[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
I fully agree with Adam Hodgkin.
For even if what the Royal Society states in this paragraph were true
(which it is not), why is the Royal Society concerned by the commercial
side of academic and scientific publishing? As Stevan Harnad rightly
points out, Open Access relies on two different avenue to push its
agenda : self-archiving, about which the Royal Society should have
little to say (unless it wants to prevent it, but this would contradict
its own objectives) and OA journal publishing with their varying
business or subsidy models, about which the Royal Society, once again,
should have very little to say.
As a learned society that wants to optimize scientific communication,
the Royal Society would be better advised to meditate upon the reasons
why it wants to lock up scientific information behind some toll gating
device. Why should research results be locked up behind subscription
gates for twelve months? Rather than trying to second guess the motives
of some unnamed OA advocates (and then painting the whole OA movement
with a very broad brush), the Royal Society should go back to its own
foundations and really spend some time thinking about them. Perhaps it
will decide it is time to abandon them in favour of a new mandate :
conform to the norms of scientific publishers rather than those of the
scientists. A change in the name of the organization would then appear
to be in order: call it the Royal Society of scientific publishers...
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le jeudi 24 novembre 2005 à 12:38 +0000, adam hodgkin a écrit :
> I have read it again and on re-reading it still strikes me as an
> extraordinarily tendentious press release.
>
> This paragraph is particularly unfortunate:
> --------
> ...However, the Society believes that the approach of some
> organisations to the 'open access debate' is threatening to hinder
> rather than promote the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
> This is partly because some participants in the debate appear to be
> trying to pursue another aim, namely to stop commercial publishers
> from making profits from the publication of research that has been
> funded from the public purse. While some companies do appear to be
> making excessive profits from the publication of researchers' papers,
> this should not be the primary factor guiding future developments in
> the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
> --------
> I do wonder what fair-minded and open-minded Fellows of the Royal
> Society think of this representation of the argument of the proponents
> of Open Access? I know of no proponent of OA who thinks that the
> primary factor driving the OA movement is a concern to rectify a
> situation in which some publishers are making excessive profits (if
> this is true, and whatever it means).
>
> If the Royal Society is open-minded on OA it should make a fair
> representation of the case on both sides. If it is against OA it
> should explain why, and with less appeal to prevarication, uncertainty
> and muddle.
>
> Adam
>
> Adam Hodgkin
>
> On 11/24/05, Ward, Bob <Bob.Ward_at_royalsoc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Forum members who would rather read the text of the Royal
> Society's
> statement themselves, rather than relying on Stevan Harnad's
> misrepresentation of it, can do so at:
> http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3882
>
>
> Bob Ward
> Senior Manager
> Policy Communication
> Royal Society
> 6-9 Carlton House Terrace
> London
> SW1Y 5AG
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
> Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
> Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 04:14
> To: AmSci Forum
> Cc: Watson, Tim
> Subject: Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society
>
>
> NOT A PROUD DAY IN THE ANNALS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> The Royal Society's statement (below, with comments) is not
> only
> ill-informed, failing even to grasp what either Open Access or
> the
> proposed RCUK policy is about and for, but it is a statement
> for which
> the Royal Society (RS), a venerable and distinguished
> institution, will
> have profound reason to be ashamed in coming years.
>
> The RCUK proposed to require RCUK-funded -- i.e.,
> publicly-funded,
> tax-payer-funded -- research journal articles to be made
> freely
> available online to all those would-be users world-wide who
> cannot
> afford access to the journal in which they were published.
> This is
> called Open Access (OA) self-archiving; it is a supplement to
> -- not a
> substitute for -- the existing peer-reviewed journal
> publishing system.
> And it has already been practised, and has co-existed
> peacefully, with
> the journal system for over a decade and half now (for
> researchers have
> been self-archiving their articles for at least that long),
> even in
> certain areas -- notably some branches of physics -- in which
> 100% of
> the articles are being self-archived immediately upon
> publication or
> even earlier, and have been for years. The physics publishers
> -- the
> American Physical Society and Institute of Physics Publishing
> -- have
> both reported publicly that they have detected no subscription
> decline
> at all as a result of self-archiving.
