Re: Self-Archiving vs. Self-Publishing FAQ

From: Brian Simboli <brs4_at_lehigh.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 21:53:12 +0100

Responses to Stevan Harnad:

1. I've so far taken no positions on the merits of central as opposed
to institutional solutions. Why do you attribute, once again, a view to
me that I don't hold? Perhaps that explains the need of various people
to reiterate points.

2. I think we're hitting definitional problems here. It depends on how
you define "green". Stevan takes it to be tied crucially to author's
depositing their output somewhere, ***including (or especially?) cases
where that output has already been published by toll access
publishers***. My point is that this practice of double-publishing
promotes a system beholden to the commercials for their largesse,
something that in the recent discussions he has not really addressed.
What of the "pull the plug" argument? (i.e.., the commercials can at any
point overturn their extension of green self-archiving "rights").

I'm all for OA preprint archiving, for those disciplines that rely upon
them. The fact remains that most disciplines rely on publishing in
toll-access, peer reviewed venues. To think that double-publishing that
material is going to handle the infrastructural problems of
affordability, preservation, etc is, I think, quixotic, at least for the
foreseeable future.

3. "overlay journals have nothing in principle to do with OA".

I have in mind by overlay journals, a vague term I admit, the following.
You may want to disagree with my definition, in which case we can find
another term. Shall we call it the "x-journal"?

a. institutionally funded editorial processes resulting in deposit of
refereed materials in an established institutional or central archive or
archives, where the traditional model of peer-review is full retained,
and where the access is toll access. [Institutional is ambiguous--I can
see a variety of institutions supporting one central archive].
or
b." ", where the access is open access.

Option (b) holds a great deal of promise for facilitating OA of
traditionally peer-reviewed materials, which is what researchers want in
most disciplines. It is in this sense that overlay journals have a whole
lot to do with OA. Option (a), if prices are kept low, also promotes
access, though not open access. Why? More institutions can buy journals.

4. What is option (b) any more hypothetical than the quixotic goal of
100 per cent green self-archiving of already published material?

5. Self-archiving involves "no dollars"? Perhaps for researchers. I
speak from a librarian's perspective, however. But good luck in getting
the majority, or even a small minority, of researchers on board with
your strategy. So too librarians, who find your condescension toward
them demeaning.

Brian Simboli
Received on Thu Oct 07 2004 - 21:53:12 BST