Re: Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society

From: adam hodgkin <adam.hodgkin_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:38:39 +0000

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 thise-mail.  **********************************************************************
      **
Received on Thu Nov 24 2005 - 12:59:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:06 GMT