Re: Five Universities Sign Open Access Funding Compact

[Stevan Harnad <amsciforum@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Elizabeth E. Kirk
<elizabeth.e.kirk@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> Stevan, it is, as you say, about content. But it's not only about
> the content of Dartmouth's research output, or that of our peers.
> It's also about the value of the content provided through
> publishers, and the willingness of readers and institutions to
> look for that value.

Elizabeth, I am not sure what the "it" is. If it's OA, then the 
issue is not the *value* of the content or the contribution of 
the publisher or the willingness of readers and institutions to 
"look for" that value.

The value of peer-reviewed publication is already enshrined in 
the fact that OA's target content is *peer-reviewed* content. And 
what is being sought now is (online) access to that valued 
content, not only for those users whose institutions can afford 
to subscribe to the journal in which it was published, but for 
all would-be users, web-wide.

The cost of the portion of that value that is added by publishers 
is being paid in full today by institutional subscriptions today. 
What is missing is not a recognition of that value, but open 
access to that valued content.

That is why institutions should first adopt Green OA 
self-archiving mandates -- to make their own own valued content 
openly accessible to all users web-wide and not just those whose 
institutions can afford subscription access to the journals in 
which it appears -- thereby also encouraging reciprocal mandates 
by other institutions. 
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/

Having done that, institutions are free to spend any spare cash 
they may have on paying for Gold OA publication, over and above 
what they already spend on subscriptions.

But committing to Gold OA funding compacts like COPE before or 
instead of mandating Green OA self-archiving is not only a waste 
of a lot of scarce money in exchange for very little OA value; it 
is also a failure to add OA value to all of their research output 
at no extra cost (by mandating Green OA self-archiving).

> We both agree that the peer review process
> is a critical step in creating the finished work of scholarship,
> as well as "certifying" the work.

Yes indeed; but peer review is *already being paid for* -- in 
full, many times over -- for most journals today (including most 
of the journals users want and need most) through institutional 
subscription fees.

To repeat: The value of peer review is not at issue. *Access to 
paid-up, peer-reviewed articles* is at issue.

> Currently, open access
> journals--as you rightly put it--are a very small subset of the
> publishing pie.

And committing to fund that small subset of an institution's 
contribution to the publishing pie today, before or instead of 
committing to mandate OA for the vast supra-set of an 
institution's journal article output, is committing to spend a 
lot of extra money for little OA while failing to provide a lot 
of OA for no extra money at all.

> Without a predictable financial stream, there are
> few avenues of growing an OA sector that can furnish peer review,
> copy editing, DOIs, and all of the other parts of publishing that
> have costs involved.

What is missing and urgently needed today -- for research and 
researchers -- is not "predictable financial streams" but online 
access to peer-reviewed research for those researchers whose 
institutions cannot afford subscription access today.

"Open Access" is about Access, not about financial streams. The 
avenue -- already wide-open -- that urgently needs to be taken 
today (for research and researchers today) is overwhelmingly the 
avenue to accessing the vast paid-up subscription stream that 
already exists today, not the gradual growing of a future "OA 
sector."

Institutions first need to provide immediate access to the 
peer-reviewed content they already produce today (its peer review 
already paid in full by subscriptions from all the institutions 
that can afford subscriptions to the journals in which that 
content already appears, today). Having done that, there's no 
harm at all in an institution's going on to invest its spare cash 
in growing new Gold OA "sectors."

But there's plenty of harm in doing so instead, pre-emptively, 
instead of providing the Green OA all institutions are already in 
the position to provide, cost-free, today.

> Trying to grow that kind of OA sector by
> supporting those costs, and overcoming the misconception that OA
> means "not peer reviewed" (which many people said about 10-15
> years ago about **all** electronic journals, if you remember) is
> a honking good reason to join the compact.

Misconceptions certainly abound. But the fact that OA means *OA 
to the peer-reviewed literature* has been stated from the very 
outset by the OA movement (BOAI) loud and clear for all those 
with ears to hear. Committing to funding Gold OA for a small 
subset of an institution's peer-reviewed output instead of first 
mandating Green OA for the vast supra-set of an institution's 
peer-reviewed output seems a pricey way to drive home the message 
that OA's target content is indeed peer-reviewed content...

> That kind of OA
> sector, which of course can only be built when more institutions
> join us, is one that may create actual competition in journal
> publishing over time, by which I mean competition that results in
> lower prices, more players, and multiple models. It could
> include, as well, any current publisher who might wish to move to
> producer-pays from reader-pays.

Prices, players, models, competition, payment, sectors: What has 
become of *access* -- today, to today's peer-reviewed research -- 
in all this Gold Fever, which seems to have left research and 
researchers' pressing immediate needs by the wayside in favor of 
speculative future economics?

> We care very much about the stability of and access to our
> research.

Then why doesn't Dartmouth mandate Green OA self-archiving, 
today?

> We are working on that from a number of fronts and in
> multiple conversations. The compact is not our answer to
> everything. But we certainly won't step back from an opportunity
> to help create a more vibrant publishing landscape.

But why is committing to provide a little extra Gold OA for 
Dartmouth's peer-reviewed research output, at extra cost, being 
acted upon today, whereas committing to provide Green OA to all 
of Dartmouth's peer-reviewed research output at no extra cost (by 
mandating Green OA) is still idling in "conversation" mode? -- 
especially since the cost of the value-added peer review for all 
the rest is already being paid in full by existing institutional 
subscriptions?

Stevan Harnad