On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Marc Brodsky wrote:
> I do not speak as one who is against OA. I am neutral and open to
> experiment and results.
I will now make the charitable assumption that Mark Brodsky does mean
exactly what he says, and is simply unaware of the contradictions
inherent in it. I will try to hold up a mirror, reflecting exactly what is
latent in his own words and their meanings, and where they actually
lead, if made fully explicit:
"I am not against OA. I am open to experiment and results."
In physics, a 14-year experiment has already been conducted. Here are the results:
(1) OA means free online access for all would-be users.
(2) Self-archiving provides OA.
(3) Physicists have self-archived spontaneously.
(4) Spontaneous self-archiving (OA) has reached 100% in some areas of physics.
(5) Repeated experimental comparisons of research impact (between OA and
non-OA articles in the same journal issue) have revealed an OA citation
advantage of 25%-250% or more, and a download advantage of c. 300%.
(6) APS and IOP report that no detectable decline in subscriptions has been
associated with self-archiving.
(7) RCUK now proposes to apply these positive experimental results to
articles that have *not* yet been self-archived spontaneously, in order
to raise the percentage of OA to 100%
Mark says he is not against OA, and open to experiment and results: Then why
object to the RCUK experiment? Why delay it? And delay it for what?
> AIP has the same liberal pre-print and post-print posting policies as
> the APS ones positively referred to below.
It is commendable and welcome for publishers to offer an official green
light to go ahead with self-archiving ("authors may self-archive"):
It is less commendable if they object to being taken up on it, when RCUK
proposes to require the research it funds to "go" on green (i.e., "RCUK
fundees must self-archive"), exactly as the AIP liberally agrees they may.
(I also note in passing that spontaneous self-archiving in physics did not wait
for publishers to go green: Physicists went ahead and did the experiment first;
then, to their credit, APS and AIP and IOP -- and eventually also Elsevier and
Springer -- went green.)
> AIP has offered "author Select" OA options in three of its journals this
> year, plans to do so for more in the near future, and will offer fully
> OA journals soon as well. We are not biased one way or the other.
This too (optional "gold" OA publishing) is nothing but commendable,
and an excellent experiment; but what I cannot determine is whether Mark
(and many other publishers) are being deliberately obtuse or (on the
charitable assumption) have simply failed to understand that RCUK is not
proposing to require gold (OA publishing)! It is proposing to require green
(OA self-archiving). Hence the RCUK policy is not an experiment in requiring
an alternative publishing model that has not yet been tested and demonstrated
to work experimentally. (The RCUK policy has nothing to do with gold or
alternative publishing in any respect except that RCUK offers some *optional*
help in paying for the "author Select" option that AIP is offering!)
What the RCUK is proposing to *require* (as opposed to merely offering
to fund as an option) is that its fundees self-archive: i.e. that
they all do it, in order to all enjoy the experimentally tested and
demonstrated benefits of self-archiving, not just those that happen to
do it spontaneously.
> AIP aims to disseminate info about physics to the widest possible
> audiences within the most affordable economic models.
This is all commendable, but not at issue at all, because the RCUK's
application of the experimental findings to date does not require AIP
(or any other publisher) to disseminate their contents any more widely
than they already do; nor to abandon their affordable economic models.
RCUK does not require publishers to do anything at all (how could it?).
RCUK requires its own *fundees* to self-archive (as AIP has so liberally given
them the green light to do), in order to derive the benefits of the
spontaneous self-archiving that have already been experimentally demonstrated.
If there is an element of further experimentation in the RCUK policy,
rather than merely the application of existing experimental results, it is the
following:
(1) The RCUK is testing whether required self-archiving provides the same usage
and impact benefits that spontaneous self-archiving does. (I think it is a very
safe bet that it does, but let us test and see.)
(2) The RCUK is also testing whether the peaceful co-existence between
spontaneous self-archiving and journal subscription revenue that has been
experimentally demonstrated to date (even in fields that reached 100%
spontaneous self-archiving years ago) will continue to hold with required
self-archiving.
The outcome of (2) is not yet known, but let us consider the options:
(a) Peaceful co-existence between self-archiving and subscription revenues
continues after the RCUK policy is adopted, but only because the RCUK
percentage of journal output in every field is too small to make a
significant change in the spontaneous self-archiving effects for any
given journal. (This would be a very positive outcome of the experiment
for UK research, but not a decisive test of the effect of overall 100%
OA self-archiving.)
OR
(b) After a period of time, detectable declines in subscription revenue
occur that can be statistically associated with the RCUK self-archiving
requirement.
Pause for a question about experimental methodology: Is the possibility of
outcome (b) grounds for not performing the RCUK experiment in the first place?
(I think not.) Would outcome (b) be experimental grounds for abandoning the
RCUK policy (I again think not: publishing would have to adapt to the outcome,
rather than expecting research to renounce the benefits.)
What is virtually certain, however, is that the outcome of the RCUK experiment
alone will not be catastrophic decline in subscription revenue, necessitating a
change in publishing cost-recovery model. The UK share of journal content
is almost certainly not big enough to have that effect.