>
> "we asked the American Physical Society (APS) and the
> Institute of
> Physics Publishing Ltd (IOPP) what their experiences have
> been over
> the 14 years that arXiv has been in existence. How many
> subscriptions
> have been lost as a result of arXiv? Both societies said
> they could
> not identify any losses of subscriptions for this reason
> and that
> they do not view arXiv as a threat to their business
> (rather the
> opposite -- in fact the APS helped establish an arXiv
> mirror site
> at the Brookhaven National Laboratory)." [IOPP has since
> established
> one too.]
> http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/
>
> So why is the RS objecting? Because they are mixing up what
> the RCUK
> *is* proposing to mandate -- which is Open Access (OA)
> self-archiving of
> articles published in conventional, non-OA journals -- with
> what it is
> *not* proposing to mandate, which is publishing in OA
> journals. (RCUK is
> merely offering to help cover author costs for publishing in
> OA journals
> if they wish to publish in OA journals.)
>
> This crucial distinction is completely clouded over in the RS
> statement,
> and the self-archiving mandate keeps being treated as if it
> were an OA
> publishing mandate. The result is a large number of rather
> shrill and
> intemperate non sequiturs that do the RS no credit, and will
> be recorded
> to its shame in the same annals of scientific publishing that
> saw the
> second scientific journal emerge from the same institution
> about 350
> years ago. (France's Journal des Scavans was earlier, and the
> French,
> to their credit, are not casting a shadow on its noble
> origins: The
> CNRS, INSERM, INRA and INRIA are all supporting self-archiving
> -- but
> perhaps they are closer to being the counterparts of the RCUK
> than the
> RS, which seems here to have lost contact completely with the
> primary
> raison d'etre of a learned society, which is to foster learned
> research.
> RCUK, CNRS and the rest have seen clearly that maximising
> research
> access in the online age maximises research progress,
> productivity and
> impact. The Royal Society seems to be able to do nothing but
> worry about
> something for which there exists no evidence whatsoever (and
> it is not
> clear whether it would be a bad thing even if there were
> evidence for
> it), namely, that self-archiving is tantamount to, or leads
> to, a
> transition to OA publishing.
>
> Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry into Scientific
> Publication (Mar
> 2004)
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3618.html
>
> "The Royal Society's contribution will, I believe, prove
> to be a bit
> of a historic embarrassment for that venerable
> institution, the
> first
> of the scientific journal publishers (along with the
> French [Journal
> des Scavans]). The RS's testimony is alas rather
> short-sighted and
> not
> very well-informed, and repeats many of the familiar
> canards about
> OA:
>
> http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/statements/StatementDetails.cfm?stat
> ementid=252
> http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/templates/press/showpresspage.cfm?file=510.txt
>
>
> The RCUK policy proposal is about research, and what is
> optimal for
> research and researchers. The Royal Society seems to feel its
> first
> allegiance is to publishers, and what is optimal for them. And
> so strong
> is this allegiance, that the RS does not even realise that it
> is
> drubbing Peter (self-archiving) to pox Paul (OA publishing),
> even though
> Paul is not what the RCUK is proposing to mandate.
>
> In this misinterpretation (whether wilful or merely woolly, I
> cannot
> presume to say) the RS is not alone. It makes common cause
> with other
> publisher lobbies (such as ALPSP and STM) as well as the UK
> Science
> Minister, Lord Sainsbury:
>
> "Drubbing Peter to pox Paul"
> Thursday December 2, 2004
> Guardian Education
> http://education.guardian.co.uk/higherfeedback/story/0,11056,1364556,00.
> html
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/43-guid.html
>
> "The Royal Society and Open Access"
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4196.html
>
> > From: "Watson, Tim" < Tim.Watson_at_royalsoc.ac.uk> NOT FOR
> PUBLICATION OR
>
> > BROADCAST BEFORE 00.01 GMT THURSDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2005 Royal
> Society
> > warns hasty open access moves may damage science
> >
> > Funders may be forcing scientific researchers to change the
> way they
> > publish scientific papers so quickly that disastrous
> consequences
> > could result, the Royal Society warns today (Thursday 24
> November
> 2005).
