I have been away and am therefore slow in replying.
I am happy with this transparency, Stefan, but I cannot help
noticing the difference between the words "very likely" i.e
succesful populating of institutional repositories will make the
subscription model untenable and the words "might or might not"
provided subsequently. OK - there is no proof but it is very
likely. We seem to agree on this. I find it difficult to see how
there could be a proof.
The aim of the so-called Green approach is to achieve Open Access
by stealth - is it not?
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stevan Harnad" <amsciforum_at_gmail.com>
To: <liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 12:51 AM
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Anthony Watkinson
> <anthony.watkinson_at_btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I am puzzled by this statement in Professor Harnad's reply
>> below. I quote:
>>
>> SH: "It is very likely that if and when universal Green Open
>> Access (as a result of universal mandates to self-archive the
>> author's final refereed drafts of all peer-reviewed journal
>> articles immediately upon acceptance for publication) causes
>> subscriptions to become unsustainable..."
>>
>> Yet this is the same Professor Harnad who suggests that
>> institutional repositories are intended to make available
>> refereed content for those who cannot afford access and not to
>> damage journals.
>
> Yes, one and the same: And your point is...?
>
> One statement is about what universally mandated Green OA will
> definitely do (make refereed research accessible to all users,
> not just those whose institutions can afford subscription
> access), and that is the one and only thing OA is intended to do.
>
> The second statement is about what universally mandated Green
> OA might or might not eventually do (make subscriptions
> unsustainable, thereby inducing universal downsizing by
> journals to peer review alone, and conversion to Gold OA). No
> one knows whether or not that will be the eventual aftereffect
> of universal Green OA (so, unlike universal access to all
> users, it can hardly be the intention of the OA movement).
>
> That said, there are certainly plenty of people in the OA
> movement who have Gold Fever, and who would hence applaud that
> outcome. But most of them haven't the patience to wait and see;
> they are pushing for pre-emptive Gold right now, without even
> waiting or working for universal Green OA mandates. (I would
> say these advocates are not so much interested in research
> access as in publishing reform. I am not one of them.)
>
>> There are also others and maybe among his disciples who claim
>> that there is no evidence that self-archiving will harm
>> journal subscriptions because there is no evidence that this
>> has happened.
>
> This claim is perfectly correct. It is not a claim that it
> never can or never will happen; just that it has not happened,
> even in fields where Green OA has long reached 100%, and may
> never happen, or not for a long time.
>
> (I say: who cares? OA is about access, not economics.)
>
>> There are also those who suggest to university authorities
>> that mandates are mainly to project the profile of the
>> university concerned.
>
> Yes, that is one of OA's many benefits for universities.
>
>> What is the real aim of some parts of the IR movement? What is
>> Professor Harnad's main aim? Is it not to impose a universal
>> Open Access regime by stealth?
>
> I can hardly be called stealthy! I am for imposing universal
> Open Access by universal Green OA mandates from institutions
> and funders. (If that is still a secret to anyone then I have
> been singularly unsuccessful in making my aim known despite
> endless skywriting...)
>
>> I think most publishers know what it is but does the academy?
>> Perhaps they should be told. Or am I guilty of what former
>> Professor Suber would call a misunderstanding my suggesting
>> more transparency here?
>
> But Anthony, how much more transparent can one be?
>
> Stevan
Received on Fri Jul 17 2009 - 00:19:20 BST