Re: Maximising research access vs. minimizing copy-editing errors

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Atanu Garai wrote:

>> See Swan, Alma (2007) What a difference a publisher makes.
>> OptimalScholarship. Saturday, July 7 2007.
>> http://optimalscholarship.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-difference-publisher-makes.html

> Stevan, Thanks for pointing out to this resource. In my 
> opinion, in today's world it is erroneous to draw a straight 
> line between publishers to access.

The straight Gold line is being drawn between publishers and 
access, and the straight Green line is being drawn between 
between authors and access (to their published articles) through 
self-archiving in their institutional repositories, mandated by 
their institutions and funders.

And the Green line is straighter, faster, surer, and within 
immediate reach.

> You are aware that open access journals are also published by 
> publishers like universities, societies, NFPs and even 
> commercial publishers and the opposite is also true.

I am aware, and it is irrelevant. OA is between the research 
community and itself. Types of publishers (e.g., commercial vs. 
non) are utterly irrelevant.

> The bottom line is that a publishing activity except blogging 
> and mailing list posting does not emanate on its own, unless it 
> is "motivated" by some external forces. These forces may be the 
> employer, supervisor, commercial or non-profit publishing 
> agencies, nagging editors, to name a few.

We do not have to reinvent peer-reviewed research publishing 
system from first principles. It is already there. OA is about 
providing free only access to it, at long last. (The Internet has 
been there for 25 years...)

> The point I am trying to make is that this is where publishers 
> are standing.

Where is "this," and what do publishers have to do with it? OA is 
about authors, their institutions and their funders, providing 
supplementary online access to their research output for those 
would-be users who cannot afford paid access to the publisher's 
version (paper or online). That's all.

> It is altogether different matter whether the publishing output 
> is open or closed or funded or commercially available.

I can't follow: What is different, from what? The publishing 
system is not at issue. Online access to published articles is.

> But the bottom line is that for publishing at least in a 
> journal, you shall have an editorial board, peer reviewers who 
> will trigger the whole process. And it is the norm that not the 
> authors but the publishers have so far commissioned these 
> people in making journal publishing worthwhile and scholarly.

To repeat: there is no need either to recapitulate, formalise or 
reinvent the peer-reviewed journal publishing system. It is 
there. What is not there is free online access (OA), and that is 
what researchers need to provide, and what their institutions and 
funders need to mandate that they provide.

> Open access (particularly gold/IR version) benefits from 
> publishers' commissioning of editorial board and peer review 
> panel by simply taking benefit of existing copyright law (which 
> is fair enough from legal point of view), but blames the 
> publishers for not having enough input to the publishing 
> process. Is it right?

I can't follow you. Gold OA is traditional publishing, but not 
charging the user for access. Green OA is traditional publishing, 
but with supplementary author self-archiving. Researchers provide 
(and benefit from) peer review. Journals manage the process, and 
in exchange they get to sell the subscription version (if they 
are conventional journals) or to charge for the peer review, if 
they are Gold OA publishers. Peer review per se, and copyright, 
have nothing to do with OA.

> I do not think this is right unless and until we have an 
> alternative system of having the whole publishing support 
> system without the publishers is ready.

You want to reform or replace the publishing and/or the copyright 
system. OA just needs to provide OA to research output. Green OA, 
through self-archiving and self-archiving mandates, is within 
immediate reach. Let us grasp it, and then worry about publishing 
and/or copyright reform, if we wish...

> To add to this, we would be more practical if we avoid 
> generalizations of the publishers across the board, and in this 
> case the publishers in question are not the open access 
> publishers, but the commercial publishers.

The spectrum is not OA vs. commercial publishers. There are 
commercial and non-commercial OA publishers and commercial and 
non-commercial non-OA publishers. The issue is OA to 
peer-reviewed research output, now...

Stevan Harnad