>
> The RCUK self-archiving mandate has absolutely nothing to do
> with the
> way researchers publish. They publish exactly as they always
> did. They
> merely maximise access to their publications, by
> self-archiving them, to
> maximise their usage and impact.
>
> > In a position statement on the open access debate, the Royal
> Society
> > welcomes advances in technology where the aim is to improve
> the
> > exchange of knowledge between researchers and with wider
> society . But
>
> > it calls for funders to undertake a proper study before
> making
> > researchers deposit papers about their work in open access
> journals,
> > archives and repositories.
>
> In conflating into what it is that RCUK is "making"
> researchers do "open
> access journals, archives and repositories," the RS
> effectively obscures
> what the mandate is about and for.
>
> What is being mandated is the deposit, in the fundee's
> institutional or
> central web archive/repository, articles published in
> *conventional* journals. There is no mandate to publish in an
> OA journal
> (and one does not "deposit" in journals).
>
> It is only this common-grave conflation that is giving even
> the
> appearance that the RS is making a coherent, let alone
> justifiable, case
> for its opposition to either Open Access or the RCUK proposal.
>
> > The statement concludes: Careful forethought, informed by
> proper
> > investigation of the costs and benefits, is required before
> > introducing new models that amount to the biggest change in
> the way
> > that knowledge is exchanged since the invention of the
> peer-reviewed
> > scientific journal 340 years ago. Otherwise the exchange of
> knowledge
> > could be severely disrupted, and researchers and wider
> society will
> > suffer the resulting consequences.
>
> No "new model" is being introduced (and certainly not the OA
> publishing
> model); years of informed investigation have already gone on
> (but the RS
> appears too concerned about hypothesised risks to its
> publishing
> revenues to even pay attention and get it clear what is
> actually being
> proposed); and all evidence is that what *is* being proposed
> -- which is
> the self-archiving of all research journal articles resulting
> from RCUK
> funded research -- will bring great benefits to research,
> researchers,
> their institutions, their funders, and the tax-paying public
> that is
> funding the funders and for whom the research is being done.
>
> The RS seems preoccupied with only one thing: A hypothetical
> risk (for
> which there exists no evidence) to the revenue streams of the
> publishers
> of that research.
>
> > The statement points out a number of problems that could
> arise from
> > rushing towards untried and untested models which have not
> been shown
> > to be sustainable and which could force the closure of
> existing
> > peer-reviewed journals.
>
> To repeat: No models are being mandated; self-archiving has
> been tried
> and tested for a decade and half, has already reached 100% in
> several
> subareas of physics years ago, and has not diminished
> publishers'
> revenues at all.
>
> OA publishing and the OA publishing model are not being
> mandated. This
> is pure conflation, as well as counterfactual speculation
> (about dire
> consequences for which there exists nothing but contrary
> evidence).
>
> "Journal Publishing and Author Self-Archiving: Peaceful
> Co-Existence
> and Fruitful Collaboration"
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/20-guid.html
>
> "Maximising the Return on the UK's Public Investment in
> Research"
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html
>
> > It adds: At least a third of all journals are published by
> > not-for-profit organisations. The Royal Society and other
> learned
> > bodies currently use their publishing surpluses to fund
> activities
> > such as academic conferences and public lectures, which are
> also
> > crucial to the exchange of knowledge. A loss of income by
> > not-for-profit publishers would lead to a reduction in, or
> cessation
> > of, these activities.
>
> Is the RS then proposing that the activities that it funds
> with its
> publishing surpluses should be subsidised by researchers' lost
> research
> impact?
>
> > The statement stresses that some funders want to force all
> researchers
>
> > in all disciplines to adopt the same practice, without
> recognising
> > crucial differences that exist across the range of
> scientific
> > disciplines.
>
> The practice in question is self-archiving, not OA publishing.
> And it
> would be very useful if the RS were to point out which
> disciplines do
> *not* benefit from maximising their the usage and impact of
> their
> research output, and why.
>
> > It states: Current practice in the publication of research
> results
> > varies from discipline to discipline and from country to
> country. That
>
> > is why publication practices vary across science and across
> the world.
>
> > A young post-doctoral researcher in mathematics at an
> Ethiopian
> > university has different needs and different means compared
> with an
> > established senior research fellow in pharmacology at a UK
> company s
> > laboratory. Increasing proportions of papers have authors
> from more
> > than one discipline or more than one country. A
> one-size-fits-all
> > model is unlikely to benefit everybody, and may cause
> significant
> problems.
>
> This is all supremely irrelevant. None of this is touched by
> RCUK's
> proposed self-archiving mandate. There is no model, and
> certainly not
> the OA publishing model that the RS is obsessed with fending
> off here.
> At issue is a *practice*, a new one, born of the Web era and
> the new
> possibilities it has opened up for research access and usage,
> and that
> practice is to supplement the access that is already enjoyed
> by
> researchers to the publisher's proprietary version of articles
> in the
> journals that their institutions can afford (most institutions
> can
> afford only a small fraction, none can afford most or all),
> with access
> to the self-archived author's draft for those who cannot
> afford access
> to the publisher's proprietary version -- in order to maximise
> research
> usage and impact.
>
> None of this knows either disciplinary or national
> differences:
> maximising research access by supplementary self-archiving
> maximises
> research impact everywhere, and in every field -- and a wealth
> of
> growing studies is repeatedly confirming this:
>
> http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html
>
> > The worst-case scenario is that funders could force a
> rapid change
> > in practice, which encourages the introduction of new
> journals,
> > archives and repositories that cannot be sustained in the
> long term,
> > but which simultaneously forces the closure of existing
> peer-reviewed
>
> > journals that have a long-track record for gradually
> evolving in
> > response to the needs of the research community over the
> past 340
> > years. That would be disastrous for the research
> community.
>
> Again, this is a wholesale conflation of self-archiving with
> OA
> publishing, and counterfactual speculation about a disaster
> scenario
> that all existing evidence to date contradicts.
>
> > The statement highlights the Royal Society s concern that
> the approach
>
> > of some organisations to the open access debate is
> threatening to
> > hinder rather than promote the exchange of knowledge between
> researchers .
>
> There is not the slightest hint that self-archiving in
> particular, nor
> those who promote it, hinder the exchange of knowledge; but
> there is
> plenty of face-valid evidence that blinkered efforts like the
> RS's to
> oppose self-archiving hinder the exchange of knowledge between
> researchers hugely.
>
> > It continues: This is partly because some participants in
> the debate
> > appear to be trying to pursue another aim, namely to stop
> commercial
> > publishers from making profits from the publication of
> research that
> > has been funded from the public purse. While some companies
> do appear
> > to be making excessive profits from the publication of
> researchers
> > papers, this should not be the primary factor guiding
> future
> > developments in the exchange of knowledge between
> researchers.
>
> The Gaussian distribution is such that it guarantees
> participation from
> its extrema in any large enough population (and the OA
> movement is a
> large, global one): But the RCUK merely proposes to mandate
> that
> researchers self-archive their RCUK-funded research to
> maximise its
> access and impact, and the RS detects a concerted attack on
> publishers'
> profits.
>
> (It is true that librarians have been making a lot of
> [justifiable]
> noise about the high price of journals. But self-archiving is
> by and for
> research and researchers and has nothing to do with attacks on
> publishers, commercial or royal!)
>
> > The full text of the position statement follows. The Royal
> Society is
> > also publishing today its response to RCUK s proposals on
> open access
> .
