Re: Stevan Harnad's misconception 5

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:46:12 +0000

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Velterop, Jan, Springer UK wrote:

> Misconception: Expecting non-OA journals to suffer from self-archiving
> mandates is hypothetical, but expecting subscriptions to continue to be
> paid for by institutions when the content is openly and freely available
> is evidence-based.
>
> In fact, both are hypotheses, the former just more logical than the
> latter.
>
> The 'evidence' that subscriptions will continue is based on the
> situation with physics journals subscriptions, co-existing with Arxiv.
> As evidence goes, it doesn't deserve that moniker. It's the equivalent
> of saying that driving under the influence is safe, just because you've
> done it for years without having an accident. Or giving a number of
> toddlers a packet of matches and when none of their houses have burned
> down by the end of the week, infer that matches are safe in the hands of
> toddlers.
>
> The hypothesis that subscriptions will suffer is based on the mainstream
> economic observation that if goods or services are available for free
> elsewhere, it will be very difficult to sell them.

Fact (not Hypothesis): Research today is losing access, usage and impact daily,
weekly, monthly, because not all researchers can afford access to all the research
they can use.

Fact (not Hypothesis): Journals today are not losing subscription revenue
because of OA self-archiving, not even in the fields where OA has been
at or near 100% for years.

Jan keeps talking about publishers' hypothetical future revenue loses. OA is about
researchers' actual current impact losses.

Is Jan for putting an end to research's actual current impact losses,
or is he against putting an end to researchers' actual current impact
(through OA self-archiving mandates) in order to protect journals from
any risk of hypothetical future revenue losses?

Stevan Harnad

> Jan Velterop
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: SPARC Open Access Forum [mailto:SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org]
> > On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> > Sent: 28 February 2007 04:09
> > To: SPARC Open Access Forum
> > Subject: [SOAF] Reply to Jan Velterop, and a Challenge to
> > "OA" Publishers Who Oppose Mandating OA via Self-Archiving
> >
> > ** Cross-Posted **
> >
> [cut]
> >
> > But this is all hypothetical: We are not there now. Right
> > now, the cost of publication is being amply paid by
> > subscriptions. Publishers are hypothesizing that OA
> > self-archiving mandates will make that revenue source
> > unsustainable -- but no actual evidence at all is being
> > provided to show either that the hypothesis is true, or when
> > and how quickly subscriptions will become unsustainable, if
> > the hypothesis is true. Most important, publishers are giving
> > no indications whatsoever as to why the transition scenario
> > described above will not be the (equally hypothetical, but
> > quite natural) sequel to unsustainable subscriptions.
> >
> > Instead, the only thing publishers are offering is
> > hypothetical doomsday
> > scenarios: the destruction of peer review, of journals, and
> > of a viable industry. Then, on the pretext of the need to
> > protect their current revenue streams and their current ways
> > of doing business from this hypothetical doomsday scenario,
> > publishers try to block OA self-archiving mandates, despite
> > OA's substantial demonstrated benefits to all the other
> > parties involved, viz, researchers, research institutions and
> > funders, R&D industries, and the tax-paying public that funds
> > the research.
> >
> > This is indeed a conflict of interest, although the future
> > revenue losses to the publishing industry are completely
> > hypothetical, whereas the current access/impact losses to
> > research are real and already demonstrated (to the
> > satisfaction of all except the publishing industry).
> >
> [cut]
>
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 19:58:41 GMT