RE: Certification and Dissemination

["Ian.Russell" <ian.russell@cytherean.co.uk>]

Hi Stevan,

I have used Southampton University's mandate as an example since 
I am a Southampton alumnus and as such I am particularly 
disappointed by the detail of their unfunded mandate.

I'm not so sure that "the handwriting" really is on the wall - 
otherwise mandates and lobbying wouldn't be needed, but as ever 
we'll see as things play out.

Just so that my position is clear, I'll go through your summary 
points and respond again but that will be it for me on this 
exchange - I suspect that the general readers of this list have 
had enough and we should continue, if necessary, off-list.

> SH: You agree that unrefereed research should be free online, 
> but you think refereed research should not be (even though the 
> referees, too, referee for free).

IR: Correct, but I have already stated why refereeing is not free 
and that peer review is much more than a process.  It also 
relates to the authority bestowed by a journal brand etc.  In my 
opinion it is a grave mistake to try to reduce down the value 
added in this way to a mere 'process'.

> SH: Your reason is that administering the refereeing costs 
> money (to publishers).

IR: That is certainly part, but by no means all, of it.  There is 
more to it than that as I have touched on above.

> I reply that that (and more) is all being paid for today by 
> institutional subscriptions.

IR: Today?  But we are not talking about a "steady state".  If we 
can agree that wide-spread archiving will mean that established 
subscription income will decline, then surely funds have to be 
unambiguously made available for the only other show in town: 
author-side payment.  I commend the Wellcome Trust for the 
clarity of their statements on this in the past.  Why has 
Southampton University not done the same?

> You think institutions mandating that their refereed research 
> be made free online is parasitic.

IR: Correct.  It relies on journals to certify, bestow authority, 
for provenance etc.  I am sorry if the term causes offence, but I 
do believe it describes the relationship well.  If there is a 
less pejorative term with the same meaning then I'd be happy to 
use that instead.

> I repeat that the institutional subscriptions are still paying 
> the bill.

IR: I repeat that we are not talking about a "steady state".  I 
can understand why you are trying to make this an argument about 
subscription journals but it is not.  We can't have it both ways 
and say that subscriptions will still pay the bills AND that 
cancellations (and hence cost savings) are inevitable.

> You say you want a "commitment" -- but that you do *not* mean 
> "double-dipping" (yet you do not state exactly what that 
> commitment is meant to be:

IR: With respect I have stated exactly that already - in 
Southampton University's case a clear, campus wide commitment to 
meet author side payment fees.  As regards "double-dipping", it 
is important not to conflate the issues for an individual journal 
or research institution with those of the system as a whole.  I 
don't believe that the PLoS journals could be accused of 
double-dipping, nor journals that reduce their subscription 
prices in line with the number of articles published under an 
author-side payment system.  Why should PLoS lose out because 
Southampton University (for example) refuses to cover author-side 
payment fees?

> I suspect you are asking institutions to cease and desist from 
> mandating the self-archiving of refereed research altogether, 
> lest it eventually generate a transition to the Gold OA 
> cost-recovery model).

IR: I am asking institutions not to mandate deposit of research 
that has been peer-reviewed by a journal, yes, because it is 
parasitic on the journals system (irrespective of business model) 
and I do not see how they can claim the right to do so.  I would 
also oppose someone that stated that liquid oxygen is just free 
air and advocating that it should therefore be made freely 
available.  I am most definitely NOT asking this lest it 
facilitate a move to Gold OA.  Please do not put words into my 
mouth here. I have no problem with Gold OA - it is certainly 
preferable to unfunded mandates.  As I have said repeatedly in 
this exchange so long as the system is paying for the 
certification elements of scholarly exchange I have no problem.

Best wishes,

Ian Russell
Chief Executive, ALPSP