On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Jan Velterop wrote:
> You're right, Stevan, I didn't get the point. I still don't. What
> *is* the point (other than your 'ceterum censeo')? What's the
> *meaning* of your story, the *moral*? That it's as absurd to charge
> for ads as for research articles? But dear friend, we agree!
But dear friend, I know we agree on that, and said so, quite explicitly...
What you are systematically missing (and I truly can't tell whether it
is conscious or simply driven by your commitment to Gold) is indeed the
*point* of the allegory, which is not only that it is absurd to have
to pay to read ads, but that it is equally absurd for merchants not to
make their ads freely accessible online -- and especially while those
who can afford it are still paying to see the ads, and thereby covering
all their value-added costs.
You keep missing this point, and focussing on the fact that the only
remedy for the absurd inaccessibility of the ads is to get rid of the
reader-pays model. I am focussing on getting the access, now, and that
is done by providing it, not by trying to change a model, or paying extra,
while everything is still being paid for!
If providing the access free online, now, dries up the paid access, then
we can talk about changing models. But till then, what's missing is not
payment, or a payment model, but the free online access. And providing
that free online access, now, by self-archiving, is what is urgently
needed (indeed vastly overdue) and fully reachable. And reaching for
it can be mandated. Changing business models cannot be (at least not by
the merchants' [researchers'] employers or funders: that's up to the ad
service [publishing] industry, and they don't seem to be in a big hurry).
Which raises again the question of why you do not support mandating the
OA by mandating self-archiving, now, though you purport to advocate OA?
So, there's the point, again. Will we have a response, this time?
> So why
> maintain such an absurdity as a way to support journals instead of
> working on alternatives?
The alternative to continuing to restrict access to the ads to only
those readers who can afford to pay is for the merchants to put them
online for free. You seem to think the only alternative is to reform
the way ad services do business. Ad services can only mandate their own
business practices. And merchants can only mandate their own. Merchants
can self-archive their ads as a supplement (while the ads are still being
paid for via reader-pays). It is only if/when reader-pays revenue no
longer covers costs that the business practice will have to change. But
merchants certainly don't need to wait, losing customers, or pay extra,
pre-emptively, while costs are being covered.
> The 'real' advertising model is a workable
> analogy (though not perfect; analogies seldom are) to help to
> understand the logic of the 'gold' model to get to OA. You made a lot
> of sense in 1998. I quote (from http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
> 2633/02/harnad98.toronto.learnedpub.html):
> "It's time for another metaphor, not a flattering one to scholars,
> but a handy way of understanding [...]: When the scholar/scientist is
> wearing his learned-journal hat [...], when they are writing for
> their fellow-scholars in their specialised periodicals, the text they
> publish is much better thought of as an advertisement..."
> And:
> "the trade model (subscription, site license or pay- per-view) should
> be replaced by author page-charges to cover the much reduced cost of
> implementing peer review, editing and archiving on the Net, in
> exchange for making the learned serial corpus available for free for
> all forever."
That, dear Jan, was 1998. Here we are in 2007, and journals have not converted
to Gold, nor have authors (as I also urged) converted to Green. In the meantime,
both the research-impact benefits of OA and the effectiveness of both
self-archiving and self-archiving mandates have been empirically demonstrated.
Conclusion: Stop waiting for publishers to convert to Gold; stop speculating
about economics: just mandate Green self-archiving, and self-archive.
You instead seem to want research and researchers to keep on waiting for
OA till everyone gets 'round to doing, spontaneously, what was already
proposed in the '90s -- which, I must remind you, was first and foremost
Green self-archiving, and only secondarily journal conversion to Gold.
I think Green OA mandates are a better way than waiting, and an increasing number
of funders and institutions are finally coming 'round to that way of thinking
too:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
http://www.ec-petition.eu/
> Current discussions about the preferred route to achieve OA are
> likely to turn out to be mere skirmishes in front of the curtains, to
> entertain the audience waiting for the play to begin, while,
> fortunately, behind the curtains a lot of work is being done that
> sets the stage for a true open access spectacle. I expect that the
> curtain can be lifted before too long.
I'll be there, part of the happy audience, if/when that ever happens. But
my suspicions is that what is happening behind the curtains today is
publishers bickering about revenues and business models, and trying to
persuade funders not to mandate Green, while research impact continues
to be lost, needlessly, and cumulatively, year after year -- except
for those articles that have been made OA. The Green OA mandates --
proposed out in the open, not behind curtains -- are meant to raise that
to percentage OA to 100%, as soon as possible.
Let's see whether we can manage it, rather than continuing to wait for
the curtain to rise.
> PS. I never claimed to have been the first to use the advertising
> analogy; just that I also thought of it. You can have the priority,
> by all means.
It's a doubtful distinction -- and not one to vie for -- to have thought
of things first, only to be roundly ignored for years...
Your weary archivangelist,
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sun Mar 04 2007 - 16:09:34 GMT