Re: [BOAI] Fwd: The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is

From: (wrong string) édon <>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:04:18 -0400

    [ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

I am a little puzzled by Stevan Harnad's accusation of "hypothetical
conditional".  When he writes: "&#65279;It would certainly have put
APA in a very bad light if, having given its authors the green light
to self-archive in their own IRs, APA then decided to slap a $2500
traffic ticket on them for going ahead and doing so!", is this not
another hypothetical conditional?

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le mercredi 16 juillet 2008 à 20:57 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

                            ** Cross-Posted **

      In Open Access News, Peter Suber commented on my posting
      -- "In Defense of the American Psychological
      Association's Green OA Policy" -- which defended the APA
      from criticism for levying a $2500 fee on authors for
      compliance with the NIH mandate to deposit in PubMed
      Central (PMC). I had said the problem was with NIH's
      stipulation that the deposit had to be in PMC rather than
      in the author's own Institutional Repository (IR),
      because the APA has been a Green publisher since 2002,
      endorsing deposit in the author's IR immediately upon
      acceptance for publication, with no fee.
            Peter Suber: "Stevan is mixing up unrelated
            issues.  The APA "deposit fee" had nothing to
            do with the distinction between disciplinary
            repositories (like PMC) and institutional
            repositories.  If the NIH mandated deposit in
            IRs instead of PMC, then the APA would demand
            a $2,500 fee for deposit in IRs, and the fee
            would be equally noxious and indefensible. 
            Even if the NIH's preference for PMC were as
            foolish as Stevan says it is (a criticism I
            do not share), it would not justify the APA

      Peter seems to be replying with a hypothetical
      conditional, regarding what the APA would have done. But
      the APA has already been formally endorsing immediate
      Open Access self-archiving in the author's own IR for six
      years now. Moreover (see below), the publisher, Gary
      Vandenbos, has confirmed that APA has not changed that
      policy, nor are there plans to change it. 

      What needs to be changed is one small detail of NIH's
      policy: the requirement to deposit directly in PMC. The
      locus of deposit should be the author's own IR. PMC can
      harvest the metadata and link to the full-text in the IR.
      This will cost NIH authors nothing. And APA has no plans
      to change its Green OA self-archiving policy. (It would
      certainly have put APA in a very bad light if, having
      given its authors the green light to self-archive in
      their own IRs, APA then decided to slap a $2500 traffic
      ticket on them for going ahead and doing so!)


                  Date: 15 Jul 2008 23:28:40 -0400
                  To: Gary
                  Vandenbos (Publisher, American
                  Psychological Association
                  Cc: Alan
                  Kazdin (President, American
                  Psychological Association)
                  Subject: In Defense of the
                  American Psychological
                  Association's Green OA Policy

                  Hi Gary (and Alan),

                  As long as APA does not dream of
                  back-sliding on its 6-year green
                  OA policy on institutional
                  self-archiving, you can count on
                  my firm support in the
                  forthcoming onslaught from OA
                  advocates worldwide, and you will
                  weather the storm and come out
                  looking good.

                  But please do reply to reassure
                  me that back-sliding is not an

                  Best wishes, Stevan

            Date: 16 Jul 2008 2:05:49 AM EDT (CA), 
            From: Gary VandenBos

            Steven, I expect no change in the existing
            policy. Have not ever heard anyone suggest
                  Date: 16 Jul 2008 13:22:08 +0100
                  To: Gary VandenBos

                  Splendid. Expect a spirited (and
                  successful) defense that will
                  leave APA looking benign and
                  responsible (as it indeed is).
                  The problem is in the
                  well-meaning juggernauts (in this
                  case, NIH OA policy-makers) that
                  simply do not think things

                  Best wishes, Stevan


            Peter Suber: "Stevan points to a 2002
            APA policy statement, still online, which
            allows self-archiving in IRs.  But he doesn't
            point out that the APA's newer policy
            statement describing the "deposit fee"
            effectively negates the older green policy,
            at least for NIH-funded authors.  The new
            policy prohibits NIH-funded authors from
            depositing their postprints in any OA
            repository, disciplinary or institutional."

      The 2002 APA policy statement is not only still online
      and still in effect, but we have the publisher's word
      that there is to be no change in that policy.
            Peter Suber: "The title of Stevan's post
            suggests that he's defending the APA's 2002
            self-archiving policy.  I join him in that. 
            But the body of his post attempts to defend
            the 2008 deposit fee as well:  "Although
            it looks bad on the face of it...things are
            not always as they seem."  Not always, but
            this time."

      Not this time, and never for a publisher that is Green on
      OA. Once a publisher is Green on OA, there is nothing
      more that can or should be demanded of them, by the
      research community. The ball is now in the research
      community's court. It is up to research institutions and
      research funders to design sensible policies that will
      ensure that the researchers they employ and fund actually
      provide Green OA for their joint research output. 

      Not all research is funded (and certainly not all by
      NIH), but (virtually) all researchers have institutions.
      And all institutions are just a piece of free software,
      some server-space, and a few hours of sysad set-up and
      maintenance time away from having an IR, if they do not
      already have one. 

      The sensible OA mandate, from both institutions and
      funders (like NIH) is to require deposit in the
      researcher's own IR, immediately upon acceptance for
      publication. If there is an embargo, the deposit can be
      Closed Access during the embargo. The IR's "email eprint
      request" button will provide almost-immediate, almost-OA
      for all user needs during any embargo.

      If funders or others want to create institution-external,
      central collections of already-OA content, based on
      subject matter, funder, nationality, or whatever, then
      they can harvest the metadata and link to the full-text
      in the IR in which it was deposited. But there is
      certainly no reason to insist that it be deposited
      directly in their collections. Google, for example,
      quietly harvests anything: no need to deposit things in
      Google. And no charge.
            Peter Suber: "Both arguments are moot for a
            while, now that the APA has taken down the
            new policy statement for "re-examination". 
            (See the 7/16/08 update to my blog post on
            the policy.)"

      I don't doubt that well-meaning OA supporters who have
      not thought it through are now railing at APA instead of
      resolutely requesting that NIH make the minor
      modification in its otherwise admirable, timely, and
      welcome policy that would put an end to this nonsense and
      let researchers get on with the urgent task of providing
      OA by depositing their own research in their own OA IRs,
      free for all, webwide.

      (For the record, and the too literal-minded: Of course a
      $2500 fee for depositing in PMS is absurd, but what
      reduced us to this absurdity was needlessly mandating
      direct deposit in PMS in the first place. Time to remedy
      the absurdity and let researchers' fingers do the
      walking so we can all reach 100% OA at long last.)
            A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public
            Access Policy (Oct 2004)

            Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What?
            Where? When? Why? How? (Sept 2006)

            THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit
            Institutionally, Harvest Centrally (Jan 2008)

            Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit
            Institutionally, Harvest Centrally (Jan 2008)

            How To Integrate University and Funder Open
            Access Mandates (Mar 2008)

            NIH Invites Recommendations on How to
            Implement and Monitor Compliance with Its OA
            Self-Archiving Mandate (Apr 2008)

            Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central
            Repositories (Jun 2008)

      Stevan Harnad
      American Scientist Open Access Forum

Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Fri Jul 18 2008 - 08:06:40 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:22 GMT