Running a business (or a scholarly society) usually entails trying to
anticipate future developments. A 'laissez-faire' attitude is a pretty
sure way to bankruptcy. That's why OA publishing should be embraced by
those who do not wish to risk waiting for the evidence of their demise to
accumulate.
Jan Velterop
Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:
> I'm afraid Stevan is wrong.
>
> There is evidence (e.g. from Institute of Physics and
London Mathematical
> Society) that where a journal's content is totally (or
almost totally)
> present - even in preprint form - in a repository, usage
tends to migrate
> away from the publisher's site.
That's online *usage,* not *subscriptions* (and it's an
extremely good
thing, for research and researchers). Sally, please do let me
know if
and when you ever have any evidence at all that
self-archiving reduces
subscriptions (at all -- let alone significantly, or
catastrophically,
as heralded in the endless evidence-free doomsday scenarios
we kept
hearing by way of opposition to a self-archiving mandate,
until the
opposition started dying down a few months ago -- for lack, I
like to
think, of any empirical, logical, ethical or practical
plausibility to
any but those who were raising alarums...)
> There is also evidence (e.g. from our recent survey of
librarians) that
> usage is an important factor in cancellation decisions.
No doubt. But until/unless you have evidence that
self-archiving causes
cancellations, this is all just hypothesis. There are *many*
important
factors in cancellation decisions. The trick is to show
whether the
re-channeled online usage has actually had any weight in
cancellation
decisions. Librarians and researchers alike have been saying
not: Any
data?
> It does not therefore take a high-energy physicist (or a
cognitive
> scientist!) to work out that (a) is highly likely to lead
to (b).
Nor does it require a high-energy physicist to work out that
if in high
energy physics 15 years of self-archiving (which has been at
or near 100% in
some HEP subfield fields for years now) has had no detectable
effect on
subscriptions, as reported by both APS and IOPP, then "highly
likely" was
perhaps an incorrect inference...
> We certainly need more data - though relatively few
journals yet have a
> sufficient percentage of their content in repositories for
the data to be
> meaningful (there may be some in medicine, which have
current content
> replicated in PMC?) - but there is certainly some.
Even more than we need data on whether or not self-archiving
will
ever have any perceptible effect on journal subscriptions, we
need
self-archiving, because of its *demonstrated* and
non-hypothetical effects
on research access and impact.
Please do keep seeking data on any putative effect of
self-archiving
on subscriptions, but please don't try to use the
non-existent data and
hypotheses about "highly likely" effects to try to oppose the
mandating
of the self-archiving, today, that has already been
demonstrated to
benefit research and researchers substantially.
> We should take note of what has already been observed, and
be careful - this
> is a one-way experiment. Didn't the man who jumped off the
skyscraper call
> out as he passed the 9th floor 'no problems so far'?!
Researchers -- and their institutions and funders -- are not
jumping off
a skyscraper when they self-archive and mandate
self-archiving. They are
doing what has already been demonstrated best for research,
researchers,
their institutions and their funders. There is no evidence so
far that
what is undeniably best for research has had any negative
effect ay all on
publishers. If/when it ever does, there is an obvious
solution: switch
to OA publishing and fund it out of the institutional
windfall savings
from the catastrophic institutional cancellations. That's
virtually
tautological. But there is zero evidence that it is happening
now,
nor that it is likely to happen. But if it ever does, so be
it. No crash.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
Stevan Harnad
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stevan Harnad"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:41 PM
> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
>
>
> > There continues to be zero evidence (just a lot repeated
speculation)
> > that self-archiving harms journals.
> >
> > I agree with Sally, though, that it does not make much
sense at this
> > point for CERN to be pushing for conversion to OA
journals. CERN has done
> > admirably well making its own published research output
OA by mandating
> > self-archiving. If CERN wants other institutions'
published research
> > output to be OA too, then CERN should be promoting CERN-
style
> > self-archiving mandates worldwide, not taking on the
needless role of
> > journal publication-model reformer. As Sally says: if all
authors
> > self-archived, the way CERN authors (are mandated to) do,
then we would
> > have 100% OA and there would be no need for research
institutions to get
> > involved in trying to dictatied what cost- recovery model
journals should
> > use.
