Re: CERN's historic role in OA

From: Jan Velterop <openaccess_at_BTINTERNET.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:19:02 +0100

Running a business (or a scholarly society) usually entails trying to
anticipate future developments. A 'laissez-faire' attitude is a pretty
sure way to bankruptcy. That's why OA publishing should be embraced by
those who do not wish to risk waiting for the evidence of their demise to
accumulate.

Jan Velterop

Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
      On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:

> I'm afraid Stevan is wrong.
>
> There is evidence (e.g. from Institute of Physics and
      London Mathematical
> Society) that where a journal's content is totally (or
      almost totally)
> present - even in preprint form - in a repository, usage
      tends to migrate
> away from the publisher's site.

      That's online *usage,* not *subscriptions* (and it's an
      extremely good
      thing, for research and researchers). Sally, please do let me
      know if
      and when you ever have any evidence at all that
      self-archiving reduces
      subscriptions (at all -- let alone significantly, or
      catastrophically,
      as heralded in the endless evidence-free doomsday scenarios
      we kept
      hearing by way of opposition to a self-archiving mandate,
      until the
      opposition started dying down a few months ago -- for lack, I
      like to
      think, of any empirical, logical, ethical or practical
      plausibility to
      any but those who were raising alarums...)

> There is also evidence (e.g. from our recent survey of
      librarians) that
> usage is an important factor in cancellation decisions.

      No doubt. But until/unless you have evidence that
      self-archiving causes
      cancellations, this is all just hypothesis. There are *many*
      important
      factors in cancellation decisions. The trick is to show
      whether the
      re-channeled online usage has actually had any weight in
      cancellation
      decisions. Librarians and researchers alike have been saying
      not: Any
      data?

> It does not therefore take a high-energy physicist (or a
      cognitive
> scientist!) to work out that (a) is highly likely to lead
      to (b).

      Nor does it require a high-energy physicist to work out that
      if in high
      energy physics 15 years of self-archiving (which has been at
      or near 100% in
      some HEP subfield fields for years now) has had no detectable
      effect on
      subscriptions, as reported by both APS and IOPP, then "highly
      likely" was
      perhaps an incorrect inference...

> We certainly need more data - though relatively few
      journals yet have a
> sufficient percentage of their content in repositories for
      the data to be
> meaningful (there may be some in medicine, which have
      current content
> replicated in PMC?) - but there is certainly some.

      Even more than we need data on whether or not self-archiving
      will
      ever have any perceptible effect on journal subscriptions, we
      need
      self-archiving, because of its *demonstrated* and
      non-hypothetical effects
      on research access and impact.

      Please do keep seeking data on any putative effect of
      self-archiving
      on subscriptions, but please don't try to use the
      non-existent data and
      hypotheses about "highly likely" effects to try to oppose the
      mandating
      of the self-archiving, today, that has already been
      demonstrated to
      benefit research and researchers substantially.

> We should take note of what has already been observed, and
      be careful - this
> is a one-way experiment. Didn't the man who jumped off the
      skyscraper call
> out as he passed the 9th floor 'no problems so far'?!

      Researchers -- and their institutions and funders -- are not
      jumping off
      a skyscraper when they self-archive and mandate
      self-archiving. They are
      doing what has already been demonstrated best for research,
      researchers,
      their institutions and their funders. There is no evidence so
      far that
      what is undeniably best for research has had any negative
      effect ay all on
      publishers. If/when it ever does, there is an obvious
      solution: switch
      to OA publishing and fund it out of the institutional
      windfall savings
      from the catastrophic institutional cancellations. That's
      virtually
      tautological. But there is zero evidence that it is happening
      now,
      nor that it is likely to happen. But if it ever does, so be
      it. No crash.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

