Stevan,
What I hope is that your approach turns out to be a stroke of genius. I
regret openly challenging it, because what you've done is make it very
difficult for them to retract what seems like allowing open self-archiving
or can at least be interpreted as such, without egg all over their faces. I
think that Phil and Jayne are really in a pickle.
Why I suggest expressing disappointment (or very strong disappointment,
perhaps) rather than bad faith, is that I believe that allowing it in the
first place, by mistake, in a message from a very senior member of staff,
doesn't quite amount to bad faith. Not even their muddled policy does.
Stupidity or naivety or ignorance maybe. But not bad faith.
Again, I hope that they feel that they have painted themselves in such a
corner that the only honourable way out is to unequivocally allow open
self-archiving. Even if they feel that they have to impose an embargo on
self-archiving for a few months (which is what I expect they might do). In
that case you've proved a genius of a psychologist. And let's hope you can
achieve something similar at the STM meeting. I already noticed that your
approach in Paris showed signs of playing the same game with Elsevier.
Success. I shall refrain from publicly expressing my doubt about the
intentions of publishers I know, and let sleeping dogs lie!
Best,
Jan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 19 February 2003 17:50
> To: Jan Velterop
> Cc: Peter Suber
> Subject: Re: nature
>
>
> > I'm sure a gentle reminder won't be seen as a harassment,
> particularly
> > not if done privately and discretely.
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> Ok, I'll do it right away.
>
> > By the way, I'm sending this just to
> > you and not to the list, because it may help you to know
> that the lawyer who
> > drew up the Nature licence is now working for us, and I
> have it from the
> > horse's mouth, so to speak, that the intention of the
> licence was certainly
> > not to allow open self-archiving.
>
> I am responding only to you and branching to Peter.
>
> Of course I had guessed that that was what they were thinking
> already! But
> I also know that there is no logical, legal or practical difference
> between "self-archiving on one's own institutional website" and "open
> self-archiving on one's own institutional website"! So
> regardless of the
> intention, the present license has formalized the right to
> self-archive on
> one's own institutional website! I was ambivalent about
> following Mike's
> and your direct challenges, because I knew that the only outcome could
> be to unmask the incoherence between what Nature have agreed in the
> license and what they are hemming and hawing about when they are sent
> queries about the meaning of the license from those innocents
> who don't
> realize that they can now self-archive on their own institutional
> website as they please. There are no more issues.
>
> I would be very disappointed (and in fact it would have been a *huge*
> strategic error on my part) if the outcome of my public query was that
> they come to *realise* that self-archiving and open self-archiving are
> synonymous, and as a result they rescind their licensing
> policy! I would
> then indeed be obliged (contrary to my own new policy of
> nonconfrontation)
> to make a very big public expose of what has happened, and why.
>
> I am still hopeful it will not be necessary. I will branch to you and
> the closed BOAI list the letter I now send Phil & Jayne.
>
> > The guy has now been brought across to the
> > right side of the divide, as it were, but obviously, I'd like this
> > information to be reasonably discrete. It's not secret, of
> course, but
> > there's no reason to have this inside information all over
> various lists, as
> > I'm sure you will agree.
>
> I will not mention it. I don't need to. It is transparent. The lawyers
> haven't the *faintest* idea what web self-archiving means, nor what it
> entails, and they are accordingly advising their clients to make
> distinctions on paper that have as much value as "you may do this with
> your left hand but not your non-right one"...
>
> Let me see whether I am a good enough psychologist (I am one by
> profession, but obviously a very *bad* one!) to put this to
> Phil & Jayne
> in a form that makes them *more* inclined to do the sensible
> thing, rather
> than *less.*
>
> > I agree with you that it is clarity we're after. That said,
> though, you
> > 'promised' Nature that if it looked like intentionally
> confusing the issue,
> > you'd openly accuse them of bad faith. Perhaps you want to
> reconsider that
> > and publicly just express disappointment once they respond
> to your open
> > question.
>
> I'm not sure why you make that recommendation. Perhaps you mean that a
> threat of exposing bad faith is a bad strategy for trying to
> induce them
> to act in good faith (in which case I agree). But do you really mean
> that if they continue to use untenable distinctions, refusing to
> clarify, or they actually rescind the license policy, that I should
> merely say I am disappointed, rather than mapping out exactly what
> happened, and why?
>
> You may be right, if there is a strategy behind that, but I
> need to know
> what the strategy is! On the fase of it, a mere expression of
> disappointment -- of course there are many very revealing ways to
> express disappoinment! -- would make it seem as if this sort of
> double-talk and double-dealing is acceptable!
>
> I really hope that is not the outcome, though, and if it is, I greatly
> regret not having let sleeping dogs lie (i.e., leave the perfectly
> adequate licensing policy alone, and not bothering with the fog that
> their advice office was trying in vain to obscure it with).
>
> > Unless they surprise me and do agree to open self-archiving, of
> > course. I'm ready to be surprised and I'll buy you a nice
> dinner whenever we
> > meet next if that happens. You need to know that the girl
> who originally
> > said that self-archiving was ok is very junior (she just
> made a mistake, and
> > I feel sorry for her), unlike Jayne Marks, who is equal to
> Phil Campbell in
> > the Von Holtzbrinck Verlag hierarchy and her words do count.
