Re: Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandate

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 23:19:39 +0100

On 29 Jun 2006 Bill Cohen wrote on SERIALST:

> Mr. Anderson has provided a referenced, cogent and logical
> interpretation of open access that should be remembered and cited
> in future discourse and research articles.
>
> Bill Cohen, Publisher
> The Haworth Press, Inc.

Dixit. Read on:

On 29 Jun 2006 Rick Anderson wrote on SERIALST:

> In case anyone cares, Stevan and I had a private exchange that clarified
> this. In that communication, I asked Stevan whether it was fair to say
> that he thinks "that when a publisher offers Open Choice, that's okay --
> but when a group of publishers, acting as a lobby, promotes Open Choice
> as a formal alternative to self-archiving mandates, then that's a
> problem." He said yes. I maintain that that's different from what he's
> been saying in the public forum, but whatever. (He did invite me to
> share the clarification on-list.)

And now I will share the actual exchange that we had with Rick. But first,
the pertinent passage from what I actually said in my SERIALST posting:
"Open Choice is a Trojan Horse for Open Access Mandate":

>> "From publishers who do not oppose the self-archiving mandates, Open
>> Choice is fine: it is an indication of good faith, and willingness
>> to test the waters of Open Access Publishing. But from publishers
>> lobbying against the adoption of self-archiving mandates, and touting
>> Open Choice as an alternative -- or, worse, pressing for the mandating
>> of paid-OA rather than self-archiving -- it is a clever, but somewhat
>> cynical way of delaying still longer the immediate mandating of OA,
>> as now proposed all over the world."

Now the off-line exchange with Rick Anderson:

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Rick Anderson wrote:

RA:
Help me understand. You seem to be taking simultaneously opposite
positions on the Open Choice issue. The other day, on SERIALST, you
called author-pay Open Choice a dangerous "Trojan horse":

> SH:
> "This is a note of caution about the spate of publishers currently
> announcing that they are offering Open Choice -- i.e., the option
> for authors to buy OA, at various asking prices, for their individual
> article... [snip] I think Open Choice is a Trojan Horse, and that we
> should be very careful about our reaction to it, as it risks eliciting
> years more of delay for OA (under the guise of "preparing the way")."
>
> RA:
> But today, in your exchange with Bill, you say this:
>
> SH:
> "Bill, please don't misunderstand me: All I said was that offering
> paid OA as hybrid Open Choice option was a risk-free, positive and
> welcome strategy."

[Comment: That quote referred, not to my posting, but to the email
exchange with Bill Cohen, of Haworth Press, who was asking me for advice
and information on providing Open Choice, which I was recommending --
as I always do. Bill asked me to keep our exchange off-list, but if
further misleading allusions to it are made like this, I shall post it
in its entirety.]

> RA:
> So which of these statements represents your actual position?
>
> SH:
> Open Choice is a risk-free, positive and welcome strategy from publishers
> as a *supplement* to self-archiving mandates. But if it is proposed
> instead by the publishing lobby that opposes self-archiving mandates,
> as either a *substitute* for mandating self-archiving at all, or as an
> alternative candidate to mandate instead of self-archiving, then Open
> Choice is a Trojan Horse.
>
> RA:
> So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that when a publisher
> offers Open Choice, that's okay -- but when a group of publishers,
> acting as a lobby, promotes Open Choice as a formal alternative to
> self-archiving mandates, then that's a problem. Is that correct?
>
> SH:
> Yes.
>
> RA:
> If so, then this is quite different from what you actually said in your
> SERIALST posting, which is what started this exchange. On SERIALST, you
> warned that we shouldn't be encouraged by the "the spate of publishers
> currently announcing that they are offering Open Choice."
>
> I think this is the same as what I said on SERIALST (and it's certainly
> what I meant). If you think it is unclear, why don't you post this
> (and my prior off-list reply) to SERIALST, to clarify matters.

At best, Rick and Bill have not been reading very carefully. At worst,
they are making mischief. I suggest they both take a little time to read
and reflect.

My next posting will be a reply to the second part of Rick's posting,
which is on the definition (misdefinition) of OA.

Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Jun 30 2006 - 00:16:01 BST