      Stevan Harnad

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stevan Harnad"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:41 PM
> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
>
>
> > There continues to be zero evidence (just a lot repeated
      speculation)
> > that self-archiving harms journals.
> >
> > I agree with Sally, though, that it does not make much
      sense at this
> > point for CERN to be pushing for conversion to OA
      journals. CERN has done
> > admirably well making its own published research output
      OA by mandating
> > self-archiving. If CERN wants other institutions'
      published research
> > output to be OA too, then CERN should be promoting CERN-
      style
> > self-archiving mandates worldwide, not taking on the
      needless role of
> > journal publication-model reformer. As Sally says: if all
      authors
> > self-archived, the way CERN authors (are mandated to) do,
      then we would
> > have 100% OA and there would be no need for research
      institutions to get
> > involved in trying to dictatied what cost- recovery model
      journals should
> > use.
> >
> > Instead, this premature and needless leap to journal
      reform on CERN's
> > part not only leaves the winning CERN model unpropagated
      world-wide, as
> > it ought to be, but it allows Sally to come to the
      conclusion that OA
> > advocates are not satisfied with OA after all: They are
      bent on journal
> > reform. (That too would be alright, if they had first
      done all that
> > needed to be done to ensure 100% OA. But if they bolt to
      journal reform
> > when the OA job's but 15% done, they are just becoming
      part of the
> > problem instead of the solution.)
> >
> > My admiration for what CERN *has* done for OA is
      undiminished, but that
> > does not mitigate the disappointment at what CERN could
      still do for OA,
> > but is not doing, throwing itself instead into pushing
      for publication
> > reforms that are at best highly premature and at worst
      gratuitous
> > distractions at a critical (and greatly overdue) point
      for worldwide OA.
> > If nothing else, CERN should consider its actual and
      potential
> > contribution in a historic light: Why not extend CERN's
      sterling record
> > instead of heading off on an untimely gold rush?
> >
> > Stevan Harnad
> >
> > On 19-Apr-06, at 12:51 PM, Sally Morris (ALPSP) wrote:
> >
> >> I am forwarding the exchange below, though I think Fred
      has missed my
> >> point
> >>
> >> 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: ""FrederickFriend""
> >>
> >> To: "Sally Morris (ALPSP)"
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:32 PM
> >> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>
> >>
> >>> Sally,
> >>>
> >>> I have been waiting to reply to this message expecting
      it to appear on
> >>> the JISC Repositories list. Maybe something went wrong
      in the
> >>> transmission to that list? Here is what I wish to say
      in reply. I can
> >>> forward your message and mine to the list if you wish.
> >>>
> >>> The wish to convert the high energy physics journals to
      OA is coming
> >>> from that academic community and has nothing to do with
      the issue of
> >>> whether self-archiving does or does not harm journals.
      Listening to the
> >>> researchers at CERN I have never heard any discussion
      of a risk to
> >>> journals from repository content. The wish to see the
      physics journals
> >>> move towards OA lies rather in the importance the
      academic community
> >>> attaches to their key journals, concern that the
      subscription model is
> >>> moving those journals out of the reach of some in the
      scientific
> >>> community, and a desire to see the research coming out
      of the new Large
> >>> Hadron Collider published with the added value of open
      access. It is a
> >>> vote of confidence in the key journals together with a
      wish to see them
> >>> adapt to a new environment. So to look at the CERN
      initiative on
> >>> journals from the direction of repository content is to
      look through
> >>> the wrong end of the telescope, if the high energy
      physicists will
> >>> forgive the association with an astronomy pun!
> >>>
> >>> Fred
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sally Morris
      (ALPSP)"
> >>>
> >>> To: "FrederickFriend"
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 12:23 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Let's think this through
> >>>>
> >>>> If (a) self-archiving doesn't harm journals, then why
      do High Energy
> >>>> Physics journals need to go OA? Virtually all the
      content already is
> >>>> OA
> >>>>
> >>>> On the other hand, if (b) - as we are beginning to
      suspect from
> >>>> information (e.g. IOP, LMS) about usage -
      self-archiving does harm
> >>>> journals, then those journals would indeed need to
      move to OA in order
> >>>> to survive
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this mean that Fred agrees self-archiving harms
      journals?
> >>>>
> >>>> 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: "FrederickFriend"
> >>>>
> >>>> To:
> >>>> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:14 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I would like to support CERN's approach on both
      repository deposit
> >>>>> and OA journals for particle physics research. Their
      approach is
> >>>>> absolutely right. On deposit in repositories they
      have good policies
> >>>>> in place, they are flexible in the way in which they
      secure deposits,
> >>>>> they are more successful than most other
      organizations in the level
> >>>>> of repository deposit, and they are already active in
      encouraging
> >>>>> other institutions to follow their example. It is
      difficult to see
> >>>>> what more they could do to promote repository
