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

Re: Institutional Mandates and Institutional OA Repository Growth

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Sandy Thatcher wrote:
Ah, yes, and if you'll remember our prior discussion about open access, Stevan, I warned that just this "success" might be the "tipping point" to drive a host of commercial and society publishers out of the business of journal publishing. One "tipping point" causes another? Witness, as partial proof, the reaction of STM publishers represented by the PRISM initiative. I read that as a warning that, if the government forces a change in their business model, they may just walk away from the business. I assume you wouldn't consider that a bad thing at all, but my question would be what kind of structure will take its place and what expectations will universities have of their presses to pick up the slack?
What is remarkable, Sandy, is how actual empirical facts (very few) are being freely admixed, willy-nilly, with fact-free speculations for which there is, and continues to be zero empirical evidence, and, in many cases, decisive and familiar counterevidence, both empirical and logical.

Nothing has changed since our prior discussions except that there have (happily) been some more Green OA mandates (total adopted: 32, plus 8 more further proposed mandates). http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/

There has been no "tipping point." Just *talk* about tipping points, and that talk about tipping points has been going on for years.

There has been no one driven out of business, nor any empirical evidence of a trend toward being driven out of business. Just *talk* of being driven out of business, and that talk about being driven out of business has been going on for years.

And as to the "partial proof" in the form of the STM/PRISM "reaction" -- that very same reaction (with the very same false, alarmist arguments) has been voiced, verbatim, by the very same publisher groups (STM, AAP, ALPSP), over and over, for over a decade now. And they have been debunked just as often (see long list of links below). But that certainly hasn't been enough to make the publishers' anti-OA lobby cease and desist. Do you consider the relentless repetition, at louder and louder volume, of exactly the same specious and evidence-free claims, to be "proof" of anything, partial or otherwise?

And the phrase "the government forces a change in their business model" is just as false a description of what is actually going on when it is spoken in your own well-meaning words as when it is voiced by PRISM and Eric Dezenhall: The government is *not* forcing a change in a business model. The funders of tax-payer-funded research -- and, increasingly, universities, who are not "the government" at all! -- are insisting that the researchers they fund and employ make their peer-reviewed research freely available to all would-be users online, in line with the purpose of conducting and funding and publishing research in the first place.

This quite natural (and overdue) adaptation to the online age on the part of the research community -- Green OA -- may or may not lead to a transition to Gold OA publishing: no one knows whether, or when it will. But what is already known is that OA itself, whether Green or Gold, is enormously beneficial to research, researchers, their institutions and funders, the vast R&D industry, and the tax-paying public that funds research and for whose benefit it is funded, conducted and published. (OA is also a secondary benefit to education and the developing world.)

So the "tipping point" for Green OA itself is an unalloyed benefit for everyone but the peer-reviewed journal publishing industry, whether or not it leads to a second tipping point and a transition to Gold OA.

Reality today, to repeat, is a growth in Green OA mandates, not a tipping point (let alone two), not a subscription decline, not publishers going out of business, not government pressure toward another publishing model.

You ask "what kind of structure will take its place and what expectations will universities have of their presses to pick up the slack?" I presume you are referring to the multiple hypothetical conditional: *if* Green OA mandates reach the tipping point that generates 100% Green OA, and *if* that in turn generates journal cancellations that reach the tipping point that generates a transition to Gold OA? The answer (which I have provided many times before) is simple: The "structure" will be Gold OA, funded out of (a part of) the institutional cancellation savings. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

And this is not about publishing in general, commercial, society, university, or otherwise. It is only about peer-reviewed journal publishing, and their hypothetical transition to Gold OA under cancellation pressure from mandated Green OA.

Stevan Harnad