Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandates

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

If archiving isn't taking off, it isn't primarily because of
publishers. The SHERPA/ROMEO list of publishers=B9 policies on
copyright and self-archiving show that many major publishers=
permit posting of preprints and/or postprints. These include
Blackwell, British Medical Journal, Elsevier, Wiley,
Taylor&Francis, and many, many others.

The failure of the self-archiving movement stems mainly from the
indifference or open opposition of the authors and researchers
who are supposed to undertake it. And remember that society
publishers are not controlled by greedy staff publishers; they
are controlled by governing bodies comprised of the authors and
researchers affected by OA. Advocates have failed utterly to
convince societies of the merits of OA because society volunteer
leaders do not believe the fundamental premise that "the research
community and public need 100% OA now." Those societies who
advocate against mandates for OA--and not all do--have reasonable
doubts about the accuracy and quality of preprints and postprints
(especially in medicine, where mistakes can have serious
consequences), the bibliographic confusion that archives are
creating, and the difficulty archives cause for accurately
tracking usage. They also doubt that OA archives are a solution
to long-term preservation, as often (inaccurately) claimed.

In the 7 years I was publisher of two society journals, a total
of zero (0) out of 18,000 members ever advocated for OA.
Colleagues in other societies report a similar experience. It is
not surprising, therefore, that there is a little foot-dragging
among authors to the governmental stampede you advocate.

Peter Banks