      deposit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Valuable though the repository content is, the large
      world-wide
> >>>>> particle physics community still feels the need for
      the value added
> >>>>> by high-prestige journals. The best way to maximise
      that added value
> >>>>> is through collaboration with existing high-quality
      journals in a
> >>>>> move from subscription to OA, funded as part of the
      research process.
> >>>>> CERN is leading this work on behalf of the community
      it serves, and
> >>>>> as with repository deposit the approach taken by
      particle physicists
> >>>>> could be followed by other subject communities. Both
      repositories and
> >>>>> OA journals bring benefits to academic research.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fred Friend
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joanne Yeomans"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To:
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:14 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stevan,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If only there were more than 24 hours in the day to
      fit more in!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The missing papers are those that we discover through
      published
> >>>>> journals. Neither the secretary, not the department,
      necessarily
> >>>>> knows
> >>>>> they exist until we find they're published.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you say, it's not important who does the keying in
      but the author
> >>>>> needs to deliver the paper in the first place.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One method to get them is to individually email each
      author and ask -
> >>>>> that is a strategy we're investigating but is
      awaiting some technical
> >>>>> developments. And this of course hinges on the author
      still having a
> >>>>> copy they can send or more importantly, the author
      being bothered to
> >>>>> comply. However, we hope this will be quite
      successful.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Another strategy might be to report back to the
      department and tell
> >>>>> them
> >>>>> what's missing so they can themselves encourage their
      authors. Maybe
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> strongly enforced mandate in this case is enough, but
      it might also
> >>>>> be
> >>>>> backed up with some kind of incentive scheme, for
      instance, a small
> >>>>> bonus (enough to send a student to a conference for
      instance) offered
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> departments who reach full coverage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OA publishing doesn't solve the problem at all - what
      I said was that
> >>>>> the publishing project has generated interest beyond
      what we've
> >>>>> experienced before and so this gives us an ear that
      we can use to
> >>>>> highlight the need to self-archive too. The point is,
      for whatever
> >>>>> reason, the scientists themselves, and the senior
      CERN management,
> >>>>> are
> >>>>> genuinely interested in the idea of OA publishing and
      in discussing
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> they also start to realise the importance of
      self-archiving.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stevan, I know you don't like our 'gold' work, but
      our influence over
> >>>>> other institutions and disciplines is limited by many
      different
> >>>>> factors.
> >>>>> Already we try to do what we can and will continue to
      do so. The
> >>>>> climate
> >>>>> is ready in high energy phyiscs to discuss and try a
      change to OA
> >>>>> publishing, and if we miss the opportunity of the
      start up of the LHC
> >>>>> experiment in 2007 then we will not have another
      chance for perhaps
> >>>>> 20
> >>>>> years. The time is right for us. Whether it will
      succeed is another
> >>>>> question and one we will see in the next few years.
      At least we will
> >>>>> learn some interesting things along the way..and in
      the meantime our
> >>>>> repository development will go on.
> >>>>> Joanne
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ********************
> >>>>> Joanne Yeomans
> >>>>> Office 3/1-012, DSU/SI Service
> >>>>> http://library.cern.ch/
> >>>>> Mail address:
> >>>>> Mailbox C27810
> >>>>> CERN CH 1211 Geneva 23
> >>>>> Switzerland
> >>>>> Tel: 70548 (externally dial +41 22 76 70548)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Repositories discussion list
> >>>>>> [mailto:JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
      Of Stevan Harnad
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:29 PM
> >>>>>> To: JISC-REPOSITORIES_at_JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> >>>>>> Subject: CERN's historic role in OA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> CERN is the biggest of the five institutions that
      have so far
> >>>>>> adopted a mandatory OA self-archiving policy:
> >>>>>> http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Joanne Yeomans [CERN] wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > the vast majority [of papers at CERN] are
      submitted by
> >>>>>> secretaries on
> >>>>>> > behalf of a group or are harvested from arxiv.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's fine! There is nothing sacred about authors
      doing
> >>>>>> their own keystrokes! Secretary mediation is just as
      good, as
> >>>>>> long as the doing of the keystrokes is mandated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > an official CERN report number is
> >>>>>> > very important to many of our authors and they
      will only get
> >>>>>> one of
> >>>>>> > these by submitting it through the official
      internal
> >>>>>> channels and it