> >
> > Instead, this premature and needless leap to journal
reform on CERN's
> > part not only leaves the winning CERN model unpropagated
world-wide, as
> > it ought to be, but it allows Sally to come to the
conclusion that OA
> > advocates are not satisfied with OA after all: They are
bent on journal
> > reform. (That too would be alright, if they had first
done all that
> > needed to be done to ensure 100% OA. But if they bolt to
journal reform
> > when the OA job's but 15% done, they are just becoming
part of the
> > problem instead of the solution.)
> >
> > My admiration for what CERN *has* done for OA is
undiminished, but that
> > does not mitigate the disappointment at what CERN could
still do for OA,
> > but is not doing, throwing itself instead into pushing
for publication
> > reforms that are at best highly premature and at worst
gratuitous
> > distractions at a critical (and greatly overdue) point
for worldwide OA.
> > If nothing else, CERN should consider its actual and
potential
> > contribution in a historic light: Why not extend CERN's
sterling record
> > instead of heading off on an untimely gold rush?
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> > On 19-Apr-06, at 12:51 PM, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:
> >
> >> I am forwarding the exchange below, though I think Fred
has missed my
> >> point
> >>
> >> Sally
> >>
> >> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> >> Association of Learned and Professional Society
Publishers
> >> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex
BN13 3UU, UK
> >> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686
> >> Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457
> >> Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: ""FrederickFriend""
> >>
> >> To: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)"
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:32 PM
> >> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>
> >>
> >>> Sally,
> >>>
> >>> I have been waiting to reply to this message expecting
it to appear on
> >>> the JISC Repositories list. Maybe something went wrong
in the
> >>> transmission to that list? Here is what I wish to say
in reply. I can
> >>> forward your message and mine to the list if you wish.
> >>>
> >>> The wish to convert the high energy physics journals to
OA is coming
> >>> from that academic community and has nothing to do with
the issue of
> >>> whether self-archiving does or does not harm journals.
Listening to the
> >>> researchers at CERN I have never heard any discussion
of a risk to
> >>> journals from repository content. The wish to see the
physics journals
> >>> move towards OA lies rather in the importance the
academic community
> >>> attaches to their key journals, concern that the
subscription model is
> >>> moving those journals out of the reach of some in the
scientific
> >>> community, and a desire to see the research coming out
of the new Large
> >>> Hadron Collider published with the added value of open
access. It is a
> >>> vote of confidence in the key journals together with a
wish to see them
> >>> adapt to a new environment. So to look at the CERN
initiative on
> >>> journals from the direction of repository content is to
look through
> >>> the wrong end of the telescope, if the high energy
physicists will
> >>> forgive the association with an astronomy pun!
> >>>
> >>> Fred
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sally Morris
(ALPSP)"
> >>>
> >>> To: "FrederickFriend"
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:23 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Let's think this through
> >>>>
> >>>> If (a) self-archiving doesn't harm journals, then why
do High Energy
> >>>> Physics journals need to go OA? Virtually all the
content already is
> >>>> OA
> >>>>
> >>>> On the other hand, if (b) - as we are beginning to
suspect from
> >>>> information (e.g. IOP, LMS) about usage -
self-archiving does harm
> >>>> journals, then those journals would indeed need to
move to OA in order
> >>>> to survive
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this mean that Fred agrees self-archiving harms
journals?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sally
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> >>>> Association of Learned and Professional Society
Publishers
> >>>> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West
Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> >>>> Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686
> >>>> Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457
> >>>> Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "FrederickFriend"
> >>>>
> >>>> To:
> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:14 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I would like to support CERN's approach on both
repository deposit
> >>>>> and OA journals for particle physics research. Their
approach is
> >>>>> absolutely right. On deposit in repositories they
have good policies
> >>>>> in place, they are flexible in the way in which they
secure deposits,
> >>>>> they are more successful than most other
organizations in the level
> >>>>> of repository deposit, and they are already active in
encouraging
> >>>>> other institutions to follow their example. It is
difficult to see
> >>>>> what more they could do to promote repository
deposit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Valuable though the repository content is, the large
world-wide
> >>>>> particle physics community still feels the need for
the value added
> >>>>> by high-prestige journals. The best way to maximise
that added value
> >>>>> is through collaboration with existing high-quality
journals in a
> >>>>> move from subscription to OA, funded as part of the
research process.
> >>>>> CERN is leading this work on behalf of the community
it serves, and
> >>>>> as with repository deposit the approach taken by
particle physicists
> >>>>> could be followed by other subject communities. Both
repositories and
> >>>>> OA journals bring benefits to academic research.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fred Friend
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joanne Yeomans"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To:
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:14 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stevan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If only there were more than 24 hours in the day to
fit more in!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The missing papers are those that we discover through
published
> >>>>> journals. Neither the secretary, not the department,
necessarily
> >>>>> knows
> >>>>> they exist until we find they're published.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you say, it's not important who does the keying in
but the author
> >>>>> needs to deliver the paper in the first place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One method to get them is to individually email each
author and ask -
> >>>>> that is a strategy we're investigating but is
awaiting some technical
> >>>>> developments. And this of course hinges on the author
still having a
> >>>>> copy they can send or more importantly, the author
being bothered to
> >>>>> comply. However, we hope this will be quite
successful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Another strategy might be to report back to the
department and tell
> >>>>> them
> >>>>> what's missing so they can themselves encourage their
authors. Maybe
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> strongly enforced mandate in this case is enough, but
it might also
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> backed up with some kind of incentive scheme, for
instance, a small
> >>>>> bonus (enough to send a student to a conference for
instance) offered
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> departments who reach full coverage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OA publishing doesn't solve the problem at all - what
I said was that
> >>>>> the publishing project has generated interest beyond
what we've
> >>>>> experienced before and so this gives us an ear that
we can use to
> >>>>> highlight the need to self-archive too. The point is,
for whatever
> >>>>> reason, the scientists themselves, and the senior
CERN management,
> >>>>> are
> >>>>> genuinely interested in the idea of OA publishing and
in discussing
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> they also start to realise the importance of
self-archiving.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stevan, I know you don't like our 'gold' work, but
our influence over
> >>>>> other institutions and disciplines is limited by many
different
> >>>>> factors.
> >>>>> Already we try to do what we can and will continue to
do so. The
> >>>>> climate
> >>>>> is ready in high energy phyiscs to discuss and try a
change to OA
> >>>>> publishing, and if we miss the opportunity of the
start up of the LHC
> >>>>> experiment in 2007 then we will not have another
chance for perhaps
> >>>>> 20
> >>>>> years. The time is right for us. Whether it will
succeed is another
> >>>>> question and one we will see in the next few years.
At least we will
> >>>>> learn some interesting things along the way..and in
the meantime our
> >>>>> repository development will go on.
> >>>>> Joanne
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ********************
> >>>>> Joanne Yeomans
> >>>>> Office 3/1-012, DSU/SI Service
> >>>>> http://library.cern.ch/
> >>>>> Mail address:
> >>>>> Mailbox C27810
> >>>>> CERN CH 1211 Geneva 23
> >>>>> Switzerland
> >>>>> Tel: 70548 (externally dial +41 22 76 70548)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Repositories discussion list
> >>>>>> [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
Of Stevan Harnad
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:29 PM
> >>>>>> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> >>>>>> Subject: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> CERN is the biggest of the five institutions that
have so far
> >>>>>> adopted a mandatory OA self-archiving policy:
> >>>>>> http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Joanne Yeomans [CERN] wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > the vast majority [of papers at CERN] are
submitted by
> >>>>>> secretaries on
> >>>>>> > behalf of a group or are harvested from arxiv.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's fine! There is nothing sacred about authors
doing
> >>>>>> their own keystrokes! Secretary mediation is just as
good, as
> >>>>>> long as the doing of the keystrokes is mandated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > an official CERN report number is
> >>>>>> > very important to many of our authors and they
will only get
> >>>>>> one of
> >>>>>> > these by submitting it through the official
internal
> >>>>>> channels and it
> >>>>>> > is through this process that the secretaries
upload the
> >>>>>> details and
> >>>>>> > text to CDS.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds splendid! The counterpart at an ordinary
> >>>>>> university or research institition would be the
researcher's
> >>>>>> standardised CV or (in the UK) their RAE submission,
so as to
> >>>>>> be considered for performance evaluation. Nothing
wrong with
> >>>>>> secretaries doing the keystrokes, as long as the
keys get stroked!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > There are a few keen self-archivers but they are
really a
> >>>>>> minority....
