More misinformation on repositories from ALPSP

Optimality, Inevitablity, and Conflicts of Interest

-- “[‘Romeo Green’ publisher] policies [endorsing author self-archiving] have benefitted both publishers and repositories. [They] would not have been voluntarily adopted by publishers otherwise.” --

Not quite: Many of the 94% of journals that are Romeo green became green because of Open Access (OA) self-archiving’s demonstrated benefits to research, researchers and the public that funds them (doubled research usage and impact), not because self-archiving also enhances journal visibility and impact factors, hence might benefit journal sales or submissions. Let us not forget that although the PLoS petition, which threatened to boycott journals that did not provide OA, failed (because publishers were understandably unwilling to convert to an untested publishing model), the will of its 34,000 signatories was nevertheless noted, and green self-archiving policies were partly the result.

The will of the research community is still being (understandably) monitored by the publishing community. It is being noted that only about 15% of researchers self-archive spontaneously, despite its demonstrated benefits. Research funders and institutions are now proposing to mandate self-archiving (just as they already mandate publishing itself), in order to maximize the benefits to researchers, their institutions, and the funding public. Publishers are trying to oppose those mandates, but again, there is ultimately no choice but to adapt to the will and interests of the research community (which includes researchers’ employers and funders).

The problem is that publishers are also trying (rather ineptly) to manipulate that will, by misrepresenting the research community’s interests, and that effort is bound to backfire sooner or later, to publishers’ historic discredit. It is not only natural for the research community to “put the interests of [its own] institution[s] and local community… first” but it is also in the interests of research productivity and progress, and the tax-paying public that funds them. Publishers would accordingly be far better advised to allow nature to take its course, toward the optimal and inevitable outcome for research, researchers and the public, and to prepare to adapt to it, rather than just trying to delay and waylay it. There is absolutely no doubt about which way any conflict of interest here (between the research community and the public on the one hand, and the publishing community on the other) will need to be resolved. Best not to argue with the inevitable.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum