On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:
> IMHO, this is daft. OA is OA. Author side payment ensures free access,
> for everyone, to the best and most fully functional version of an article,
> and at the right price also ensures that journals can continue to perform
> their function. Self archiving provides access to a potentially inferior
> version, which nevertheless may ultimately impair journals' ability to
> continue.
>
> I thought Stevan wasn't anti publisher?
Not anti-publisher in the least! But definitely anti any
anti-self-archiving-mandate lobby.
All I can do is repeat my own closing words (which I'm not sure Sally reached!):
From publishers who do not oppose the self-archiving mandates, Open
Choice is fine: it is an indication of good faith, and willingness
to test the waters of Open Access Publishing. But from publishers
lobbying against the adoption of self-archiving mandates, and touting
Open Choice as an alternative -- or, worse, pressing for the mandating
of paid-OA rather than self-archiving -- it is a clever, but somewhat
cynical way of delaying still longer the immediate mandating of OA,
as now proposed all over the world.
Stevan
PS Dear publisher: protect me not from inferior (peer-reviewed) versions!
And, yes, if push ever does come to shove, the demonstrated benefits of
maximised research usage and impact definitely out-weigh any hypothetical
risk that it "may ultimately impair journals": Where there's a
will, there's a way, and journals will find a way to continue, despite
the benefits of maximised research usage and impact!
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> To: "SPARC Open Access Forum" <SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:44 PM
> Subject: [SOAF] Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates
>
> >
> >Dear OA advocates:
> >
> >This is a note of caution about the spate of publishers currently
> >announcing that they are offering Open Choice -- i.e., the option for
> >authors to buy OA, at various asking prices, for their individual article.
> >
> >On the surface, this sounds like a positive development: Publishers
> >experimenting widely with OA publishing at last.
> >
> >But please don't forget the OA mandates that have been proposed and are
> >pending in the US, UK, EC, Australia, Germany, France, Norway.
> >
> >Those are all OA self-archiving mandates, and they are already long-delayed,
> >mostly because of opposition from the publishing lobby.
> >
> >Please be aware that the publishing lobby will now be using the paid-OA
> >option that they are offering as yet another means of trying to delay
> >or divert the adoption of the OA self-archiving mandates.
> >
> >If the US, UK, EC, Australia, Germany, France, Norway felt they had the
> >extra money to mandate and fund paid OA instead of self-archiving today,
> >and promptly did so, that would be fine.
> >
> >But that outcome is highly unlikely, for many reasons (the chief of which
> >being that 100% of the cash for funding publication is currently tied
> >up in paying subscriptions, so the extra money would have to be found
> >from elsewhere, in advance!).
> >
> >Moreover, a consensus on a policy of mandating OA via self-archiving,
> >at no extra cost, even though it has been so long in coming (mainly
> >because of publisher opposition) is far less likely, and likely to
> >be far longer in the coming, if it instead becomes a paid-OA mandate,
> >conditional on finding and agreeing to invest all that extra cash
> >in advance -- particularly at a time when all publication costs are
> >being paid, hence there is no call for extra cash.
> >
> >The publishers' promise that as paid OA catches on they will scale
> >down subscription prices is a hollow one: It is tantamount to saying,
> >to an individual customer: "Buy more of my product and the effect will
> >trickle down in the form of a lower price for everyone, including
> >you." Nonsense: individual authors, if they paid for the OA option for
> >their own articles, would simply be subsidising an infinitesimal reduction
> >in the price of subscriptions for institutional libraries the world over.
> >
> >And the research community and public need 100% OA now.
> >
> >I think Open Choice is a Trojan Horse, and that we should be very careful
> >about our reaction to it, as it risks eliciting years more of delay for OA
> >(under the guise of "preparing the way").
> >
> > From publishers who do not oppose the self-archiving mandates, Open
> > Choice is
> >fine: it is an indication of good faith, and willingness to test the waters of
> >Open Access Publishing. But from publishers lobbying against the adoption of
> >self-archiving mandates, and touting Open Choice as an alternative -- or,
> >worse,
> >pressing for the mandating of paid-OA rather than self-archiving -- it is a
> >clever, but somewhat cynical way of delaying still longer the immediate
> >mandating of OA, as now proposed all over the world.
> >
> >Stevan Harnad
> >AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
> >http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Received on Fri Jul 21 2006 - 20:34:41 BST