> >>>>>> > [Regarding] arXiv harvesting, this accounts mainly
for
> >>>>>> theory papers
> >>>>>> > and is usually the individual authors submitting
their work.
> >>>>>> As the
> >>>>>> > theory department knows that we harvest nightly
from arxiv
> >>>>>> we have an
> >>>>>> > understanding that it is enough for them to
continue
> >>>>>> submitting there
> >>>>>> > instead of to the institutional repository.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Translation: The keen self-archivers (the ones who
do the
> >>>>>> keystrokes for themselves instead of leaving it to
> >>>>>> secretaries) are the long-standing Arxiv preprint
self-archivers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's fine too. The keystrokes per paper are really
so few
> >>>>>> that it is not even clear why we are talking about
who
> >>>>>> actually does them, as long as they get done!
> >>>>>> And the CERN mandate see to it that they must be.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > I do think a mandate has helped in filling the
repository -
> >>>>>> without it
> >>>>>> > I am guessing it would not have been so easy to
set up the
> >>>>>> secretarial
> >>>>>> > effort, nor would we have the staff resources to
put into the
> >>>>>> > harvesting and managing of the repository. So a
mandate might
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> > change the behaviour of many authors, but it does
still help
> >>>>>> to get
> >>>>>> > the content in a more indirect way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Although I keep saying that the only thing standing
between
> >>>>>> us now (at 15% OA) and 100% OA is a few keystrokes
per paper,
> >>>>>> it is really a trivial matter who actually does
those
> >>>>>> keystrokes -- compared to making sure an institution
mandates
> >>>>>> that they must be done! (As to harvesting back from
a central
> >>>>>> archive: I think that is a local historic
aberration,
> >>>>>> peculiar to physics: Those in other fields who are
"keen" to
> >>>>>> do the keystrokes themselves will far more sensibly
deposit
> >>>>>> in their own Institutional Repository in the first
place!)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > We are taken with Minho's idea of offering
financial
> >>>>>> incentives...we
> >>>>>> > might test the political waters for this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you sure it will cost less to make it worth a
reseacher's
> >>>>>> while to do the keystrokes than to just pay a
secretary to do it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > And as part of our OA
> >>>>>> > publishing project we'll be making new efforts to
encourage
> >>>>>> individual
> >>>>>> > submission for the missing documents. OA
publishing has
> >>>>>> grabbed the
> >>>>>> > interest of the HEP community far more than
talking about
> >>>>>> preprint
> >>>>>> > deposit did so we hope to piggy-back a bit on this
enthusiasm to
> >>>>>> > improve the repository content too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I couldn't quite follow that: Is it not the HEP
community
> >>>>>> that is doing its own keystroking already, by
depositing in
> >>>>>> Arxiv? And are the missing papers not the ones that
they have
> >>>>>> not keyed in? How is talk about OA publishing
solving that problem?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (I'm afraid I cannot agree with CERN's strategic
emphasis on
> >>>>>> OA [gold] publishing at this time (15% OA), as I
have said
> >>>>>> before. I think CERN could do far, far, far more for
> >>>>>> worldwide OA today if it focussed on spreading its
own
> >>>>>> historic OA [green] self-archiving policy and
practice to
> >>>>>> other institutions worldwide and across disciplines.
OA gold
> >>>>>> can come after we reach 100% OA green. By focussing
instead
> >>>>>> on OA gold at this early and incomplete stage of OA
itself,
> >>>>>> CERN is missing its full potential historic role.
CERN's role
> >>>>>> and contribution to OA will nevertheless have been
immense -- just
> >>>>>> far short of what it might have been, because of
this
> >>>>>> premature changing of local gears toward gold when
the green
> >>>>>> task worldwide is so far from done.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Stevan Harnad
> >>>>>> AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
> >>>>>> A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing
discussion of
> >>>>>> providing open access to the peer-reviewed research
> >>>>>> literature online (1998-2005) is available at:
> >>>>>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
> >>>>>> To join or leave the Forum or change your
> >>>>>> subscription address:
> >>>>>>
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-
> >>>>>> Access-Forum.html
> >>>>>> Post discussion to:
> >>>>>> american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
=== message truncated ===
Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 17:29:11 BST