Ahmed,
Let me begin with the gist, for those who haven't the time to read further:
(1) As you note, the percentage of Gold OA today is very small. So is its
growth rate.
(2) What you don't note is that the percentage of Green OA is considerably
higher, and, far more important, its *potential* growth rate is
incomparably higher, once Green OA is mandated: Green OA mandates can generate
100% OA, almost immediately.
(3) Gold OA was very valuable as a proof-of-principle, to demonstrate that
there *is* a quite natural solution, if and when Green OA should ever
make subscriptions unsustainable.
(4) But what keeps getting forgotten is that the objective of the OA
movement, already long, long overdue, is OA, as soon as possible, not
OA of any particular color.
So when a Gold OA publisher opposes Green OA mandates, it is far more
of a head-shaker (and eye-opener) for OA than when non-OA publishers
oppose Green OA mandates.
It is all a question of priorities. OA is both optimal and inevitable for
research, researchers, research institutions, research funders, R&D industries
and the general public. OA is also immediately reachable (via mandated Green
OA) and long overdue.
The publishing industry (of any color) is merely the size of a flea on
the tail of the dog. It cannot wag the dog, one way or other. That industry's
potential gains and losses are not the issue for OA, even though they keep
getting foregrounded and made the focus of most of the time and energy
nominally devoted to OA. OA itself is the issue and the focus. And providing
OA, right now, is entirely in the hands of the research community.
I would counsel patience and restraint. Green OA mandates are not only the
surest and fastest road to OA, but they are also the surest and fastest road
to Gold OA. What is needed from Gold OA publishers is help in making Green OA
mandates universal. Your time will come, but it will only be delayed if you
delay Green OA by trying to keep the (short-sighted) focus on immediate,
direct Gold OA.
Now some comments for those who have the time and patience for more:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Ahmed Hindawi wrote:
> Stevan:
>
> In (1) you say most journals are non-OA today. It is true. But let me
> phrase it as "Most articles are non-OA (Gold) today."
Same thing. There are about 24,000 journals, publishing about 2.5 million
articles annually. Most of them (whichever way you reckon it) are non-OA,
whether Gold or Green. But there are more Green OA articles than Gold,
and Green does not require converting journals or finding the money to
pay publication fees. It only requires researcher self-archiving: and
self-archiving can be mandated, and is being mandated, by researchers'
funders and institutions. Hence its potential growth rate is incomparably
higher. It depends only on how fast we get around to mandating self-archiving.
> It is true, only a
> small percentage is (may be 1% or so), but so is the money paid for
> these articles as article processing charges. In fact, the amount of
> money paid by the research community per Gold OA article is smaller than
> the amount of money paid by the research community per TA article.
That's all true, but completely irrelevant. The goal is not to pay
money for Gold OA: The goal is OA, and Green OA mandates deliver 100%
OA, without waiting for journals to convert to Gold, nor for the funds
to pay for it to be found. We know where those funds are: They are being
paid for non-OA subscriptions. They can only be redirected if/when they
are released from subscriptions. But what is needed is not publication
funds or redirection today: What is needed is OA, today. Green OA mandates
will deliver it, today. (And perhaps they will eventually also release
the subscriptions funds for redirection, if/when 100% Green OA makes
subscriptions unsustainable. No one knows whether or when that will
happen, but it is unimportant today. What is important today is to put an
end, at long last, to research's needless daily usage and impact losses,
by mandating Green OA.)
> Nevertheless you assert that we don't need to start the transition now
> to Gold OA. Only when/if the subscription system collapses! But we are
> in the transition process already. The total Gold OA articles from
> BiomedCentral, PLoS, Hindawi, Optics Express, New Journal of Physics,
> Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, and all the other Gold OA journals
> supported by APCs is probably in the range of 20,000 articles or so
> annually.
And the total annual article output is 2.5 million. What is your point, Ahmed?
(I actually think the percentage Gold figure, considering all of DOAJ, is
higher than what you estimate: perhaps closer to 5% than 1%; but that is still
absurdly low, for research's OA needs. So too is Gold's annual growth rate.
And so too is Green's percentage and annual growth rate, even though they are
somewhat higher than Gold's. Neither spontaneous growth rate will get us to
100% OA till we are all in our dotage or worse. But Green OA mandates can
and will get us to 100% OA within a couple of years of their universal
adoption. *That* is the transition process that needs attention and
acceleration, not the glacially slow and uncertain process of converting
journals/publishers to Gold and finding the money to pay for it while the
money is still tied up in subscriptions!)
> When exactly are you willing to say a transition is underway and support
> for Gold OA makes sense (since it provides much more than what
> subscriptions do for equal or less money spent per article)? May be if
> the Gold OA articles reaches 40,000 or 60,000 or something, but let us
> know what number or percentage you have in mind.
The percentage I have in mind is 100%, not the tiny spontaneous Gold or Green
percentages we have today. And the way to reach that is by mandating Green OA.
> Simply asserting this
> can only happens when we start seeing saving in subscriptions is not
> good enough.
Dear Ahmed, what you, as a publisher, perhaps have difficulty seeing is that
the objective of the OA movement has nothing to do with funding or
subscriptions, or economic models: It has to do with research access. The goal
of the OA movement is OA, 100% OA, not necessarily Gold, not necessarily
Green: just 100% OA.
It simply happens that reaching 100% OA is far surer and faster via Green, not
only because Green is entirely within the hands of the research community
itself: they can do it without having to wait to convert journals or find new
ways to pay them. They need only move their fingers (to deposit), and their
funders and employers need only mandate that they move their fingers.