> >
> > NOTES FOR EDITORS
> >
> > 1. The Royal Society is an independent academy
> promoting the
> > natural and applied sciences. Founded in 1660, the Society
> has three
> > roles, as the UK academy of science, as a learned Society,
> and as a
> > funding agency. It responds to individual demand with
> selection by
> > merit, not by field. The Society s objectives are to:
> > * strengthen UK science by providing support to
> excellent
> individuals
> > * fund excellent research to push back the frontiers of
> knowledge
> > * attract and retain the best scientists
> > * ensure the UK engages with the best science around the
> world
> > * support science communication and education; and
> communicate and
>
> > encourage dialogue with the public
> > * provide the best independent advice nationally and
> internationally
> > * promote scholarship and encourage research into the
> history of
> > science For further information contact:
> >
> > Tim Watson or Bob Ward
> > Press and Public Relations
> > The Royal Society, London
> > Tel: 020 7451 2508/2516 Mobile: 07811 320346
> >
> > Royal Society position statement on open access
> >
> > One of the founding purposes of the Royal Society in 1660
> was to
> > promote the exchange of knowledge between scholars. Fellows
> of the
> > Royal Society introduced the practice of scientists
> independently
> > evaluating each other s work, a practice now known as peer
> review, and
>
> > in 1665 established the first peer-reviewed scientific
> journal,
> > Philosophical Transactions , which the Society still
> publishes today.
> >
> > The Society remains as committed now as it was when it was
> founded to
> > promoting the exchange of knowledge,
>
> I would say that the stance of the RS on the RCUK's proposed
> self-archiving mandate belies either the RS's commitment to
> promoting
> the exchange of knowledge, or its own grasp of what it is
> doing, why.
>
> > not just between scholars, but with
> > wider society. The Society carries this out through
> lectures,
> > meetings, conferences and publications, including seven
> peer-reviewed
> journals.
> >
> > Recent technological advances are leading to dramatic
> changes in the
> > exchange of knowledge, and particularly the publication of
> journals.
> > One of the most important changes is the publication of
> articles and
> > papers on the world wide web, rather than solely in the form
> of
> > printed journals. Most journals now have electronic versions
> on the
> > world wide web and this has increased access to scientific
> papers.
>
> Why are we being told these pious period platitudes?
>
> And another conflation is creeping in: Virtually all the major
> journals
> now have both print and online editions: Is that what is meant
> by
> "publishing on the web"? Or does it mean online-only journals
> (there are
> a few)? Or OA journals? Or is it being conflated with the web
> self-archiving of published journal articles (irrespective of
> whether
> the journals were paper-only, paper and online, as most are,
> or online
> only)?
>
> This is pure equivocation, in the service of blurring the
> distinction
> between OA self-archiving and OA publishing.
>
> > Further advances in technology, and the growth in the use of
> the
> > internet, has now prompted a wider debate about access to
> research
> > results. Among the issues is whether publication on the
> world wide web
>
> The equivocation again: What is this? The dual publishing that
> most
> journals already practice? Or OA publishing? Or OA
> self-archiving (which
> is *no* kind of publishing)?
>
> > might allow even more people both within and outside the
> research
> > community to access research results if they were allowed to
> do it
> > free of charge rather than have to pay for subscriptions to
> journals.
> > A number of different sources of access through the world
> wide web are
>
> > currently in development, commonly referred to under the
> collective
> > term of open access.
>
> It would be nice to clearly and forthrightly distinguish the
> two main
> ones of them: OA self-archiving (of articles published in
> conventional
> journals) and publishing in OA journals. Otherwise the
> "collective term"
> becomes a common-grave, marked "OA publishing" (conflating
> Peter and
> Paul).
>
> > The Royal Society welcomes the exploration of these new
> developments
> > where the aim is to improve the exchange of knowledge
> between
> > researchers and with wider society. At present, all papers
> appearing
> > in Royal Society journals can be accessed free of charge 12
> months
> > after their publication.
>
> That's splendid, But research progress does not wait 12 months
> to to
> access, apply, and build upon published findings: Why should
> published
> findings wait 12 months to be used by those who cannot afford
> access?
> What is the RS's justification for this 12-month embargo on
> research
> access and impact? That that lost research impact is needed
> to
> subsidise the RS's other activities? That's a good
> justification for the
> RS not becoming an OA publisher, but what sort of
> justification is it
> for the RS's attempt to prevent (immediate) OA self-archiving
> by RCUK
> fundees?
>
> > However, the Society believes that the approach of some
> organisations
> > to the open access debate is threatening to hinder rather
> than promote
>
> > the exchange of knowledge between researchers. This is
> partly because
> > some participants in the debate appear to be trying to
> pursue another
> > aim, namely to stop commercial publishers from making
> profits from the
>
> > publication of research that has been funded from the public
> purse.
