RE: Certification and Dissemination

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

On Fri, 2 May 2008, Ian Russell [Chief Executive, ALPSP] wrote:

> No, I am not talking about "double dipping" (the only way that
> could possibly be relevant is in the context of hybrid journals
> which have not previously been mentioned in this exchange).
Fine. We are agreed on this. You are not talking about 
double-dipping. But read on:

> I am talking about clearly and unambiguously making a 
> commitment to fund the certification function in the scholarly 
> journal publishing system rather than acting as a parasite on 
> the current funding mechanism.
But then, Ian, can you please specify exactly what you mind by a 
"clear commitment to fund rather than act as a parasite"?

Are the current institutional subscribers to subscription 
journals not making a clear (annual) commitment (as always)?

Or do you mean a commitment to subscribe in perpetuo, come what 
may? (That would be something rather new!)

And what does an institution's subscription annual commitment, 
for its *incoming* subscribed content -- consisting of the 
refereed research output of *other* institutions -- have to do 
with its own *outgoing* refereed research output? (They may not 
even be in the same journals!)

Or are you, again, thinking of some sort of advance commitment to 
the effect that -- if and when self-archiving makes 100% of all 
institutions' refereed research output freely available to all 
other institutions -- those institutions will all continue 
subscribing to journals, in perpetuo?

For that is a rather tall order, in order to escape being called 
a "parasite"! For if and when 100% self-archiving generates 100% 
OA, and if and when that in turn generates cancellations 
sufficient to make subscription-based cost-recovery 
unsustainable, the natural (and entirely unparasitic) outcome 
that I keep pointing out (and you keep ignoring) is this:

Publishers cut obsolete costs (e.g. print), downsize to providing 
peer review only, and convert to Gold OA publishing, with text 
production, dissemination and archiving offloaded onto the 
institutional repositories, and the sole remaining publication 
costs (peer review) paid for on the Gold OA cost-recovery model, 
by the author-institution, per outgoing article, out of the 
institutional windfall savings from by the institution's own 
subscription cancellations on (what used to be) its own former 
incoming subscription content. 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

>  As I said, though, to some extent this is a side show.
Perhaps, but it might save us repeating ourselves and bypassing 
one another if you did not keep systematically ignoring the 
natural transition scenario I have just described (yet again), 
which answers your point about "commitment" and "parasitism."

> IR: Regarding our previous agreement on self archiving causing
> subscription cancellations, I refer to the quote attributed to
> you at:
> http://www.libraryjournal.com/clear/CA6392242.html?nid=2673#news2
>
> > SH: "it is possible, indeed probable, that self-archiving will cause
> > some cancellations".
I have indeed said that, and I reaffirm it here. But does that 
sound like an affirmation of what you cited me as having said:

> > > IR: we've both agreed in the past that it will most likely 
> > > result in journals going out of business.
What I said was that if/when 100% Green OA should eventually make 
subscriptions unsustainable, journals will simply downsize and 
convert to Gold OA and institutions will pay for peer review on 
the Gold OA model out of their cancellation savings. No 
parasitism, then or now.

I also pointed out that journals will not go out of business 
(though some titles might migrate to other publishers, if some 
publishers decide they do not wish to continue publishing them on 
the Gold OA model).

Still no parasitism.

It sounds like what you are asking for is an advance commitment 
that this transition will never take place. The only way to make 
a commitment to that is for institutions to commit themselves 
*not* to self-archive their own refereed research output, in 
order to sustain publishers' current subscription model, at the 
cost of their own lost research usage, impact, applications and 
progress.

If so, Ian, I am afraid you are asking for too much. Research is 
not funded, conducted and published in order to sustain the 
publishing industry's current subscription model. It is funded, 
conducted and published in order to maximise research usage, 
impact, applications and progress.

