On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Donald Waters wrote:
> Friends,
>
> The "possibility of redeploying some of the funds available for
> 'indirect costs' from library subscriptions and site licenses to
> supporting open access initiatives" is frequently mentioned on
> this list. It seems to me to be a very glib assertion that
> ignores the complexity of university organization and budgeting,
> a point that Jim O'Donnell and others have made in a previous
> postings to this list. The assertion nevertheless keeps arising
> and it may be time to test the likelihood of the "possibility."
>
> I would be very interested in learning of research universities
> whose presidents or provosts in conjunction with their library
> and faculty, are conducting or would be willing to conduct
> (possibly with foundation support), a serious and intensive study
> of the feasibility and desirability of a massive reallocation of
> institutional funds to support open access. Would members of
> this list identify such institutions and an individual whom I
> could contact for more information either by a posting to this
> list or by replying directly to me?
(1) Green OA *is* full OA, and it does not require a penny of further
funding.
(2) If/when subscriptions are ever canceled unsustainably, the savings
can pay for a conversion to Gold (sic, Gold, not "full": Gold) OA. Then,
not now.
(3) Till then, please let's try to stay focused on reaching full Green OA,
which is fully within reach and only a few more mandates (and keystrokes)
away, rather than lapsing yet again into fantasizing happily about the
possibility or impossibillity of hypothetical payments and hypothetical
redirection of hypothetical funds.
(4) What is needed, now, is OA: full, actual OA. Not another orgy of
counterfactual fantasizing. Nor hypothetical payment, for anything.
The Mellon Foundation can do a great deal for OA if it (a) mandates OA for
its own fundees and (b) uses whatever funds it has available for promoting
OA to fund the promotion of the adoption of Green OA mandates by other
foundations and, even more important, by universities worldwide. More
money spent on funding Gold OA -- or on studying the funding of Gold
OA -- at this time is not money well spent. The time for funding Gold
OA publishing will come, but only after Green OA's time has come, and
the subscription cancellations themselves will be the source of that
funding. Today, it is just spinning wheels, needlessly.
Stevan Harnad
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Don Waters
> Program Officer, Scholarly Communications
> The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
> djw_at_mellon.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:58 PM
> To: liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu
> Subject: NIH Public Access Policy: is the funding for full OA already
> there?
>
> The funding for full open access publishing to NIH-funded
> research may already be there, within existing NIH grant
> provisions.
>
> NIH is already spending $30 million per year in publication
> expenses, such as page charges, and allows for "indirect costs"
> which can be used for such items as library subscriptions and
> site licenses.
>
> Let's look at what can be done just with the $30 million per year
> already spent on publication charges. About 60-65,000 articles
> were published based on NIH research in 2003. If all of these
> were published as open access, less than half would incur article
> processing fees (as indicated by an ALPSP study). If the $30
> million per year were used to fund article processing fees for
> half of NIH- related articles, 32,500, the average available per
> article would be $923. That is less than what is charged by some
> open access publishers, it is true; but it is also more than what
> is charged by others.
>
> This does not account for the possibility of redeploying some of
> the funds available for "indirect costs" from library
> subscriptions and site licenses, to supporting open access
> initiatives. In addition to enhancing dissemination - and hence
> advances of research - there are economic benefits, too. An
> NIH-funded article that is openly accessible avoids costs for
> future NIH researchers building on what has already been learned,
> for example.
>
> Librarians are ideally situated to lead in this transition.
>
> For more analysis and links, please see by blogpost, NIH Public
> Access Policy: is the funding for full OA already there?
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/08/nih-public-access-policy-
> is-funding-for.html
>
> Thanks to William Walsh on Liblicense for pointing to the
> relevant section of the NIH policy:
> http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0708/msg00021.html
>
> Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone,
> and does not reflect the opinion or policy of BC Electronic
> Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library.
>
> Heather Morrison, MLIS
> The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Received on Fri Aug 17 2007 - 22:37:59 BST