Re: The Argument Against (Premature) Gold OA Support

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

On 15-Jun-09, at 7:03 PM, Robert Richards richards1000 -- 
comcast.net wrote:

> this empirical claim [that a Gold OA subsidy is needed to reach 
> consensus on adopting a Green OA mandate] could be tested 
> empirically, say, by surveying the institutions that have not 
> implemented Green OA respecting what they consider to be the 
> necessary conditions for persuading them to implement Green OA.

An even simpler way to test it is to see what proportion of the 
85 Green OA mandates adopted to date include a Gold OA subsidy. 
(Harvard's for example, does not; nor do most of the others...)

An enterprising student is encouraged to look at the "policy 
details" link in ROARMAP

http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/

for each of the 85 policies to date. Institional/Departmental 
tallies should probably considered separately from funder tallies 
(and thesis mandates should probably be left out of this 
reckoning).

Stevan Harnad

On 15-Jun-09, at 7:03 PM, richards1000@comcast.net wrote:

> If I understand correctly, Prof. Shieber is making an empirical
> argument: that in his experience, he has found that institutions
> have declined to vote to implement Green OA unless institutional
> support for Gold OA was also implemented, and that based on that
> evidence, he predicts that, going forward, institutions will not
> vote to implement Green OA unless institutional support for Gold
> OA is also implemented.
>
> That is, he seems to be making the empirical claim that a
> commitment to institutional support for Gold OA has been, and
> will continue to be, a necessary condition of persuading
> institutions to implement Green OA.  If that is an accurate
> characterization of Prof. Shieber's argument (and I'm not certain
> that it is), then I would think that the prospective component of
> this empirical claim could be tested empirically, say, by
> surveying the institutions that have not implemented Green OA
> respecting what they consider to be the necessary conditions for
> persuading them to implement Green OA.
>
> Such surveys may have already been performed.  I think that such
> empirical evidence would substantially enhance this debate.
>
> Robert C. Richards, Jr., J.D.*, M.S.L.I.S., M.A.
> Law Librarian & Legal Information Consultant
> Philadelphia, PA
> richards1000@comcast.net
> * Member New York bar, retired status.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stevan Harnad" <amsciforum@gmail.com>
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:49:09 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: The Argument Against (Premature) Gold OA Support
>
> I have written a response to
> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2009/06/11/the-argument-for-gold-oa-s=
> upport/ "The argument for gold OA support" by Stuart Shieber.
>
> The full response is at:
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/590-guid.html
> "The Argument Against (Premature) Gold OA Support"
>
> Here is just the summary:
>
> What is needed in order to provide universal OA as quickly and
> surely as possible is for universities (and funders) to mandate
> that their own researchers provide (Green) OA by depositing their
> articles in their institution's OA repository immediately upon
> acceptance for publication. It is both a strategic and a
> conceptual mistake to think that money has to be spent at this
> time on paying for publishing in Gold OA journals. Gold OA
> journals' time will come if and when universal Green OA makes
> subscriptions unsustainable. Then publishers will cut costs and
> downsize to just providing the service of managing peer review,
> paid for by institutions out of their windfall subscription
> cancellation savings. Universities and funders should not be
> either distracted or deterred from mandating Green OA now by
> thinking that they first need to provide funds to pay for Gold
> OA. (Once they have adopted a Green OA mandate, this is no longer
> a distraction or deterrent and they can of course do whatever
> they like with their spare cash.)
>
> (1) Any needless cost at all associated with adopting and
> implementing a Green OA mandate is a deterrent to arriving at
> consensus on adoption, not an incentive.
>
> (2) Minimal costs for Harvard U are not necessarily minimal for
> HaveNot U.
>
> (3) The way to explain the possible eventual transition to
> universal Gold OA is via its causal antecedent: universal Green
> OA.
>
> (4) The way to allay worries about Learned Society Publishers=92
> future after universal Green OA is to explain the simple,
> straightforward relation between institutional subscription
> collapse and institutional subscription cancellation savings, and
> how it releases the funds to continue paying for publication via
> Gold OA. (And remind faculty that if their institutions really
> want to keep subsidizing Learned Society publishers' "good works"
> (conferences, scholarships, lobbying) as they are now through
> subscription-fees, they can certainly continue to do so through
> publication fees too, as a surcharge, on the Gold OA model, if
> they wish.)
>
> (5) Reserve any plans for promoting pre-emptive payment of Gold
> OA fees for those institutions that have already mandated Green
> OA (and preferably only after we are further along the road from
> 85 mandates to 10,000!).
>
> (6) Pre-emptive payment for Gold OA before universal Green OA
> just retards and distracts from providing and mandating Green OA.
> Moreover, it is incoherent and does not scale ("universalize"):
> It is like an Escher drawing, leading nowhere, even though it
> seems to.
>
> Stevan Harnad