Re: Quality and mandated open access

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Peter,

There is no current method of Open Access that involves "pirating 
materials away;" indeed, all the forms of OA depend in different 
ways upon the concept of copyright, and most involve 
publishers--the present conventional society and commercial 
publishers.

For open access journals, "Gold OA," the journals are either 
subsidized directly by an academic, commercial, or governmental 
organization, or are financed through author charges, which will 
be paid on the author's behalf by an academic institution, or by 
a NFP, commercial, or governmental organization. Indeed, 
charities such as the American Diabetic Association could very 
appropriately finance such publication for their grantees.

The individual publishers' revenue will be approximately the 
same--possibly even higher if they can attract good authors, 
possibly lower for the highest-cost publishers if there develops 
price competition, as appropriate for a market-based economy. The 
peer review will be identical, or whatever possible alternative 
scientists may develop. Peer review may be managed by the 
publisher, but it is carried out by scientists or other scholars; 
it is they, not the publishers, who have the most reason to 
continue and further develop the system. The copyright will vest 
in the authors, who will license the material to their 
publishers, and to the world. As all copies will have been 
licensed, there can be no piracy.

For self-archiving, as in "Green OA," the journals continue and 
peer review continues. Authors may post un-reviewed preprints, 
just as they do now, and the preprints will be accorded the 
status they deserve. The post-prints, or OA copies, in whatever 
format or type of repository used, will be the articles that have 
been peer-reviewed, with the peer review managed by the 
publishers and carried out by the scientists, just as with "Gold 
OA," and just as now. Copyright in the published papers may rest 
with the publisher as it does now, with the publisher licensing 
the OA copy, or it may vest in the author, who licenses the 
publisher, and also licenses the OA copy to the world. Either way 
is feasible, if the licenses are appropriate to the needs of all 
the parties. There will be no piracy, for users will access 
either the publisher's version, or the author's version, and in 
each case they will do so under the provisions of the license.

There is some question whether this system is stable, for it may 
develop that most readers and even libraries will use the OA 
version, and there will be insufficient subscriptions. There is 
no consensus here; some OA advocates think the diffculties might 
or might not arise, or will do so only after a long time; some, 
including myself, think they are fairly certain to arise, and 
probably within a few years.

At this point some alternative financing mechanism will be 
needed. Possibly the most beneficial way to provide the funding 
is for the journals to convert to open access jornals in time, 
and perhaps the device of optional open access--now being widely 
implemented by publishers--may provide the route. If so, the 
publishers will have assured their own survival. An alternative 
is direct subsidy, as Dr. Varmus proposed for the societies. 
Another is conversion to a coperative publishing model where the 
research institutions directly finance and even organize the 
publishing, as some already do. There is always available, as a 
last resort, the expansion of existing alternative models not 
depending on conventional publishers. The scientists will provide 
what they need by themselves, if the publishers are not able.

They will presumably do so by the by the use of article databases 
alone, with open source copyright licensing.  They, or their 
institutions or funders, may then choose to arrange for the 
continued existence of peer-review services. There is no reason 
why publishers are uniquely able to do this-- the funders do it 
already for research grants, and the universities for tenure. Or 
they might develop alternative versions of quality control that 
would be equally effective This situation will only compromise 
the quality control function of publishing if all the parties 
wish it.

But this is in the hands of the scientists, both as researchers 
and administrators. The scholarly publication system as a whole 
operates to meet their needs as authors and readers, as 
researchers and students. It promotes the progress of science and 
useful arts," and thus benefits the entire world community.

It is the current subscription-based system that promotes piracy. 
Those readers who cannot afford a subscription, or who are not 
privileged to be part of an organisation that has a subscription 
or site license, must obtain articles otherwise. If they are 
law-abiding, they purchase a licensed copy or obtain one through 
the fair use provisions of interlibrary loan. If they are less 
honest, they might look for a pirated copy. No advocate, no 
librarian condones this, but every librarian--and every 
publisher--knows that it occurs. The best way for a publisher to 
safeguard copyright is to become an open access publisher.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
dgoodman@princeton.edu


----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>
Date: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:07 pm
Subject: Re: Quality and mandated open access
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

...
> My question was to ask how peer review, which grantees advocates
> profess to revere, could be sustained if the offsetting
> subscription income were removed because of mandated grantees. If you
> are truly serious about grantees, you must come to terms with the fact
> that it little no sense for publishers to conduct peer review as
> we know it when the products it produces are pirated away.
> ...
>
> Cheers.
>
> Peter Banks
> Banks Publishing
> pbanks@bankspub.com
> www.bankspub.com