That is the end of the plausible immediate outcomes of the RCUK experiment.
But let us consider the possibilities even further: What if the RCUK policy is
adopted in other countries, because of its manifest benefits to research. The
following outcomes are then possible:
(c) Peaceful co-existence between self-archiving and subscription revenues
continues after the RCUK policy is adopted worldwide, and OA self-archiving
reaches 100%. (This too would be a happy outcome for all concerned.)
OR
(d) After a period of time, as worldwide OA self-archiving approaches 100%,
detectable declines in subscription revenue occur worldwide that can
be statistically associated with the worldwide growth of self-archiving
requirement.
Pause again for another question about experimental methodology: Is the
possibility of outcome (d) grounds for not performing the RCUK experiment
in the first place? (I think not.) Would outcome (d) be experimental
grounds for abandoning the RCUK policy or its worldwide emulation (I
again think not: wordlwide publishing would have to adapt to the outcome,
rather than expecting research to renounce the benefits.)
But now what about:
(e) After a period of time, as worldwide OA self-archiving approaches
100%, catastrophic declines in subscription revenue begin to occur
worldwide, necessitating either a change to the OA publishing model or
an abandonment of the self-archiving requirement.
Questions: Is the possibility of (e) grounds for not performing the
RCUK experiment in the first place? (I think not.) Would outcome (e)
be experimental grounds for abandoning the RCUK policy or its worldwide
emulation (I again think not: worldwide publishing would have to adapt to the
outcome, rather than expecting research to renounce the benefits.)
> If our authors, readers or subscribers indicate by real actions what
> they want, we will try our best to respond appropriately.
Is it clearer now why the above is a non-sequitur? The proposed RCUK
experiment, which its opponents are trying to defer conducting, pending
the outcome of other prior "experiments" (what experiments? experiments
on what?) has nothing whatsoever to do with what authors, readers
or subscribers currently want by way of journal economic models or
OA publishing, because what the RCUK experiment is applying is the
results of existing experiments demonstrating the positive effects of
self-archiving on research impact (i.e., what *researchers* want) and their
absence of any effect on subscription revenue. What RCUK is requiring
is OA self-archiving, not OA publishing.
> I was talking about the thoughtfulness of the various letters referred to.
> One seems to open to options and experiments, the other to a more
> pre-judged one.
Those who are arguing for delaying or deferring the RCUK experiment pending the
outcome of other "options and experiments" have not even specified what "options
and experiments" they have in mind, nor what they would be testing, let alone
specifying why we should not be applying and extending the positive experimental
results we already have, to the benefit of research, researchers, their
institutions, their funders, and the tax-paying public that funds the funders and
is meant to derive the benefits of the experimental findings.
The Open Letter of the Royal Society Fellows is for opening the options and
experiments, and the Royal Society statement (undoubtedly drafted by its
publishing wing) is the one pre-judging the outcomes (and trying to filibuster
the conduct of the experiment, despite the uniformly positive results to date).
Stevan Harnad
> Marc H. Brodsky
> Executive Director and CEO E-mail: brodsky_at_aip.org
> American Institute of Physics Phone: (301) 209-3131
> One Physics Ellipse Fax: (301) 209-3133
> College Park, MD 20740-3843
>
>
> >>> harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk 12/7/2005 6:30:26 PM >>>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Marc Brodsky wrote:
>
> > I would say a careful reading of the two statements show more balance
> > and openness in the RSC statement than in the response letter cited
> > below by Harnad. I would suggest that we explore new venues for
> > dissemination of information before first setting out to undermine
> > successful existing ones. If the new venues work for authors and
> > readers, we will not need government imposed mandates to make them
> > happen.
> >
> > Marc H. Brodsky
> > Executive Director and CEO E-mail: brodsky_at_aip.org
> > American Institute of Physics Phone: (301) 209-3131
> > One Physics Ellipse Fax: (301) 209-3133
> > College Park, MD 20740-3843
>
> Having just returned from the DASER meeting in College Park, MD, where the
> two physics Learned Societies, the American Physical Society (APS) and the
> Institute of Physics, took an incomparably more supportive and
> collaborative position on both open access and self-archiving (and the AIP
> rep just sat in glum silence throughout), I find this regressive statement
> from AIP (the separate publisher affiliate of APS), parroting the familiar
> party line of STM, ALPSP and the first RS statement, especially
> instructive. It speaks volumes about the real underlying conflict of
> interest here, and no doubt within the Royal Society too, where it was
> clearly the publishing tail wagging the royal pooch in formulating,
> without consultation, a statement so dissociated from the best interests
> of the RS's members. The RS's shame will be mitigated, once the head
> reasserts sovereignty over its tail. Fortunately, the tail of the APS is
> not even attached to its body...
>
> DASER 2 IR Meeting and NIH Public Access Policy (Dec 2005)
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/50-guid.html
>
> Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society (Nov 2005)
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4938.html
>
> Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal (Aug 2005)
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4716.html
>
> Open Letter to Research Councils UK: Rebuttal of ALPSP Critique (Aug 2005)
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/18-guid.html
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 08 2005 - 12:55:58 GMT