> > While some companies do appear to be making excessive
> profits from the
>
> > publication of researchers papers, this should not be the
> primary
> > factor guiding future developments in the exchange of
> knowledge
> > between researchers.
>
> As noted above, the RS is here conflating (1) the librarian
> community's
> struggle against high journal prices with (2) the movement for
> a
> transition to OA publishing as well as (3) the RCUK
> self-archiving
> mandate (which has nothing to do with either the librarians'
> struggle to
> lower journal prices (1) nor the OA publishing advocates'
> efforts to
> effect a transition to OA publishing (2). It is only about
> maximising
> the impact of RCUK-funded research (3).
>
> > The process of disseminating research results through
> peer-reviewed
> > papers costs time and money. Authors must invest time in
> preparation
> > of the paper, and in some cases must pay journal charges for
> > typesetting and other services. Journals incur charges
> through the
> > process of reviewing papers and then publishing those that
> are
> > accepted. Journals recover these costs primarily by
> charging
> > subscription fees, and occasionally through sponsorship and
> selling
> > advertising space. Most journals make profits for commercial
> > publishers, and surpluses for academic publishers, such as
> learned
> > societies and professional associations, which are invested
> in
> science-related charitable activities.
>
> Why are we being told this? This is not about changing
> publishing
> models, it is about maximising research access.
>
> > Some of the new models for publishing papers on the world
> wide web
> > involve charging authors for the submission and/or
> publication of
> > papers, but not charging anybody for access to the papers.
> Some of
> > these author-pays models are in the form of open access
> journals which
>
> > still carry out the reviewing and publishing process. A
> number of
> > journals operating on these author-pays models have now been
> launched.
>
> And they have absolutely nothing to do with the RCUK
> self-archiving
> mandate.
>
> > Other models include online repositories and archives for
> electronic
> > versions of papers that are deposited by authors themselves.
> Not all
> > of these papers have been subjected to a quality control
> process, such
>
> > as peer review and acceptance for publication by a journal.
> Some
> > authors choose to deposit papers in online archives and
> repositories
> > without submitting to journals for peer review or waiting
> until they
> > have completed peer review.
>
> This too is completely irrelevant. The RCUK is mandating the
> self-archiving of peer-reviewed, published journal articles.
> Whatever
> else researchers may or may not choose to self-archive is none
> of the
> RCUK's business, or the RS's. Why is it being cited here? To
> conflate
> journal article self-archiving with the self-archiving of
> wedding photos
> and vanity texts?
>
> > For many of these new models, it is assumed that the charges
> levied on
>
> > authors cover the costs of reviewing and publishing, and do
> not create
>
> > a profit or surplus for the publisher. A number of web-based
> open
> > access journals, repositories and archives currently exist,
> having
> > been developed in specific disciplines. No overall survey of
> their
> > success has been carried out, and although some appear to be
> working
> > quite well (such as the arXiv archive for papers in physics,
> > mathematics, non-linear science, computer science, and
> quantitative
> > biology), others appear to be having trouble balancing the
> books and
> > their long-term survival is not ensured.
>
> What on earth does the longevity of an archive have to do with
> the
> longevity of a journal, OA or otherwise? In 350 years, is the
> RS going
> to look back with pride on this self-interested double-talk?
>
> > Ultimately the long-term success of any journal, repository
> or archive
>
> > will depend on whether researchers use it for publishing and
> accessing
>
> > papers, and whether it can balance the books.
>
> The RS's self-induced and groundless anxieties about the
> future of its
> own account-books has made it conflate publishing expenses and
> institutional repository expenses: Does the RS wish to reckon
> in web
> infrastructure costs and research staff life insurance too?
>
> > However, pressure is being applied by some funders,
> particularly in
> > biomedicine, who are lobbying for a substantial increase in
> the pace
> > at which web-based open access journals, repositories and
> archives are
>
> > being developed, with the emphasis on immediate open access,
> and who
> > are promoting the idea that all research results in all
> fields should
> > be published in this way. As a result, the Royal Society
> believes that
>
> > there is a lack of consideration of the potential impact of
> the open
> > access models, and there is a danger that the overall aim of
> improving
>
> > the exchange of knowledge between researchers and with wider
> society
> > will not be realised.
