Re: Open Access Publishing Funding Models

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Heather Morrison
Sent: Tue 9/21/2004 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: Open Access Publishing Funding Models
 
Heather Morrison said:

In the long run, I am convinced that not only is open access the best
possible model for philosophical reasons, it will be the only
sustainable economic model at some point in the future for scholarly
communication....

Chuck Hamaker responding:

I would like to propose a few considerations to what I see as three key
assertions above.

I. Open Access the best possible model

It is not clear to me that the definitions have settled enough to be
categorical about open access being the "best". I think the generally
accepted definition, and I assume someone will correct me if I'm mistaken
is Open Access means free from the moment of first publication. The NIH
proposal mandates free access within 6 months after publication. I'm
unclear as to whether this NIH access to articles is the same as open
access. I'm unclear because it seems to me that open access advocates see
the NIH process so far as a victory for open access. IF the NIH proposal
isn't open access-then what is it? Would a normal reader recognize the
difference? Do they need to? Does so called Self-Archiving qualify in the
definitions?

If open access means free after six months (or whatever period) then the
definition is much broader than often proposed and several Highwire Press
titles, for example, qualify under such a definition. But other than those
few titles where the article is, so to speak "born free" on the Highwire
press site, and remains free, I don't think Highwire or many of the
publisher's making content available after fairly short periods, consider
themselves open access publishers. I could certainly be mistaken.  For
many titles the NIH proposal only means another "place" on the web where
the articles are located 6 months post publication (they may already BE
free at that time or even earlier on the publisher's website).

II "for philosophical reasons"

Is open access really the best, even philosophically for all content? I
believe the answer to this is very unclear at the moment. How do readers
know certification processes have actually taken place? At the moment the
strongest guarantor is still the journal imprimatur. Lacking that, as in
the LANL environment, the strongest guarantor of quality is insider
knowledge, i.e. who is the researcher, what is the affiliation, work
group, etc? Otherwise we descend very quickly into anarchy without easily
discernable quality markers, and the quality markers, whatever they might
be, and sometimes they are nothing more than editorial control at the
editor's level, are a core form of branding that has to be replicated or
carefully and clearly replaced with widely accepted definitions.

Will open access drive some research even more underground, or into even
more tightly controlled mechanisms than we now have? To protect economic
value, I would think that is just as likely an outcome, if not more so,
than the assumption that everything scholarly will become open access. The
adage Knowledge is power suggests to me that control will be redoubled on
some types of information, and it will become even more expensive. The law
of unintended consequences. There are authors and publishers who believe
the economic value of what they write or publish is so high, that their
output might become unreachable except for the most wealthy of
institutions-whether those are universities and colleges and public
libraries remains to be seen.

When the individual puts up his article on a university website does the
University become imprimatur, as is implied in the oft repeated suggestion
that universities become publishers? How can any one university serve as
imprimatur for all the subject areas covered in the modern multiversity? I
don't think they can. As far as we know only subject specialty review
really works. So do we have a grand jury system that awards different
universities imprimatur rights in specific subject areas? I don't know,
and don't know that we are anywhere near a proposal that would work.

I don't know about this experience being universal, but having served on
the faculty review board of a well-known University press publisher, and
also as regular reviewer for a peer reviewed publication, I can tell you
that the pressure from individuals regarding their personal productions
can be enormous. It takes the whole weight of a review structure to
safeguard the full review and decision-making process. Quality is a core
values issue for readers, scholars, librarians, publishers and authors as
well.

I can't see open access approaches answering all needs in all subject
areas any time soon and maybe never.  However in some subject areas, I
think it is the absolutely best answer because of the importance of the
content to the advancement of critical knowledge. Health areas come most
to mind.  Some content needs to be made as widely available as quickly as
possible, and though I HATE to say it, it might need government
intervention to guarantee it.  But whatever any government intervenes in,
it can also control, and that fearsome presence, i.e. censorship for the
good of whatever political god is in charge at a particular time is as we
have seen in recent years, a very dangerous god to invoke.

Protecting freedom of the press is more critical in scientific and
scholarly publication than in almost any other area. Literally our lives
can depend on it. Are we rushing too fast into government-mandated
accessibility? I fear the answer will be learned only afterwards.

For philosophical reasons, we take apart review processes, whatever they
might be--we substitute future review systems--I think, with a great deal
of caution. The review systems we have aren't perfect, but they are the
best that we've come up with and in some fields are extremely rigorous. I
don't know how University based publication for example, replaces review
systems that normally uses peer reviewers from all over the world, or how
any one university can replicate the multiple qualities of the multiple
review systems we take almost for granted right now.

III. it will be the only sustainable
economic model at some point in the future for scholarly communication. 
 
An interesting assertion, but not self-evident. It is clear that one of
the best medical journals in the world has decided after years of open
access it can no longer afford to continue in that mode i.e. the British
Medical Journal.

Does Open access always make a journal's content more viable? I don't know
of any evidence that supports that assumption. There are some
claims,(buttressed by data that is closely tied to specific and sometimes
narrow fields) implying that open access is so massively superior that it
is a dis-service if that material is not made "open access". We don't know
yet for which fields that holds true.  There is no evidence this is true
for all fields or even a majority of subject fields.

Heather's assertions, which are not unusual or even remarkable among a
wide range of individuals and institutions are more an article of faith
than anything we can possibly know. And much as I want widespread access
and have worked and evangelized for 20 some years to support low cost and
wide availability of scholarly content, I also want uncensored publication
and I want imprimaturs that can be trusted. I want to know that review
traditions that have worked well will be replaced by structures at LEAST
as viable. I also want some institutions with an absolute incentive to
weather the ages with this content and I want solid logical systems to
identify and navigate through scholarly and academic literatures. That
last may be as important if not more so, for the existence of open access
journals. It is not enough to post them on the web and expect them to be
found. There, I've made some declarations that approach articles of faith
as well.  chuck Hamaker

Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
phone 704 687-2825