (all of them are now online and archived at the publisher's toll-gated website). The trouble is that the institution itself has no record of its own research output. (Mandating green OA provides that.) OA doesn't just speed up research communication and progress (4), it maximizes research progress (by making it accessible to researchers who are otherwise denied access). That's not just speed: it's access and hence uptake, usage and impact. And the purpose of OA is to provide free access for all would-be users, whether or not their institutions can afford paid access to the publisher's version of record. Access to the author's refereed final draft (5) may sound like less than perfect for a librarian, but it is the difference between night and day for an otherwise access-denied researcher.EV: Institutional repositories are ideal vehicles for releasing hidden information that, until recently, had no suitable distribution platform (1). This is a profound error and misunderstanding: The fundamental reason for providing OA is to "release" published information that was only accessible to users at subscribing institutions rather than to all would-be users. It is not about information that had "no suitable distribution platform." (Although pre-refereeing papers, other kinds of research content, and even the "grey" literature are all welcome in repositories too, OA's first and foremost target content is refereed, published research.)EV: Institutional repositories fall short as a mechanism to rein in journal prices (2), because they are not a credible alternative for the current archival scholarly record. Eric is conflating "gold" OA publishing with green OA self-archiving here: Green OA is a supplement, not a substitute, for refereed research journals. No "credible alternative intended": just a remedy for access-denial. And the goal of OA itself is not to "rein in journal prices" but to provide online access for all users, not just the ones whose institutions can afford the journal prices. So Eric is again conflating the problem of journal affordability with the problem of research accessibility.EV: Without (2), goals (3), (4), and (5) are irrelevant. If we pay for journals anyway, we can achieve (3) by maintaining a database of links to the formal literature. Secure in the knowledge that their journals are not in jeopardy, publishers would be happy to provide (4) and (5).Without lowering prices, access-denial to users whose institutions cannot afford subscriptions is irrelevant? Keep paying their subscriptions and journals will provide access for those who can't afford to pay for it? Perhaps what Eric means is that if all subscribing institutions promised to keep paying the asking price in perpetuo, then journals would agree to make all their contents OA? But who would (or could) make such a (foolish) promise?EV: A scenario consistent with this analysis is unfolding right now. The HEP community launched a rescue mission for HEP journals, which lost much of their role to arXiv. The HEP community is the only one in the world that has already provided (green) OA for itself without the need for a mandate. Hence there is effectively no more access denial worldwide for the HEP subset of the journal literature. The HEP community has effectively solved its accessibility problem. What the HEP community does as a follow-up, to address the affordability problem, is of far less concern and relevance to the rest of the scholarly and scientific community, which is still afflicted with access denial (and its resulting loss in research usage, progress and impact). What the non-HEP world needs is OA. But it should be mentioned that the SCOAP3 project is effectively the one that I called into question above: No institution can or will guarantee that it will keep paying for subscriptions in perpetuo. So the jury is still out on whether such a scheme is sustainable. But we already know it is not scalable beyond HEP, because the non-HEP world has not yet even taken the first essential step, which is to provide green OA. That's why green OA mandates are needed. Publishing reform will take care of itself after OA has (green) become universal -- not before.EV: The SCOAP3 initiative pools funds currently spent on site-licensing HEP journals. This strikes me as a heavy-handed approach to protect existing revenue streams of established journals. On the other hand, SCOAP3 protects the quality of the HEP archival scholarly record and converts HEP journals to the open-access model.SCOAP3 is a consortial "membership" solution about whose sustainability and scalability there are, as noted, good reasons to have doubts. But it is irrelevant. Because HEP already has (green) OA, unmandated, whereas the rest of the scholarly and scientific world does not.EV: Are Open-Access Journals a Form of Vanity Publishing? If a journal’s scholarly discipline loses influence or if its editorial board lowers its standards, the journal’s standing diminishes and various quality assessments fall.Harnad, S. (2010) No-Fault Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or Delayed. D-Lib Magazine 16 (7/8). ABSTRACT: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. Harnad, S. (2011) Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving. Logos 21(3-4): 86-93 ABSTRACT:Universal Open Access (OA) is fully within the reach of the global research community: Research institutions and funders need merely mandate (green) OA self-archiving of the final, refereed drafts of all journal articles immediately upon acceptance for publication. The money to pay for gold OA publishing will only become available if universal green OA eventually makes subscriptions unsustainable. Paying for gold OA pre-emptively today, without first having mandated green OA not only squanders scarce money, but it delays the attainment of universal OA. EV: “Stevan: Remember, I am an OA supporter”Eric, I know (and an old friend and comrade-at-arms!)