On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Don Odom wrote:
> Dear Stevan,
> Why not just say simply that OA _archiving_ is not the same as OA _publishing_?
That distinction has been there ever since the word "Open Access" was coined:
say the BOAI definition of BOAI-1 (OA self-archiving) and BOAI-2 (OA journal-publishing).
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
Best not to leave out the "self" because it is critical that the
author is archiving his *own* published journal articles, rather than
the publisher doing it for him (OA publishing). Both require online
"archiving," but only in self-archiving does the author do it -- as a
supplement to publishing in a journal, not a substitute for it.
(Also, stand-alone "archiving" is often misinterpreted as a preservation
function rather than the immediate access-provision function OA self-archiving
is meant to be.)
> The critical difference here in my mind that with OA archiving one archives
> for _oneself_ while with OA publishing one publishes for _others_.
Correct.
> With the former no intention exists to capture the costs of anything - the
> preparation, the peer review, the posting, etc.
Correct. Nor to derive any revenue from it: The publisher continues to be the
one who performs the service and receives the revenue for it. The author simply
supplements the toll access with free access to his own version for would-be users who
cannot afford the toll version.
> With the latter, there is
> the clear intent to capture the costs either on the front end (from the
> authors) or the back end (from the subscribers).
Correct.
> Perhaps by presenting this difference in lowest common denominator terms the
> message might sink in?!
Ah dear Don, if you only knew how often it *has* been presented in
those very |lowest common denominator terms" yet it continues to be
misunderstood -- unwittingly by most, wilfully by some...
The fact that this distinction is striking you, in October 2005, as if it were somehow a
new revelation (rather than something that has been said over and over and over again for
years now) is a symptom of how hard it has been to get this monumentally trivial and
transparent point across. It will require future psycho-historians to diagnose why it took
so very long for the token to drop...
Chrs, Stevan
> Best, Don
> ----------------------------------
> Karlstads universitet
> Avd. utbildning och forskning
> Universitetsgatan 2
> 651 88 Karlstad
> Tel. +46 54 710 1000 (switchboard)
> http://www.kau.se/
> ----------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
> To: American Scientist Open Access Forum
> <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
> Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:36:06 +0100 (BST)
> Subject: [BOAI] Effects of OA *publishing* on OA *publishing*: Peter/Paul
> Redux
>
> > Re: New ALPSP study on the effects of Open Access on scholarly
> > publishing
> > "The facts about Open Access"
> > http://www.alpsp.org/pubs.htm
> >
> > Prior Amsci Topic Thread:
> > "Drubbing Peter to Pox Paul" (started November 2004)
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4152.html
> > and Guardian Education December 2004)
> >
> > http://education.guardian.co.uk/higherfeedback/story/0,11056,1364556,00
> > .html
> >
> > Without prejudice as to the reliability and validity of the ALPSP
> > study,
> > I must point out (wearily, yet again) that this was *not* a study of
> > "the
> > effects of OA on scholarly publishing" nor of "the facts about Open
> > Access".
> >
> > It was a study of *OA publishing* (i.e., of the journals that currently
> > make their own contents freely available on the web, how they currently
> > make ends meet, what their current quality levels are, and how they
> > currently implement peer review). The main findings are that: (1)
> > many current OA journals do not use the OA cost-recovery model, (2)
> > some current OA journals are having trouble making ends meet, (3) some
> > current OA journals may have lower quality standards.
> >
> > These findings have nothing *whatsoever* to do with OA self-archiving,
> > nor with the proposed RCUK OA self-archiving mandate. They are about
> > current OA publishing only.
> >
> > Touting them as being "The facts about Open Access" and as revealing
> > "the effects of Open Access on scholarly publishing" is utter nonsense
> > and very much in the spirit of ALPSP's rather strained efforts to give
> > the impression that there is any objective evidence at all that OA
> > self-archiving has a negative effect on journal publishing. There is
> > and continues to be no such evidence, and this study provides no such
> > evidence. The survey merely repeats the (well-known, well-aired)
> > *opinion*
> > of some publishers that "disastrous consequences" are imminent.
> >
> > Using the data on the current status of OA publishing as if it had any
> > bearing at all on OA self-archiving is drubbing Peter (self-archiving)
> > to pox Paul (OA publishing). This strategy may be sufficient to dupe
> > DTI for a bit
> >
> >
> > http://education.guardian.co.uk/higherfeedback/story/0,11056,1364556,00
> > .html
> >
> > but sooner or later sensible people are bound to twig on the fact that
> > it is nothing but a smoke-screen.
> >
> > I am quite confident that the RCUK consists of such sensible people.
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:
> >
> > > Apologies for duplication, but I thought your members/readers of
> > > all these lists would be interested in the message below
> > >
> > > Sally
> > >
> > > Sally Morris, Chief Executive
> > > Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> > > South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> > > Tel: +44 (0)1903 871 686
> > > Fax: +44 (0)1903 871 457
> > > Email: sally.morris_at_alpsp.org
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Nick Evans
> > > To: alpsp-discuss_at_mailbase.ac.uk
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:32 PM
> > > Subject: New ALPSP study on the effects of Open Access on scholarly
> > publishing
> > >
> > > I am pleased to let you know that the substantial research study
> > > into the quickly evolving landscape of Open Access publishing has
> > > been released by ALPSP today (Tuesday 11 October 2005). A free
> > > to download pdf of the full report is available on our website
> > > (www.alpsp.org) together with the Overview section (the first 32
> > > pages of the report) and a press release. The priced printed version
> > > of the report (which is 128 pages long) can also be ordered online.
> > >
> > > As you will know this new study 'The Facts About Open Access' was
> > > sponsored by ALPSP with the American Association for the Advancement
> > > of Science (AAAS) and HighWire Press, with additional data from
> > > the Association of American Medical Colleges. The research was
> > > conducted by the independent consultants Kaufman-Wills Group LLC.
> > >
> > > It makes fascinating and instructive reading. As Sally says in
> > > her introduction: "Discussion of Open Access tends to be strong
> > > on rhetoric but short on facts. But now we have, for the first
> > > time, a substantial body of data about different forms of Open
> > > Access publishing, and a baseline of comparison with traditional
> > > subscription publishing."
> > >
> > > Nick
> > >
> > > Nick Evans
> > > Member Services Manager
> > > Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP)
> > > 9 Stanbridge Road
> > > Putney, London, SW15 1DX
> > > Email: nick.evans_at_alpsp.org
> > > Web: www.alpsp.org
> > > Phone: +44 (0)20 8789 2394
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Oct 13 2005 - 21:48:29 BST