>
> But the fact is that the junior girl made a coherent, tenable
> interpretation, whereas Jayne merely reiterated the very fog I was
> trying to dispel!
>
> Well, on to the art of drafting my letter to Phil & Jayne...
>
> Chrs, S
>
> > Best,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> > > Sent: 19 February 2003 15:38
> > > To: 'bmanifesto_at_yahoogroups.com'
> > > Subject: Re: [Manifesto] Re: STM Talk in Amsterdam
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Jan, the last two replies are below. I didn't want to
> rush them,
> > > but do you think I should send a follow-up reminder? Remember, my
> > > goal is to induce a clear, logically tenable and benign outcome
> > > rather than to harass them into thinking they're better off
> > > withdrawing their new policy! Cheers, Stevan
> > >
> > > (1)
> > > From: Philip Campbell <P.Campbell_at_nature.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature
> > > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:04:00 -0000
> > >
> > > Stevan - I am just back from travel abroad. Either I or a
> publishing
> > > colleague will get back to you before long.
> > > Phil
> > >
> > > (2)
> > > From: Marks Jayne <j.marks_at_nature.com>
> > > To: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> > > Cc: "Campbell, Philip" <P.Campbell_at_nature.com>,
> > > "Ratner, Howard" <h.ratner_at_NATURENY.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Nature's author licence (corrected text)
> > > Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:39:25 -0000
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > This is proving to be a much more complex issue than we had
> > > first thought
> > > and some new perspectives on this were raised at a
> meeting that some
> > > of my colleagues attended on Wednesday. I would therefore
> > > like to take
> > > some more time to think through our options rather than
> > > jumping to a quick
> > > conclusion either way on this issue. I am sorry that you
> > > have had to wait
> > > so long for our reply but I want to make sure that this
> is considered.
> > >
> > > I will get back to you as soon as I possibly can.
> > >
> > > Jayne
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Jan Velterop wrote:
> > >
> > > > This reminds me. Have we ever heard back from Nature
> yet about their
> > > > copyright statement?
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> > > > > Sent: 17 February 2003 20:21
> > > > > To: Bob Parks
> > > > > Subject: [Manifesto] Re: STM Talk in Amsterdam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Bob Parks wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I agreed to present the 'Faustian Grip' or a version of it.
> > > > > > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/parks.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this is the lead session, we are preaching to
> the unconverted
> > > > > > in SPADES, no?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess your opening will be Peaceful Evolution and
> then I can
> > > > > > attempt to trash that (because the actors don't have the
> > > > > incentives).
> > > > > > Of course whenever I even think about the 'Grip' paper, I
> > > > > get depressed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, we are preaching to the unconverted here, but it's
> > > important that
> > > > > we don't give them a needless picture of discord.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since the 1997 paper that you extensively quote in that paper
> > > > > I have changed my position in one important respect that
> > > is critical
> > > > > to this STM meeting and to the connection between your
> > > paper and mine:
> > > > > I have of course remained unswervingly for open access
> > > throughout, but
> > > > > only lately have I become clearer on who/what is to blame and
> > > > > who needs
> > > > > to do what to remedy it.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the 1997 paper of mine from which you quote
> extensively in your
> > > > > "Faustian Grip" paper, I still imagined (as did many
> > > others) that the
> > > > > access problem was with the publishers, and that its remedy
> > > > > was with them
> > > > > too: That we, the research community, must somwhow force them
> > > > > to become
> > > > > open-access publishers. But I now realize that this is
> > > not necessary.
> > > > > The only thing that necessary is *open access* -- open
> > > access to the
> > > > > entire refereed joural literature. And this outcome is 100%
> > > > > in the hands
> > > > > of the research community provide. It does not depend on
> > > > > publishers and
> > > > > it does not require their all converting to open-access
> > > > > publishing, now,
> > > > > or perhaps ever.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence you and I are now in almost complete agreement.
> I am neither
> > > > > recommending nor predicting that journal publishers will
> > > convert to
> > > > > open-access publishing. *I don't care, and I don't need to
> > > > > predict!* What
> > > > > I -- along with the entire research community -- care
> > > about is open
> > > > > access, open access now, and open access to *all* of the
> > > > > refereed research
> > > > > literature -- all annual 20,000 journals-worth.
> > > > >
> > > > > You write:
> > > > >
> > > > > "we can (and in my belief will) have an
> equilibrium in which
> > > > > 'preprints' and 'working papers' are available to all
> > > for free,
> > > > > and journal articles are restricted to subscription,
> > > site license,
> > > > > or pay-per-view restrictions (S/SL/PPV)"
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no problem with a permanent or long-term
> > > co-existence between
> > > > > the open-access and toll-access versions of papers, and I see
> > > > > no reason
> > > > > to make a prediction or a commitment to open-access
> supplanting
> > > > > toll-access, eventually or ever (though I of course still
> > > believe that
> > > > > open-access publishing will eventually prevail). Once the
> > > > > entire refereed
> > > > > literature is openly accessible to any potential user whose
> > > > > institution
> > > > > cannot afford the toll-access version, who cares how long
> > > > > those who can
> > > > > afford it elect to continue paying?
