Re: Royal Society Offers Open Choice

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 04:35:53 +0100

Shorter Reply:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006, Velterop, Jan Springer UK wrote:

> Stevan Harnad on Saturday 6/24/2006 on the AMSCI Forum list:
>
>> "... if mandated SA does generate substantial institutional subscription
>> cancellations, then those very same substantial institutional
>> subscriptions cancellations will generate the institutional windfall
>> savings out of which PA costs (again determined by the market and not
>> by a-priori fiat) could be paid without taking any money away from
>> research funding."
>
> I'm afraid Stevan fails to appreciate three things here:
>
> 1. Access to scientific literature and the formal publishing of
> articles are not optional, but essential parts of doing research, so the
> cost of access and publishing is an essential cost of doing research, and
> in that regard entirely comparable with the cost of laboratory equipment,
> reagents, et cetera;

I agree completely. I am advocating immediate OA, through immediate
self-archiving mandates. What is your point?

> 2. If the cost of essentials is seen as 'taking money away from
> research funding, then money is already being 'taken away' from research
> funding because subscriptions are largely paid out of the overhead that
> institutions take out of research grants (often more than 50%);

I agree completely. I am advocating immediate OA, through immediate
self-archiving mandates. What is your point?

> 3. Shifting payment patterns from subscriptions to open access
> via institutional self-archiving mandates (the 'windfall' argument)
> is unnecessarily disruptive and as such only delays open access as
> it inevitably causes entirely predicatable and understandable doubt
> as to the real intentions and ulterior motives of the OA 'movement'
> (which often seems more about money than about access), and consequent
> defensive attitudes amongst publishers and scholarly societies, and even
> amongst researchers themselves.

Advocating immediate OA, through immediate self-archiving mandates is
unnecessarily disruptive and only delays open access?

And whose real intention and ulterior motive is money rather than
access? Those who support or those who oppose immediate OA, through
immediate self-archiving mandates?

> Advocating open access should not be conflated with advocating
> cost-evasion (the ultimate free-ridership). Access and costs are two
> independent variables. Lower costs do not necessarily bring open access;
> and open access does not necessarily bring lower costs. But we would
> be able to make a great deal more progress on an equal-revenue basis,
> were that advocated more widely. The amount of money now being spent,
> Academia-wide, on subscriptions, could, almost by definition for the
> vast majority of journals, also fund full open access. That's what we
> should be focussing on.

Isn't that precisely what I said in your opening quotation from me, with
which you were disagreeing? viz:

>> "... if mandated SA does generate substantial institutional
>> subscription cancellations, then those very same substantial
>> institutional subscriptions cancellations will generate the
>> institutional windfall savings out of which PA costs (again
>> determined by the market and not by a-priori fiat) could be paid
>> without taking any money away from research funding."

I keep focussing on immediate OA, through immediate self-archiving
mandates, and you keep fousssing on money.

Can we agree to focus on money only if and when there is objective
evidence that immediate OA, through immediate self-archiving mandates,
is actually starting to make someone lose money? Until then, it would
seem, focussing on money instead of access is unnecessarily disruptive
and only delays open access.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Sun Jun 25 2006 - 11:59:30 BST