> Supporting OA Gold today will enable Gold OA publishers to
> compete for authors which is the only way for Gold OA to become main
> stream and have significant impact (in terms of how many articles are
> published under this model--providing much more benefits to the research
> community at equal or lower cost).
But the goal of the OA movement is not "Gold OA to become main stream
and have significant impact"! The goal is OA: 100% OA, now!
Gold OA is only one of the two means of reaching 100% OA and it is not the
fastest or surest means. And it cannot be accelerated by mandates, as Green
can be.
> What mechanism do you suggest for growing Gold OA (even one that you
> like which is scaled down to almost peer-review only) other than telling
> us to wait because when the publishers are close to bankruptcy (or may
> be even a little after that) they will have to support Gold OA by
> changing their business models.
I suggest no mechanism at all, because the goal is not Gold OA but OA.
> But some publishers already changed
> their business models or were created under the new business model from
> the start. Some publishers are expressing their willingness to switch to
> the new model if there is a transition mechanism that does not call for
> complete destruction of the old system before a new one is build on its
> ruins. Why do you insist that we should wait until/if there are savings
> coming from subscriptions to pay for Gold OA?!
Because the goal is not a transition to Gold OA but OA.
> If there is no cancellations, there is no need to pay "twice" for
> publications, you insist. But how about new journals that don't need
> only non-cancellations but new subscriptions? Are you happy with a
> system where there is no cancellations for existing journals but no way
> for new ones to come especially from smaller publishers?
You put your finger on it this time, Ahmed: While the potential funds
to pay for Gold OA are tied up in subscriptions, both new OA journals
and converts are working under a handicap: New sources of funds have to
be found to pay them, and researchers and their funders and employers
have to be persuaded that finding and spending that money is necessary
in order to reach OA.
But the truth is that it is not necessary to find and pay funds to new OA
journals or converts today to reach OA. All that is necessary is to
self-archive the articles whose publication costs have already been paid, via
subscriptions -- and to *mandate* that self-archiving.
Not only will those mandates generate 100% OA, swiftly and surely, but
they are also Gold OA's best bet for eventually generating the cancellations
and release of funds needed to pay Gold OA's publishing costs.
I wonder if this simple formula will help you: The research community
needs OA now. There is no reason for them to keep waiting for funds,
cancellations, or conversion to Gold OA publishing. They need merely
mandate keystrokes, today.
> Your argument is: we should not pay PLoS, Hindawi, or BiomedCentral any
> article processing charges because we already are paying Elsevier,
> Springer, and T&F enough and we should not double pay! What argument is
> that?
If authors or their institutions have the spare change, I certainly don't care
if they use it to pay Gold OA publishers. I am not fussing about funding, I am
fussing about access. And Gold OA is small change compared to the real
problem, which is reaching 100% OA at long last.
PLoS, Hindawi, and BiomedCentral are useful proofs-of-principle. But what we
need now is OA, 100% OA: We have been waiting long enough, and the way to
reach it is clear and has already been demonstrated to deliver: mandate the
keystrokes.
> I went through your post below very carefully, and honestly cannot see
> your argument behind this. In (2) you say, that means their publication
> costs are being paid by subscriptions. Of course this is true, for TA
> articles. Not for Gold OA articles. Your statement applies to TA
> articles only, which never asked for another payment, did they?
Correct. But what you keep forgetting is that the goal of OA is not
conversion to and funding of Gold OA: The goal of OA is OA itself. And
there is a fast, sure route to OA available. It has nothing to do with
finding the means to pay for Gold OA, now. It has to do with mandating
keystrokes, now.
For Gold OA, the only conceivable objective is converting to and funding Gold
OA. That's fine -- but not when it delays or distracts from the real goal of
the research community, which is OA, as soon as possible. (We have already
waited needlessly long enough.)
> Publishers are asking only for one payment in compensation to their
> services: either a subscription fee or an article processing fee. I know
> of no publisher who asked for both at the same time for the same
> article. Do you know of any such publisher?
Why do we keep speaking of payment, Ahmed, rather than access, which
is what this is all about? I don't care about payments, whether to OA
publishers or non-OA publishers. I care about OA, OA now. Is the bottom
line such a preoccupation of publishers that they cannot see that the
research community has other concerns, and that those concerns are what
OA is really about?
> Aggregating all articles
> regardless of their publication model and all publishers regardless of
> their underlying business model and simply stating that enough payment
> is already made and no "extra" or "double" payment is not helping
> clarifying the issues here.
Aggregating all articles and noting that their percentage OA and OA growth
rate is pathetically low, regardless of their color, does clarify the OA
issue, which *is* the issue. Green OA mandates can and will raise that
percentage to 100%, quickly. Waiting (and working) for Gold will not.
> You cannot reply to any sentence "X" by essentially saying "but X is
> irrelevant because Green OA will provide 100% OA at no extra cost."
Then leave out with "at no extra cost"! That is not the point. The point is
that Green OA mandates will provide 100% OA swiftly and surely. And we have
waited (and focussed on irrelevant cost issues) long enough.
> I can believe some of these Xs debated on this list are indeed irrelevant,
> but certainly not all of them. We need arguments and counter arguments on
> how to move forward, not only assertions.
>
> Three assertions is not a proof, not even a thousand I am afraid.
Only one assertion and argument is enough, if it is correct (and it is):
Mandating Green, now, will provide 100%, now; continuing to wait for Gold
(or for spontaneous self-archiving) will not.
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#31.Waiting
Stevan Harnad
Received on Thu Mar 01 2007 - 13:23:44 GMT