Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal

[Liblicense-L Listowner <liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Of possible interest.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:24:02 +0100 (BST)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: SPARC Institutional Repositories Discussion List <SPARC-IR@arl.org>
Cc: AmSci Forum <american-scientist-open-access-forum@amsci.org>
Subject: [SPARC-IR] Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy
    Proposal

         ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **

31 August 2005

Professor Ian Diamond
Chair, RCUK Executive Group
Councils UK Secretariat
Polaris House North Star Ave
Swindon SN2 1ET UK

Dear Ian,

The STM have written a response to the RCUK proposal in which they too,
like the ALPSP a few weeks ago, adduce reasons for delaying and modifying
the implementation of the RCUK self-archiving policy.

All the STM points are very readily rebutted: Most are based on rather
profound (and surprising) but easily corrected misunderstandings about the
policy itself, and its purpose. A few points are based on a perceived
conflict of interest between what is demonstrably best for British
research and the British public's investment in it and what STM sees as
best for the STM publishing industry.

The principal substantive misunderstanding about the RCUK policy itself is
that the STM is arguing as if RCUK were proposing to mandate a different
publishing business model (Open Access [OA] Publishing) whereas RCUK is
proposing to mandate no such thing: It is merely proposing to mandate that
RCUK fundees self-archive the final author's drafts of journal articles
resulting from RCUK- funded research in order to make their findings
accessible to all potential users whose institutions cannot afford access
to the published journal version -- in order to maximise the uptake, usage
and impact of British research output. As such, the author's free
self-archived version is a supplement to, not a substitute for, the
journal's paid version.

STM (like ALPSP) express concern that self-archiving may diminish their
revenues. It is pointed out by way of reply (as was pointed out in the
reply to ALPSP) that all evidence to date is in fact to the contrary. STM
express concern that self-archiving will compromise peer review. It is
pointed out that it is the author's peer-reviewed draft that is being
self-archived. STM express concern that self-archiving the author's
version will create confusion about versions: It is pointed out that for
those would-be users who cannot afford the paid journal version, the
author's version is incomparably better than no version at all, and indeed
has been demonstrated to enhance citation impact by 50-250%.  STM express
concern about the costs of Institutional Repositories (IRs): It is pointed
out that IRs are neither expensive nor intended as substitutes for journal
publishing, so their costs are irrelevant to STM. STM then express concern
that the OA publishing business model would cost more than the current
subscription-based model: It is pointed out that the OA model is not what
is being mandated by RCUK.

The point-by-point rebuttal follows. It is quite clear that the STM has no
substantive case at all for delaying or modifying the RCUK policy proposal
in any way.

I would close by suggesting that it would help clarify the RCUK policy if
the abstract ideological points, which currently have no concrete
implications in practice, were either eliminated or separated from the
concrete policy recommendation (which is to require self-archiving and
perhaps to help fund OA publication costs). The 'preservation' components
are also misplaced, as the mandate is to self-archive the author's draft,
not the publisher's version (which is the one with the preservation
problem). It would also be good to remove the confusing mumbo-jumbo about
'kite-marking' so that ALPSP and STM cannot argue that RCUK is proposing
to tamper with peer review. And the less said about publishing models, the
better, as that is not what RCUK is mandating.

Best wishes,

Stevan Harnad
Professor of Cognitive Sciences
Department of Electronic and Computer Science
University of Southampton
Southampton UK
SO17 1BJ

Linked version of the following rebuttal is at:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/25-guid.html

     Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads:

     "ALPSP Response to RCUK Policy Proposal" (began Jul 2005)
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4623.html
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4625.html
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4674.html
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4701.html

     "Critique of STM Critique of NIH Proposal" (began Nov 2004)
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4174.html

     "STM Talk: Open Access by Peaceful Evolution" (began Feb 2003)
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2687.html

     "Book on future of STM publishers" (began Jul 2002)
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2127.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------