>
> The RS is here doing battle against the advocates of OA
> publishing. It
> would be a good idea to leave advocates of OA self-archiving
> out of
> this. It's not the same battle.
>
> > Among the potential dangers are that researchers will stop
> submitting
> > papers or subscribing to existing journals, particularly if
> they
> > choose only to deposit papers in repositories and archives.
>
> There is zero evidence for submission loss as a result of
> self-archiving, just as there is zero evidence for
> subscription loss.
> These are counterfactual fantasies being proposed as if all
> the evidence
> to the contrary from over a decade and a half of
> self-archiving did not
> exist to refute them.
>
> > If many journals
> > cease to exist, without any guarantee that open access
> alternatives
> > will offer the same range of options, for instance in terms
> of serving
>
> > all sub-disciplines, the opportunities for publishing
> research results
>
> > might diminish.
>
> We get deeper and deeper into a counterfactual conditional
> argument
> here, and one not only contrary to all evidence but contrary
> to logic,
> in treating (1) OA publishing and (2) author OA self-archiving
> of
> articles published in non-OA journals as if both were OA
> publishing.
>
> > If existing journals suffer a reduction in income from
> subscriptions,
> > this could have a severely detrimental effect on learned
> societies and
>
> > professional associations which invest their publishing
> surpluses in
> > activities and services for the research community. At least
> a third
> > of all journals are published by not-for-profit
> organisations. The
> > Royal Society and other learned bodies currently use their
> publishing
> > surpluses to fund activities such as academic conferences
> and public
> > lectures, which are also crucial to the exchange of
> knowledge. A loss
> > of income by not-for-profit publishers would lead to a
> reduction in,
> > or cessation of, these activities.
>
> First, the doomsday scenario is counterfactual speculation.
> Second, does
> the RS really believe that it serves the interests of research
> and
> researchers if it expects them to knowingly subsidise the RS's
> surpluses
> and activities with their own continuing impact losses?
>
> > Few of the proposed new models for open access publishing
> appear to
> > have been properly assessed financially and shown to be
> sustainable.
> > Although many are being set up initially with grants, it is
> not clear
> > that they could continue to operate for any length of time.
> The
> > introduction and then loss of new open access publications
> could
> > result in an overall reduction in the opportunities for
> researchers to
> publish their results.
>
> We are clearly in the midst of an attack by the RS on OA
> publishing
> here:
> Why? Or, rather, why has OA self-archiving been dragged into
> it?
>
> > One cost, both financially and in terms of the time invested
> by
> > members of the research community, that will exist for any
> model is
> > the process of peer review. Without high quality peer review
> as a
> > quality control mechanism and process through which papers
> are
> > improved before publication, the exchange of knowledge
> between
> > researchers would be greatly hampered. Any viable new open
> access
> > model must adequately cover the costs of high quality,
> independent
> peer review.
> >
> > Although much concern has been expressed about the profits
> gained by
> > commercial publishers from the results of publicly-funded
> research
> > under current practices, it is not often clear whether new
> models will
>
> > deliver better value for money. New models that rely on
> public funds
> > to operate open access journals or repositories could even
> cost the
> > public purse more overall if they operate less
> cost-effectively and
> > efficiently than existing alternatives.
>
> Again, this argument against OA publishing (much of it easily
> answerable
> by OA publishing advocates) is being levied in the same breath
> against
> OA self-archiving ("or repositories"). Why? Drubbing Peter to
> pox
> Paul...
>
> > Furthermore, models in which researchers are charged to
> submit or
> > publish papers introduce a new disincentive to the exchange
> of
> > knowledge. Such financial barriers will be more acute for
> researchers
> > with the least amount of funds, such as those at the very
> early or
> > late stages of their careers or in developing countries. One
> > consequence might be that the primary criterion for
> publication of
> > results may become whether they are produced by researchers
> who can
> > pay, rather than whether they are of wide interest to the
> rest of the
> research community.