> >>>>>> > is through this process that the secretaries
      upload the
> >>>>>> details and
> >>>>>> > text to CDS.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That sounds splendid! The counterpart at an ordinary
> >>>>>> university or research institition would be the
      researcher's
> >>>>>> standardised CV or (in the UK) their RAE submission,
      so as to
> >>>>>> be considered for performance evaluation. Nothing
      wrong with
> >>>>>> secretaries doing the keystrokes, as long as the
      keys get stroked!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > There are a few keen self-archivers but they are
      really a
> >>>>>> minority....
> >>>>>> > [Regarding] arXiv harvesting, this accounts mainly
      for
> >>>>>> theory papers
> >>>>>> > and is usually the individual authors submitting
      their work.
> >>>>>> As the
> >>>>>> > theory department knows that we harvest nightly
      from arxiv
> >>>>>> we have an
> >>>>>> > understanding that it is enough for them to
      continue
> >>>>>> submitting there
> >>>>>> > instead of to the institutional repository.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Translation: The keen self-archivers (the ones who
      do the
> >>>>>> keystrokes for themselves instead of leaving it to
> >>>>>> secretaries) are the long-standing Arxiv preprint
      self-archivers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's fine too. The keystrokes per paper are really
      so few
> >>>>>> that it is not even clear why we are talking about
      who
> >>>>>> actually does them, as long as they get done!
> >>>>>> And the CERN mandate see to it that they must be.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > I do think a mandate has helped in filling the
      repository -
> >>>>>> without it
> >>>>>> > I am guessing it would not have been so easy to
      set up the
> >>>>>> secretarial
> >>>>>> > effort, nor would we have the staff resources to
      put into the
> >>>>>> > harvesting and managing of the repository. So a
      mandate might
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> > change the behaviour of many authors, but it does
      still help
> >>>>>> to get
> >>>>>> > the content in a more indirect way.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Although I keep saying that the only thing standing
      between
> >>>>>> us now (at 15% OA) and 100% OA is a few keystrokes
      per paper,
> >>>>>> it is really a trivial matter who actually does
      those
> >>>>>> keystrokes -- compared to making sure an institution
      mandates
> >>>>>> that they must be done! (As to harvesting back from
      a central
> >>>>>> archive: I think that is a local historic
      aberration,
> >>>>>> peculiar to physics: Those in other fields who are
      "keen" to
> >>>>>> do the keystrokes themselves will far more sensibly
      deposit
> >>>>>> in their own Institutional Repository in the first
      place!)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > We are taken with Minho's idea of offering
      financial
> >>>>>> incentives...we
> >>>>>> > might test the political waters for this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you sure it will cost less to make it worth a
      reseacher's
> >>>>>> while to do the keystrokes than to just pay a
      secretary to do it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> > And as part of our OA
> >>>>>> > publishing project we'll be making new efforts to
      encourage
> >>>>>> individual
> >>>>>> > submission for the missing documents. OA
      publishing has
> >>>>>> grabbed the
> >>>>>> > interest of the HEP community far more than
      talking about
> >>>>>> preprint
> >>>>>> > deposit did so we hope to piggy-back a bit on this
      enthusiasm to
> >>>>>> > improve the repository content too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I couldn't quite follow that: Is it not the HEP
      community
> >>>>>> that is doing its own keystroking already, by
      depositing in
> >>>>>> Arxiv? And are the missing papers not the ones that
      they have
> >>>>>> not keyed in? How is talk about OA publishing
      solving that problem?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (I'm afraid I cannot agree with CERN's strategic
      emphasis on
> >>>>>> OA [gold] publishing at this time (15% OA), as I
      have said
> >>>>>> before. I think CERN could do far, far, far more for
> >>>>>> worldwide OA today if it focussed on spreading its
      own
> >>>>>> historic OA [green] self-archiving policy and
      practice to
> >>>>>> other institutions worldwide and across disciplines.
      OA gold
> >>>>>> can come after we reach 100% OA green. By focussing
      instead
> >>>>>> on OA gold at this early and incomplete stage of OA
      itself,
> >>>>>> CERN is missing its full potential historic role.
      CERN's role
> >>>>>> and contribution to OA will nevertheless have been
      immense -- just
> >>>>>> far short of what it might have been, because of
      this
> >>>>>> premature changing of local gears toward gold when
      the green
> >>>>>> task worldwide is so far from done.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Stevan Harnad
> >>>>>> AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
> >>>>>> A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing
      discussion of
> >>>>>> providing open access to the peer-reviewed research
> >>>>>> literature online (1998-2005) is available at:
> >>>>>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
> >>>>>> To join or leave the Forum or change your
> >>>>>> subscription address:
> >>>>>>
      http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-
> >>>>>> Access-Forum.html
> >>>>>> Post discussion to:
> >>>>>> american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org

      === message truncated ===
Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 17:29:11 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:18 GMT