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is one substantive point on which it is *very*
> > > > > important that we
> > > > > not be seen as diverging or disagreeing:
> > > > >
> > > > > You see the future equilibrium as being between self-archived,
> > > > > open-access preprints and toll access journal articles.
> > > Can I ask you
> > > > > please not to put it that way? Just as I cannot, and need
> > > not, predict
> > > > > whether open-access will supplant toll-access rather than
> > > > > just exist in
> > > > > equilibrium with it, you cannot, and need not, and should
> > > not, predict
> > > > > what proportion of the self-archived, open-access
> corpus will be
> > > > > unrefereed preprints (plus corrigenda) and what
> proportion will be
> > > > > refereed postprints. All I ask is that you amend that and
> > > call it an
> > > > > equilibrium between open-access eprints and toll-access
> > > > > journal article
> > > > > (without any prediction as to whether the eprints
> will be mostly
> > > > > preprints+corrigenda or postprints/reprints).
> > > > >
> > > > > Publisher policy on this is evolving in a very favorable
> > > > > and progressive direction, and we should do everything to
> > > > > encourage it, rather than the reverse (by making
> needless gloomy
> > > > > [depressed] predictions! The statistics are getting
> > > better and better:
> > > > > http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%
> > > > > 20Publisher%20Policies.htm
> > > > > and the objective is to help them keep improving
> rather than to
> > > > > inadvertently do the opposite by voicing needless pessimistic
> > > > > predictions!
> > > > >
> > > > > Since I wrote following passage that you quote from way
> > > back in 1997:
> > > > >
> > > > > HARNAD: "The scenario branches here for those
> > > publishers who do
> > > > > elect to change and those who don't: Those publishers
> > > who do not
> > > > > restructure themselves, who persist in trying to use the
> > > > > subscription
> > > > > or site license or pay-per-view model (S/SL/PPV) for cost
> > > > > recovery,
> > > > > especially if they attempt to use submission policy
> > > and copyright
> > > > > as a way of preventing their authors from publicly
> > > archiving their
> > > > > preprints and reprints, respectively (as many are
> > > doing now), they
> > > > > will simply lose their Editorial Boards, who will
> > > emigrate to the
> > > > > Web on their own, under user pressure (after all,
> > > they are us!),
> > > > > and will reconstitute themselves as electronic-only
> > > journals, with
> > > > > or without the old brand name, so as to recover the much
> > > > > lower page
> > > > > costs through author-end page charges, instead of
> > > S/SL/PPV, all of
> > > > > which block access to the reader."
> > > > >
> > > > > I have changed (or rather dropped) such predictions. I
> > > instead merely
> > > > > describe the possible contingencies, without any particular
> > > > > prediction (or
> > > > > interest) in which of them well eventually prevail:
> > > > > See:
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/harnad.html#B1
> > > > > Or:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence it is no longer necessary for you to write:
> > > > >
> > > > > PARKS: "I certainly would like to agree with this
> > > scenario but for
> > > > > reasons presented below, it will not happen. Publishers
> > > > > who persist
> > > > > in using the S/SL/PPV model will persist. Preprints,
> > > > > working papers,
> > > > > and even reprints which are dated may be available to all
> > > > > for free,
> > > > > but the current institution of academic review/journals
> > > > > will remain,
> > > > > as it has for physics."
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just fine. In fact, it is probably the most
> positive and
> > > > > reassuring thing we can both say to the STM publishers:
> > > An equilibrium
> > > > > will persist indefinitely. So let open-access evolve
> > > naturally through
> > > > > self-archiving! No need to fear it. No need to try to
> > > block it through
> > > > > restrictive copyright policies.
> > > > >
> > > > > But please don't do the opposite, namely, needlessly
> reinforce any
> > > > > residual publisher resistance to progressive copyright
> > > policies. Yes,
> > > > > the preprint+corrigenda strategy can get around those too,
> > > > > but why even
> > > > > imply that authors will need to resort to it? None of the
> > > > > authors of the
> > > > > 200,000+ papers in the Physics ArXiv ever did; nor did any of
> > > > > the authors in
> > > > > CogPrints, nor the other growing number of institutional
> > > > > Eprint Archives:
> > > > > See
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim-oai.htm especially
> > > > > "New Archives"
> > > > >
> > > > > Please let me know whether we see eye to eye on this. If
> > > we do, the
> > > > > "unconverted" will be able not only to see the light, but to
> > > > > welcome it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > >
> > > > > Stevan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > > ---------------------~-->
> > > > > Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
> > > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FpY02D/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/IHFolB/TM
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > -------~->
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > bmanifesto-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > __________
> > > > This email has been scanned for all viruses by the
> > > MessageLabs SkyScan
> > > > service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus
> > > service working
> > > > around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
> > >
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > __________
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > bmanifesto-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ---------------------~-->
> > Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/FpY02D/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/IHFolB/TM
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------~->
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > bmanifesto-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
Received on Wed Feb 19 2003 - 18:09:35 GMT