> > A move towards a system that relies mainly on ability to pay
> rather
> > than quality would profoundly undermine the exchange of
> knowledge.
> >
> > Current practice in the publication of research results
> varies from
> > discipline to discipline and from country to country. That
> is why
> > publication practices vary across science and across the
> world. A
> > young post-doctoral researcher in mathematics at an
> Ethiopian
> > university has different needs and different means compared
> with an
> > established senior research fellow in pharmacology a UK
> company s
> > laboratory. Increasing proportions of papers have authors
> from more
> > than one discipline and more than one country. A
> one-size-fits-all
> > model is unlikely to benefit everybody, and may cause the
> significant
> problems outlined above.
>
> Does any discipline or country differ from the rest in that it
> would
> *not* benefit from maximising its research access and impact?
> If the
> answer is no (as all evidence indicates), why, again, is this
> rhetorical
> question being asked -- insofar as OA self-archiving is
> concerned?
>
> > The worst-case scenario is that funders could force a rapid
> change in
> > practice, which encourages the introduction of new journals,
> archives
> > and repositories
>
> Here goes the tireless conflation again...
>
> > that cannot be sustained in the long term, but which
> simultaneously
> > forces the closure of existing peer-reviewed journals that
> have a
> > long-track record for gradually evolving in response to the
> needs of
> > the research community over the past 340 years. That would
> be
> > disastrous for the research community.
>
> The counterfactual disaster scenario again: Like Pascal's
> Wager: "Do it
> my way, as I have conjectured apocalyptic consequences
> otherwise."
> (Should we not be making decisions based on objective evidence
> rather
> than subjective scare-mongering, at mounting decibel levels?
>
> > In view of this, the Royal Society welcomes an open debate
> between
> > funders, researchers, institutions and publishers (both
> commercial and
> > not-for-profit) about, the likely consequences of new models
> for the
> > publication of research results, before they are introduced.
> To inform
>
> > discussion, the Royal Society recommends a thorough study of
> proposed
> > new models, including an assessment of the likely costs and
> benefits
> > to all. Funders should resist the temptation to act before
> being
> > informed by such a study, and should not introduce policies
> that force
>
> > researchers to adopt new models that are untried and
> untested. In
> > considering new models, funders should remember that the
> primary aims
> > should be to improve the exchange of knowledge between
> researchers and
>
> > wider society.
>
> The RCUK is not forcing any new models! Models can be studied
> at
> everyone's leisure. What should not be held up by this is
> something that
> has nothing to do with it: immediately maximising research
> access and
> impact by mandated self-archiving. That has already been
> demonstrated to
> work, and to deliver the benefits promised, with no evidence
> to date of
> any untoward consequences for anyone, including publishers.
>
> > Careful forethought, informed by proper investigation of the
> costs and
>
> > benefits, is required before introducing new models that
> amount to the
>
> > biggest change in the way that knowledge is exchanged since
> the
> > invention of the peer-reviewed scientific journal 340 years
> ago.
> > Otherwise the exchange of knowledge could be severely
> disrupted, and
> > researchers and wider society will suffer the resulting
> consequences.
>
> No new models are being proposed, hence no grounds whatsoever
> have been
> adduced by the RS for opposing what *is* being proposed: OA
> self-archiving (Peter, not Paul).
>
> Stevan Harnad
> Professor of Cognitive Science
> Department of Electronics and Computer Science
> University of Southampton
> Highfield, Southampton
> SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM
> phone: +44 23-80 592-388
> fax: +44 23-80 592-865
> harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
>
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and
> may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only
> for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above
> as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or
> otherwise use the information contained in this
> e-mail. *************************************************************************
>
>
>
--
Dr. Jean-Claude Guédon
Dept. of Comparative Literature
University of Montreal
PO Box 6128, Downtown Branch
Montreal, QC H3C 3J7
Canada
[ Part 2, "This is a digitally signed message part" ]
[ Application/PGP-SIGNATURE 196bytes. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
Received on Fri Nov 25 2005 - 09:27:04 GMT