> IR: The real issue is unfunded mandates - like the one imposed 
> by Southampton University on its researchers.  Going back to my 
> original post:
>
> > IR: Whilst I agree with the argument that the output of 
> > publicly funded research (or from a research institution) - 
> > which is the author's original article - should be freely 
> > available to the public, I do not believe that the 'refereed 
> > postprint' (to use your terminology, I prefer 'accepted 
> > manuscript') should necessarily be freely given away.  That 
> > decision should be up to the organization that added the value 
> > by peer reviewing it and associating it with its brand."
I have also fully answered that several times, but let me try to 
paraphrase the logic above, cutting to the quick:

You agree that unrefereed research should be free online, but you 
think refereed research should not be (even though the referees, 
too, referee for free).

Your reason is that administering the refereeing costs money (to 
publishers).

I reply that that (and more) is all being paid for today by 
institutional subscriptions.

You think institutions mandating that their refereed research be 
made free online is parasitic.

I repeat that the institutional subscriptions are still paying 
the bill.

You say you want a "commitment" -- but that you do *not* mean 
"double-dipping" (yet you do not state exactly what that 
commitment is meant to be:

I suspect you are asking institutions to cease and desist from 
mandating the self-archiving of refereed research altogether, 
lest it eventually generate a transition to the Gold OA 
cost-recovery model).

But let me save you the trouble:

I much prefer robust OA self-archiving mandates of the form: 
Immediate Deposit (of the refereed postprint, immediately upon 
acceptance for publication) AND setting of access privileges to 
that deposit as Open Access, likewise immediately upon deposit.

However, I (and many others) are in fact advocating a compromise 
as the default OA self-archiving mandate (called the "IDOA 
Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access" mandate -- and the "DDR Dual 
Deposit Release" Mandate by Peter Suber).

IDOA/DDR merely requires immediate deposit (of the refereed 
postprint) but it leaves OA-setting optional (sometimes capping 
the permitted delay or embargo at 6 months or 1 year): Access 
during the embargo can be provisionally set as Closed Access, 
which means only the bibliographic metadata are accessible 
webwide, not the postprint itself.

To tide over the world's usage needs for embargoed deposits, the 
IRs have a Button, in which anyone who has retrieved the metadata 
for a Closed Access deposit can cut/paste their email address and 
click, in order to send an instant automatic email to the author, 
requesting a single copy for research purposes. With one click on 
a URL in the email message received, the author can automatically 
email the postprint instantly to the requester. 
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html

This is merely the online-age automatization of a practice that 
all researchers have used for decades. It is not OA, but (as you 
see) it is almost-OA, it is a natural development of the online 
medium, and all it needs to make it universal is IDOA mandates - 
*Deposit* mandates.

The handwriting is on the wall, Ian, and it is very simple: Free 
online access to refereed research is optimal and inevitable for 
research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, the 
vast R&D industry, and the tax-paying public for whose benefit 
the research is being conducted.

The refereed research journal publishing industry is a *service* 
industry. Research is not being conducted as a service to the 
publishing industry. What will prevail is not what is best for 
the publishing industry, but what is best for research, and the 
publishing industry will have to adapt to it. The online medium 
has made OA optimal for research, and hence inevitable. Get used 
to it. It is for the best, and journals will survive, and thrive. 
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11160/

> and that is why I believe it is unacceptable for Southampton 
> University to announce its mandate without also making a 
> commitment to fund OA fees.
I wonder why you are particularly exercised by Southampton's 
mandate, since there are now 43 mandates worldwide, from 21 
universities (including Harvard) and 22 funders (including NIH, 
ERC, and all but one of RCUK)? 
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/

But, for the record, exactly what "commitment" are you asking 
for, from Southampton, given that you say you are not talking 
about double-dipping, and given that Southampton (like all other 
universities) subscribes to whatever journals it feels it can 
afford -- and the fact that Southampton is making its own 
research output OA has absolutely no bearing on their choice of 
which journals to subscribe to?

Stevan Harnad