On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, [identity deleted] wrote:
> > SH:
> > For articles in journals that endorse immediate author self-archiving
> > of the postprint (62%) there is no need for the JISC/SURF license. It
> > is always welcome, but not necessary for open access.
>
> Yes of course. There is always the possibility, though perhaps small in
> practice, that the publisher may subsequently change their policy, as they
> have the right to do as copyright holder. The licence to publish seems
> like a welcome addition that would make our lives easier as repository
> managers, where used, and does not seem to detract from our efforts in
> any obvious way as far as I see.
Recommending a license certainly does not detract from efforts,
but requiring it as a precondition for self-archiving certainly
does, and particularly if it entails having to allow an opt-out from
self-archiving mandates, as the recent, important Harvard mandate
allows:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/368-guid.html
(And we must always keep in mind that the purpose of OA, OA mandates and
IRs is not to make repository managers' lives easier, but to fill the
IRs and thereby provide OA for researchers, as soon as possible...)
To predicate a university IR policy on the assumption that publishers might
change their policies seems to me particularly wrong-headed, and out
of touch with the real needs and prerogatives of research and researchers:
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
The problem is not publishers withdrawing their Green Lights to
self-archive, but researchers' failing to Go on Green, in their own
interests, the interests of their institutions, the interests of the
R&D industries, the interests of the tax-paying public that funds their
research, and the interests of research progress and impact itself!
That is why self-archiving mandates by researchers' institutions and
funders are needed. When surveyed by Alma Swan, 95% of researchers stated
they would comply, 14% of them reluctantly, 81% of them willingly.
Arthur Sale's studies confirmed that the compliance rate does indeed
approach 100% within 2 years of the adoption of the mandate:
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/
http://fcms.its.utas.edu.au/scieng/comp/project.asp?lProjectId=1830
> Purely anecdotally, one or two academics
> have reported to me that publishers who have ostensibly strict published
> guidelines stating that papers will not be accepted unless copyright is
> transferred have been prepared to completely withdraw that requirement
> when challenged on it by individual authors. In effect, they insisted
> on their own personal licences to publish instead of copyright transfer.
To put your anecdotal data on 1-2 academics who (spontaneously,
unmandated) have made the effort to negotiate licenses with their
publishers into context, please compare (1) the percentage of your
academics who have (spontaneously, unmandated) made the effort
to self-archive their articles at all with (2) the 62% all of
journal articles that already have their publishers' Green Light to
self-archive. (*That* is why a no-opt-out deposit mandate is needed.)
> Do you have any statistics for what proportion of that 62% is
> represented by large aggregated publishers like Elsevier, Springer,
> Wiley and so on? (perhaps a slightly subjective distinction in a some
> cases?) A change of heart could be more worrying in their case than in
> others, if it ever happened.
Elsevier and Springer, both post-print-Green publishers, with about 2000
and 500 journals respectively, represent about 25% of the Romeo total
sample of about 10,000 journals. (Wiley another 500 (5%) is not part of
the 62% post-print-Green but part of the 91% that includes the preprint
pale-Green journals.)
http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers.html
To repeat: Stop worrying about the publishers changing their minds about
endorsing author OA self-archiving: Worry about the authors not making up
their mind to *deposit* (irrespective of whether their journals are
Green).
And note that 100% deposit mandates, with no opt-out from the deposit
requirement -- plus a license-negotiation requirement, allowing opt-out
-- are infinitely preferable to just license-negotiation mandates
allowing opt-out. (And continuing to wait for spontaneous, unmandated OA
to reach 100% may well mean waiting till the heat-death of the universe...)
Stevan Harnad
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.h
tml
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
If you have adopted or plan to adopt a policy of providing Open Access
to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal if/when
a suitable one exists.
http://www.doaj.org/
AND
in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
in your own institutional repository.
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
http://archives.eprints.org/
http://openaccess.eprints.org/
Received on Wed Mar 05 2008 - 13:35:50 GMT