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

Re: Quality and mandated open access

Perhaps it's more helpful to see this as 'parasitism' rather than 'piracy'. For now, at least, many publishers do permit authors to self-archive, though as evidence grows about the possible risks, more and more seem to be introducing embargoes. Whether authors will observe those, though, is another matter - NIH experience is not encouraging (when did authors ever read the instructions, anyway?)

Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org
Website: www.alpsp.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: Quality and mandated open access

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