...EV: “though I am getting discouraged about the slow progress.”Me too (though I've been discouraged about that for about 15 years now...).EV: “You raise good points, but I think you are the one conflating issues. I will try to keep them separate. 1. Journal pricing: Independent of OA, it is important to take the cost of scholarly publishing down.”Independent of OA. (So who's conflating now? Your doubts were billed as being about OA, not about the cost of scholarly publishing...EV: “The argument I made in earlier blog posts is that site licenses are the root cause of the cost problem.”The affordability problem: not the accessibility problem.EV: “It is time for libraries to get out of the banal role of middleman, and let researchers manage their own subscriptions. You call that a speculative hypothesis. I call it restoring a real free market...”Speculative or non-speculative, it is not the research accessibility problem, and it does not solve it.EV: “I agree that Green Open Access would solve the access problem... provided everyone joins the initiative. The problem is, too few are joining”The way to get everyone to join is for all institutions and funders to mandate it.EV: “and because of quality control issues too difficult to use.”What is too difficult to use? I have no trouble using the OA content that's there. The problem is that most of it (85%) isn't there. That's why the mandates are needed.EV: “The mandate movement is getting some traction, but most mandates come with loopholes.”You're right, so now EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS) is working to guide institutions on how to optimize those mandates by getting rid of their loopholes: http://bit.ly/EOSoaPolicyEV: “So, I am getting discouraged. I wonder when patience runs out.”My patience ran out long ago! (For some perverse reason, I'm still plugging away at it...)EV: “We both agree that Green Open Access does not solve the cost problem of journals.”And it is not intended to. It is intended to solve the access problem of researchers.EV: “You say that journal prices do not matter with Green OA in place. I say they do, because universities end up underwriting two overlapping systems... Admittedly, Green OA is the better bargain. But if Green OA is not reducing the cost of the other, it just adds to the total cost.”1. Green OA's cost per paper deposited is negligible. With 100% deposit (because of 100% mandates), even lower. 2. Green OA, if mandated, can provide 100% OA, solving 100% of the accessibility problem. 3. The journal affordability problem is not the same problem, and we've agreed not to conflate them (remember?).EV: “In the one example in which Green OA is near universal [SCPAP3], scholars are working hard to make sure their journals can maintain their current revenue stream.”That's their problem and their look-out (because we've agreed not to conflate, right?). I've many times cautioned that SCOAP3 is premature, unnecessary, unscalable and unsustainable. But I don't care if I'm ignored: I'm too busy being ignored on how to solve the accessibility problem to worry about being ignored on how not to solve the affordability problem!EV: “There may be no explicit promise to maintain current subscriptions, but there certainly is an implicit one.”An implicit promise there are strong reasons to expect that they cannot and will not keep, in the long term: http://bit.ly/ScoapCope But, again, that's another problem, not my problem, not the accessibility problem.EV: “Current academics are scared to lose the formal scholarly record in its current form and the editorial boards that control the refereeing process.”Academics (and research itself) both need peer review. Journals provide the peer review. (In the online era, they need no longer provide access and the archival record, but they do that too. Eventually they won't have to.) But just as OA is not the journal affordability problem, it is not the problem of the future of publishing either. Green OA changes none of this: It just solves the accessibility problem.EV: “they are convinced that the journals in which they publish and on whose editorial boards they sit deserve to survive.”They are right.EV: “It is the other journals, the ones in which they do not publish and on whose boards they do not sit, that are too costly and should disappear.”This is a bit simplistic: Researchers want their quality journals, and they want the journals they read and publish in (all three are not always the same). Providing (and mandating) green OA does not change any of this (though it might eventually induce downsizing to peer review alone, and conversion to the gold OA model to recover peer review's much lower costs):Harnad, S. (2007) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In: The Culture of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age, pp. 99-105, L'Harmattan. ABSTRACT: 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.EV: “Free markets are set up to deal with exactly this kind of problem. The current system takes end users out of the price-value evaluation and has led to an unrestricted growth of the scholarly literature.”How have you managed to draw me into a discussion of journal pricing and affordability, Eric, when we had agreed we were not going to conflate that with the OA problem? ;>)EV: “So, by all means, continue Green OA. However, also bring a real free market to the scholarly-journal business.”But Eric, I'm also strongly in favor of putting an end to our unnecessary and cruel slaughter of animals in order to please our palates - but I don't conflate that with OA either! Why must I speculate about the scholarly-journal business when all I want is that institutions and funders should mandate green OA self-archiving? Stevan Harnad EnablingOpenScholarship (EOS)