[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Quality and mandated open access

I believe Peter's use of "piracy" was a metaphor.

Joe Esposito

On 10/17/06, David Goodman <dgoodman@princeton.edu> wrote:

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