[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Is OA (Gold) really a desirable goal for scientific journal publishing?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Is OA (Gold) really a desirable goal for scientific journal publishing?
- From: Stevan Harnad <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:04:47 EST
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
[There is an ongoing discussion on the American Scientist Open Access Forum on the question of whether CERN's push for OA (Gold) publishing in its area will divert funds from research. The initial posting http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5957.html is not by me, Stevan Harnad, but by my brother, John Harnad, a physicist. Although I followed the posting with a critique http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5958.html on some points of detail, I want to stress that I am in basic agreement with the gist of John Harnad's point that a hasty CERN-led forced conversion to OA (Gold) Publishing in (part or all of) physics at this time is likely to cost more, is likely to divert funds from research, and should be deferred in favor of expanding the practice of OA (Green) Self-Archiving and parallel co-existence. -- SH ] http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5957.html On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Bruno Granier wrote: 03:38 10/01/2007 +0000, John Harnad wrote: >JH: 4) It is highly unlikely that public (or private) funding >agencies will be willing to increase their budgets to cover such >extra [gold] publication charges for authors, even if they >express themselves in favour of 'Open Access' and continue to >allow this (as most do now) as a legitimate item within the >budget of a supported researcher. The implication is that the >extra costs for [gold] publication charges will have to be >subtracted from other, current research expenditures. For those, >e.g., in the 10-15% category, this means, effectively, a 10-15% >cut in their 'actual' research budgets. > >BG: I just want to highlight that if the "extra costs for >publication charges" might effectively affect negatively the >"current research expenditures," cost savings for the research >libraries (cut in their subscription budget) might probably >compensate them (that is just transferring from one box to the >other within the same drawer). Don't you think so? Yes, of course subscription savings could be redirected http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm but not *today*, when the only journals going gold would be (some) physics journals (and not pre-emptively, at today's -- non-minimised -- asking prices). Unlike CERN, most institutions' (i.e., universities') overloaded subscription budgets are not just for physics journals! It would indeed require a very concerted redirection system to systematically commit institutional savings on incoming subscriptions to paying for outgoing institutional publications instead. And many sceptics doubt (quite wrongly) that such a redirection would be possible at all: Of course it is possible, indeed perfectly natural and inevitable -- if and when *all* subscriptions are being cancelled and *all* journals are downsized to peer-review service provision alone, their much-reduced costs being covered by charging publication fees to the author-institution instead of charging subscription/license fees to the user-institution. But institutions certainly can't -- and won't -- do that concerted redirection of funds now, piecewise, journal by journal or subfield by subfield, institution by institution -- and at the current asking price, which has not yet been reduced to just the cost of peer review, scaled down under universal cancellation pressure. This is the fundamental flaw in CERN's reasoning, which is to imagine that most institutions are like CERN, subscribing to physics journals only. *CERN* can easily anticipate, isolate and redirect its own savings (perhaps even at the current inflated, non-minimised asking price). But universities, with serials budgets covering all disciplines, and currently stretched to the limit, certainly cannot and will not redirect piece-wise subscription savings today, journal by journal, field by field (and at the current asking price) on the pious hope that this gold-conversion will all soon propagate somehow to all other disciplines at a price that will not leave them worse off than were before. No, instead the costs of gold OA publishing today, for (some or all of) physics alone, today, would have to be poached from research funds -- research funds that are already even more sorely stretched today than library serials budgets! CERN's proposal, locally coherent (for one-field institutions like CERN) is globally incoherent and will not scale. And instead of helping the progress toward universal Open Access in all disciplines through its splendid local example, as it has been doing for years, CERN will -- through the premature, ill-thought-through, and narrow-sighted step it is now contemplating: that of using its prestige and weight to coercively convert (some or all) journals to the gold OA cost-recovery model -- actually retard and impede rather than accelerate worldwide progress toward Open Access. What CERN can and should do instead is to use its prestige and weight and splendid historic example to help propagate its own practice of *mandated institutional self-archiving* (OA green) to all the rest of the world's disciplines and institutions. Then, and only then, might there eventually arise the universal cancellation pressure toward cost-cutting, downsizing to peer review, conversion to gold, and redirection of windfall savings. Or it might not. But the *fundamental* point is that the research *accessibility* problem will already have been completely solved with 100% green OA, through universally mandated self-archiving, CERN-style. The journal *affordability* problem is *not the same problem* as the research accessibility problem. conflating the two does not solve either problem (except myopically, locally, and solipsistically, for a few physics-only institutions). More pertinent still: In a world with no accessibility problem, because it is 100% (green) OA, the journal affordability problem, although not solved, becomes a lot less pressing and portentous: Libraries still won't be able to afford all journals they may want, but it will *matter* much less, because the contents of those journals they cannot afford will still be safely accessible to all their users -- in their green OA (self-archived) versions. So it is not too late for CERN to uncross its research-accessibility and library-affordability wires and focus on spreading its own successful OA solution -- mandated institutional self-archiving -- to the rest of the world, rather than needlessly trying to convert the access-solution into a solution for its library budget problems today too. That requires patience and foresight, for a global solution, not precipitous pre-emptive local action, by field or institution. Harnad, S. (2006) The Green Road to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/ Stevan Harnad http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
- Prev by Date: ALA Seattle: ALCTS SS Journal Costs in Libraries DG Sunday, Jan. 21
- Next by Date: Re: Is OA (Gold) really a desirable goal for scientific journal publishing?
- Previous by thread: ALA Seattle: ALCTS SS Journal Costs in Libraries DG Sunday, Jan. 21
- Next by thread: Re: Is OA (Gold) really a desirable goal for scientific journal publishing?